Talk:Australian cricketers Steve Smith, David Warner banned from 2018 Indian Premier League after ball tampering incident

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 6 years ago by in topic New title
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@Abishe: thank you for writing the story; I was going to write about it, but you got it first. But, I should tell you; the current headline is not so informative. Anyone who does not know about those two players has no idea who they are, which country they play for or which sport is being discussed (or even if it is a sport) I believe Cricket Australia bans Steve Smith, David Warner for a year after ball tampering incident should be fine. (I would like to know what someone who does not watch cricket feels about that headline, so @Pi zero: — pizero I am making an assumption which I should not; but this is what I was going to write and I would have asked you anyway)
•–• 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

My only though on the proposed headline, off hand, is, I'd say "one year" rather than "a year", as headlinese generally avoids "a" and "the". --Pi zero (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
A few quick thoughts on the current text:
  • The lede doesn't contain a "day" word. The lede should succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about the focal event of the article, and in answering those should make clear why the focal event is newsworthy; and part of newsworthiness is freshness — so if the lede doesn't name a very recent day, it probably hasn't answered basic question "when" and also hasn't established freshness.
  • Avoid subjective remarks like "brought shame and disgrace to...". If someone who's part of the story says something like that, we can report that they said it, but news neutrality requires us to avoid saying it in Wikinews's own voice.
  • Generally, spell out integers less than twenty; for example, "nine months" rather than "9 months".
  • Use relative dates: the day we report the news is "today", the day before is "yesterday", and the five days preceding that are identified by naming the day of the week. For a date at least seven days ago, say month day (such as "March 21"); generally, don't name the year if the date is much less than a year ago.
  • In the Sources section, list sources from most recently published to least recently published.
--Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Abishe: the article needs to be modified; and you haven't edited for hours -- so I am taking over, and would submit it for review.
•–• 17:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Acagastya: I have added some links to the News article from English Wikipedia including some of the articles 2018 Australian ball-tampering scandal and Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2017–18 as the particular ball tampering controversy has reached in the In the news section on the main page of the Wikipedia. Yes I understand the article needs to be further improved and modified. But this is one of big news in the sporting world along with few hot news including some countries such as England, Spain have threatened to boycott the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Abishe (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Abishe: adding new information does not solve previous problems pizero has highlighted above. I am going to restructure the article; hope there is no edit conflict.
•–• 08:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Abishe: regarding your recent edits, I don't think you read pizero's remarks. I advice you to do so. Those are the basic things one needs to learn and the sooner you do, the better. Besides, the content you have added does not follow NPOV. I would first remove that part -- and re-add it later.
•–• 12:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Point of order


I don't know anything about cricket, other than it takes a really long time to play. But I noticed the length of ban/sanction for Smith and Warner is not mentioned in the article, just the title. In fact, the only length of punishment mentioned in the article is that of Bancroft's nine months. This should probably be addressed. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

