Talk:Sport in New South Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Scope of article

The article has been made an article about sport in New South Wales, not simply in Sydney, becasue a similar decision was made when taking extra tables out of the Melbourne article - see Sport in Victoria. I believe that "Sport in New South Wales" could grow to become quite a good article, describing sport through NSW with an obvious emphasis on Sydney. There is no point having separate articles for the state and the city in this case. This article in its original form at Sport in Sydney was nothing more than material copied from other articles - either it shoudl be deleted altogether, or made into something worthwhile at this location. JPD (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions of Sydney

While I appreciate Merbabu's intent in removing several mentions of teams based in Sydney from the Major teams section, I prefer the previous version. While it is right for the article to be about NSW as a whole, it is informative to explain where different teams are based. I think it is misleading to not give some idea of the concentration of professional teams in Sydney, as oppsed to the rest of the state. JPD (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine. my edits were merely trying to shift the emphasis of the article from promoting sydney as a centre of sports. The article is about what teams are located in NSW, but of course, most of these are in Sydney. Your new edit is good. --Merbabu 14:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Mariners

Just a suggestion that you might find another photo for it? It's a league game being played there. I'm sure there are many photos of soccer games there.

A little Edit war over some unsourced content in the Aussie Rules section

For a long time there has been some unsourced content in the Australian Rules section saying "Attendance for Swans matches has slowly risen since their relocation, and AFL telecasts in Sydney have risen 37 per cent in since the Swans premiership in 2005."

Several IP editors and User:Falcadore have, in the past few days, fairly aggressively insisted that the content doesn't belong and have tried to replace it with more unsourced content saying the opposite thing. That's just stupid. I tried to add a citation needed tag to at least initiate action to get the content sourced, but it was removed with an Edit summary saying "Statement is blatant fallacy and therefore age of contribution is irrelevant. Common knowledge that ratings have declined, therefore source not provided" and the negative claim re-added.

Obviously we cannot depend on "common knowledge". Maybe the whole sentence should be removed, but I would like to see better behaviour from those who want to add the unsourced negative comments.

I do wish that obsessed sports fans could behave more rationally. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot provide a source, which you have been requested to do so many times for a very specific statement, then perhaps that statement should be deleted.

Your extreme AFL bias and inappropriate constant POV pushing is getting a little tiresome and I would implore more senior editors to take action. Afgtnk (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest "...perhaps that statement should be deleted". Thank you for agreeing with my previous post where I said "Maybe the whole sentence should be removed". (Not bad for someone with an "extreme AFL bias", eh?) We appear to be in serious agreement here. However, since the content has been there for a long time, I thought it fair to give whoever might have put it there a chance to justify its existence by adding a "citation needed" tag. It's one of our major tools in situations like this. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is referencing 101. A statement is being challenged, so it needs a reference. Hack (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. That's why I added a "citation needed" tag. AnomieBOT has now kindly dated it, so we can look back in a few weeks and see if a source has been provided. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the sentence was my original intent. Obviously I've stuffed up the edit. Agree completely with Hack. And as HiLo you've reverted the statement four times in a day, you're in breech of Edit-war regs. An admin would be perfectly correct in slapping a block on you, I'm forced to think that Afgtnk has a point. That the sentence has been in the article for a long time is irrelevant, that simply means it's escaped scruitiny for a long time. I'd suggest HiLo you need to rethink your actions here. --Falcadore (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One is free to revert vandalism as frequently as it occurs. Editors who refuse to even respond to a thread I created to sort this out on the Talk page and who write abusive Edit summaries are vandals. HiLo48 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm, no. Clearly a content dispute rather than vandalism. You can cling to that if you wish, but it won't be accepted as any form of defence. And it brushes against AGF at the same time.
But you don't have to take my word for it, Wikipedia has already defined for you what vandalism is, so you don't have to make up your own definitions. If you read the page, you will see that Edit warring over content is not vandalism. --Falcadore (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am the only person in this discussion who has remained polite and edited objectively throughout. I proposed the middle road by adding the "citation needed" tag, accepting the fact that a source WAS obviously needed. I have not written abusive Edit summaries. I have not tried to replace one piece of unsourced content with another, and I have not refused to join a Talk page discussion. In fact, I created it! And it was then ignored, despite my suggestion to take the Edit dispute there. I don't think there's a problem with my editing here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you don't believe it, however you are still in breech of the regs whether you chose to believe it or not.
No basis for statement, source required. Ratings for Swans have infact declined
risen 37% isn't cited either - delete
Statement is blatant fallacy and therefore age of contribution is irrelevant. Common knowledge that ratings have declined, therefore source not provided.
There is nothing abusive in any of those statements. I do realise it is occsionally difficult to admit it when you're wrong. It has a tendency to stick in my craw too, however the guidelines here are clear. I'm not asking you to apologise, or even get you to admit you are wrong, I'm justing pointing out that it is in fact very cut and dried on which side of the regulations you have fallen.
I would however recomment, since many editors might only look over their lists once a day, or even once a week, that you wait more than a small handful of hours before claiming you've been ignored. I would additionally suggest that claiming that obsessed sports fans could behave more rationally is quite some way from being polite.
Regardless of anything else, the statement needs a reference. If challenged and no statement can be found, it must be removed. --Falcadore (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry HiLo, but your holier than thou approach is not going to work - you have been guilty of reverting back to the uncited statement many times after it has been challenged. No one has been abusive towards you, and nobody is vandalising any articles. Now despite the fact that you nor anybody else is actually going to be able to prove this statement because the Television ratings for the Swans have actually declined since 2005 (and quite dramatically at that), I'd suggest that the statement be removed it its entirety; as I said, something that was already done until your intervention. Afgtnk (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 09:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 02:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sport in New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sport in New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sport_in_New_South_Wales&oldid=1205401253"