![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article is little more than spam I think it should deleted altogether or merged to the main William Hill article. Take a look at http://www.williamhillmedia.com/index.asp - it's clear that this 'prize' is just another marketing angle, a way to drive traffic from punters to their site where they are met by numerous free bet banners. And their PR staff have drummed up the amusing claim of being "the world's richest sports book prize" (it's probably the only sports book prize!). Does anyone else have an opinion? Hazir ( talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The table has had a blue header for years and is stylistically in line with the colors of the Award (see logo). There is nothing in WP:ACCESS that says we can't use colors in table captions. See Wikipedia:ACCESS#Color and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Images_and_color. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 21:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
No, you said you were the local expert and the one who had the most edits in these articles, like it was a badge of honour, I didn't mention anything of the sort beside having some featured material in this field. Second, yes, you launched a dispute resolution on the colour of the heading (that seems so funny when I read it back), so we'll see how that goes. Finally, there'll be no problem with FL, thanks for your advice though!! The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: this as a source for Donald McRae. The problem with this source is it's not intellectually independent. The publisher of the book that won the award is reporting that the author won an award. According to WP:RS Context matters: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I don't believe this is a reliable source for this fact. A publisher can have vested interests in reporting awards it's authors may or may not have won. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW if your intention is to make this a Featured List there will be trouble. This is not a "List of.." article, it is a full article about the award that happens to contain a sub-section with a list. If you want the list itself to be featured you would probably need to split the list off to a new article. See the Women's Prize for Fiction and List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners (FL), for example. This award is notable enough to have its own standalone normal article, with or without a list of winners. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to merge William Hill Irish Sports Book of the Year into this article. Both awards are given by the same company, William Hill Media, and both are for sports books. They are almost exactly the same, other than one for "Irish" and the other for International. It would make more sense to combine these into a single article, with one section for each award, as they are otherwise so closely related. In fact that is how it was originally but one user, The Rambling Man, unilaterally split them without discussion or consensus. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 04:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Re:
This requires reliable secondary sources (plural given the superlative nature of it). Just framing it around a primary source doesn't make it appropriate as an off-handed way to include that claim in an article and bypass the rules of WP:RS. If this sentence is saying William Hill has made a claim, a secondary source should be provided to show that William Hill has in fact made a claim. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 16:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Having seen this mentioned on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, I thought I'd see what all the fuss is about. I have to say that the behaviour (and attitude) of Green Cardamom ( talk · contribs) is, frankly, shocking. There seem to be serious issues with WP:OWN and WP:POINT. I suggest you start to address these before you continue editing the article, as you do not seem to be be able to work productively on it. Number 5 7 22:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You proclaimed you'd created this article. You proclaimed to be the expert on literary award articles. You have a public list of literary lists on your page, most of which exhibit common problems which I assume you introduced yourself. I decided to start there to try to fix some of them. I suggest you do the same, get on with fixing the many, many problems that exist with all these extraordinarily weak literary prize lists. And once again, what that has to do with article, I know not. Could you clarify? The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Hill Sports Book of the Year. 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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article is little more than spam I think it should deleted altogether or merged to the main William Hill article. Take a look at http://www.williamhillmedia.com/index.asp - it's clear that this 'prize' is just another marketing angle, a way to drive traffic from punters to their site where they are met by numerous free bet banners. And their PR staff have drummed up the amusing claim of being "the world's richest sports book prize" (it's probably the only sports book prize!). Does anyone else have an opinion? Hazir ( talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The table has had a blue header for years and is stylistically in line with the colors of the Award (see logo). There is nothing in WP:ACCESS that says we can't use colors in table captions. See Wikipedia:ACCESS#Color and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Images_and_color. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 21:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
No, you said you were the local expert and the one who had the most edits in these articles, like it was a badge of honour, I didn't mention anything of the sort beside having some featured material in this field. Second, yes, you launched a dispute resolution on the colour of the heading (that seems so funny when I read it back), so we'll see how that goes. Finally, there'll be no problem with FL, thanks for your advice though!! The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: this as a source for Donald McRae. The problem with this source is it's not intellectually independent. The publisher of the book that won the award is reporting that the author won an award. According to WP:RS Context matters: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I don't believe this is a reliable source for this fact. A publisher can have vested interests in reporting awards it's authors may or may not have won. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW if your intention is to make this a Featured List there will be trouble. This is not a "List of.." article, it is a full article about the award that happens to contain a sub-section with a list. If you want the list itself to be featured you would probably need to split the list off to a new article. See the Women's Prize for Fiction and List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners (FL), for example. This award is notable enough to have its own standalone normal article, with or without a list of winners. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to merge William Hill Irish Sports Book of the Year into this article. Both awards are given by the same company, William Hill Media, and both are for sports books. They are almost exactly the same, other than one for "Irish" and the other for International. It would make more sense to combine these into a single article, with one section for each award, as they are otherwise so closely related. In fact that is how it was originally but one user, The Rambling Man, unilaterally split them without discussion or consensus. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 04:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Re:
This requires reliable secondary sources (plural given the superlative nature of it). Just framing it around a primary source doesn't make it appropriate as an off-handed way to include that claim in an article and bypass the rules of WP:RS. If this sentence is saying William Hill has made a claim, a secondary source should be provided to show that William Hill has in fact made a claim. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 16:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Having seen this mentioned on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, I thought I'd see what all the fuss is about. I have to say that the behaviour (and attitude) of Green Cardamom ( talk · contribs) is, frankly, shocking. There seem to be serious issues with WP:OWN and WP:POINT. I suggest you start to address these before you continue editing the article, as you do not seem to be be able to work productively on it. Number 5 7 22:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You proclaimed you'd created this article. You proclaimed to be the expert on literary award articles. You have a public list of literary lists on your page, most of which exhibit common problems which I assume you introduced yourself. I decided to start there to try to fix some of them. I suggest you do the same, get on with fixing the many, many problems that exist with all these extraordinarily weak literary prize lists. And once again, what that has to do with article, I know not. Could you clarify? The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Hill Sports Book of the Year. 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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)