New title


There seems to be an extraneous apostrophe in the new title. And, personally, I'd prefer to see the sport of cricket to be named in the title. Indian Premier League can be abbreviated to IPL so the title isn't prohibitively long. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nope; Indian Premier League helps readers know which country that league is played in. I am pretty sure "Indian Premier League" would not be the first thing that comes to many people who are not from India. The top tier league of English Football is called Premier League, and many leagues around the world are called _ Premier League (Israel, Iran [informally called], and formally Indonesia's); so it is worth mentioning the country name.
•–• 13:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
What about the apostrophe? Within the world of cricket, IPL is the Indian league, the others you mention are all football leagues. --SVTCobra 13:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Again, what you are asking for, it fails for global audience. (You are telling to a football fan who does not prefer playing or watching cricket; so last sentence is kind of funny). For apostrophe, I think Australian cricketers Steve Smith, David Warner banned from 2018's Indian Premier League after ball tampering incident would be better -- so if it goes for rename; ah, need to to think about various combinations to reduce the length yet not miss important details in headline.
•–• 13:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fwiw: "IPL" absolutely should not be abbreviated in the headline. It's a classic example of something to not abbreviate in a headline (though, really, there is almost nothing that's safe to abbreviate in headlines; "NASA" is allowed because its full expansion is very long and not really explanatory and far less widely recognized than its acronym, "US" sometimes gets allowed but probably more often than it should be, "FBI" is a grey area, "KGB" would be hard to know what to do with though it doesn't come up much anymore anyway, and that's pretty much it — "UN" is better off expanded, likewise "UK"). --Pi zero (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rather than possessive 's', I think the word 'season' or 'play' would be beneficial but neither is needed. I am against monstrously long titles. The title frames it as about cricket. I think any serious cricket fan would know what the IPL is. A casual reader, such as myself, will just have to click on the article and find out. We don't need to spoonfeed everything in the title. I mean, what's next? Someone comes along and demands that we also add "Australia" to the title because the two players involved are from Australia and not India and we don't want to confuse the reader? --SVTCobra 13:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Pi zero: You moved only the collaboration page, not the article. --SVTCobra 14:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I hate when that happens... --Pi zero (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
That is the thing -- you would click it; I would not. I am not here to repeat what MSM does; expects readers to know what IPL is. I have stopped reading BBC for the same reason because their headline is often incomplete; hides crucial information and is a clickbait, up to a certain extend, depends on how one defines it. I would rather read a long title which is not ambiguous than to read a title which was framed only to gain readers (does not mean I am against creative headline; but not in place of purposefully hiding info).
I will give you an example; For Football: Dembele out for six months following xyz injury; which Dembele are we talking about? Osmane, Mousa, or Moussa? If we said "French", the first and the last are from France; Mousa and Moussa are very similar spelling, and they both play in the UK. In that case, it would be best to say Football: Belgium's Mousa Dembélé out for six months for xyz injury or Football: Tottenham Hotspur's Mousa Dembélé out for six months for xyz injury. I prefer the later one because it lets me know which club does that player play for; because I do not follow English football closely; my preference. Similarly, mentioning Australia also helps readers know about which country's players were involved; also because in such leagues, there is a limit on the number of foreign players. It would be surprising if people assume any league has players only from their country.
•–• 14:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

As a possible remedy, I have moved the article to almost what acagastya proposed, except I said "banned from 2018 Indian league" rather than the more specific "banned from 2018 Indian Premier League". My thought was that specifying which Indian league might be a dispensable detail to save one word from a lengthy headline. --Pi zero (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's been suggested off-wiki that specifying which league may reasonably be perceived as important; so I'll be moving this again in a moment to re-specify the league. --Pi zero (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Okay, now the only difference from earlier proposal is apostrophe-s. --Pi zero (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I cannot speak authoritatively about cricket and how widely people say IPL or Indian Premier League. However, Wikipedia says it is the number one professional cricket league in the world and sixth biggest league across all sports, and from what I can glean from the sources, it seems pretty common to say IPL. Similarly, I think it is ok to use NBA (basketball) and NFL (American football) and FA Cup (a British football tournament) and PGA (golf); all of which have historically been used in titles on Wikinews.
Longstanding official policies WN:SG#Headlines and WN:NC place considerable emphasis on keeping titles short, a sentiment with which I (obviously) agree. There are warnings against overuse of acronyms, to be sure. I am not saying titles should be super-short such as Terry joins Aston Villa or use highly technical acronyms like Telegram introduces bidirectional IFTTT integration for the mere sake of brevity. I am saying we should use more common sense and strike a balance, instead of chasing this mythical global audience. I also oppose AZOperator's recent suggestion that we have an official list of acceptable acronyms. New acronyms will always be coming into common parlance and some may even be on their way out, such as KGB, which hasn't existed (except in Belarus) since the USSR broke up (before Wikinews existed). It's since been replaced by the FSB in Russia, and incidentally, I think it deserves its own category.
As far as the title of this article, I think it is currently pretty good, albeit still too long. I wish we'd use IPL, but if not: Are the first names needed? Can we just say "ball tampering" instead of "ball tampering incident"? Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh, didja know; the football league in India, which is in existence for years, it is called I-League; and guess what? I was called National Football League. If Wikinews publishes with US: XYZ team wins NFL, I ain’t gonna read that. (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I can’t help but notice SVTCobra chose that football article after which I added “Football:” prefix, without fail, I guess. I won’t be digging in the archives to find your mistakes, because that does not help; improving after finding the problem, instead of using it just to say something I did was not right is more important. (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Btw, I've no objection in principle to a category for the FSB, supposing we have enough articles about it (which we probably do), with the usual caveat that there are surely hundreds and possibly thousands of categories we could in principle set up, with collectively a prohibitive effort. I believe the KGB comes up in articles from time to time, including but not limited to obituaries; old things can sometimes warrant their own en.wn categories, re which come to mind our categories World War I and World War II. --Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
So, = Acagastya? (Pretty weird that you would alternately log in and log out to comment on this article and the Amazon article, but whatever.) Did it for one second occur to you (with almost 300 articles published since 2015) odds are that any example would be an Acagastya article? It is no stranger than the fact that Pi zero reviewed and published those articles, because Pi zero reviews far more articles than anyone. Newer examples are better than old ones. I am sure I have bad titles in my history, but scrolling through them length is fairly consistent. It would be stupid of me to bring up a bad title from 2005 when we have one from 2017. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

some of the random things — I edit from multiple devices, and I don’t always log in from my phone, thanks for assuming I log in and out frequently. I don’t have a particular article, nor can I possibly have; because almost every article teaches me something. And unlike you, I tend not to disregard things that would make it a good news article as well as avoid mistakes. Well, if you would list some “SVTCobra articles” from your 300 articles in last twelve years, I might as well share a list which I feel are good. (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

(it wasn't an assumption, it was overlapping contribution histories, but sorry for bringing it up, it's ultimately irrelevant). I disregard things that make good articles? I don't try to avoid mistakes? Well, forgive me for asking for examples. My article history is rather prominently displayed on my user page User:SVTCobra. If you don't like the the scrolling window, you can look at User:SVTCobra/MyList. I did also author a bunch of Wikinews:Shorts which are not on that list. However, I don't readily see any super-short titles in my history. I don't see any super-complicated acronyms in my history. Some of my titles may be bad, but I didn't see any relevant to this discussion. And thanks, but I am not near 300 yet. --SVTCobra 20:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Then why do I recall you had at least a dozen more than me? However, the point of asking good articles is that I learnt a lot of things not from SG, but from archives. And I should not have stopped doing that; only ran out of copious free time; and as a matter of fact; couple of days ago, I was rereading the triple talaq article I wrote a year ago, which I enjoyed reading and writing; however I don’t feel I could deliver something similar now; and that was tricky, yes; had to explain the foreign words and phrases, both to reviewer and the readers. I spent whole night monitoring RC until it got published. Not that I could not have done it better, I wish I could; but yeah, copious free time (-_-;) (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, I don't know. I am not trying to count and it's not a competition, but you numbered your list. As for my number, I don't really know. I doubt there are 100 Shorts. I think I got the impression I had 200 on User:SVTCobra/MyList when I did a diff and it said something in the neighborhood of "line 200". I will give the triple talaq article a good read. My own OR is pretty mediocre, but usually have a photo or two. Don't wish for copious free time, is my advice; that usually means you are unemployed like I am now. You can't see them now, but just know, I submitted many articles that were thrashed and deleted (and that was when it was possible to self-publish). --SVTCobra 21:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don’t think any news article would have an asterisk in it; so you can convert the unordered list to ordered, replacing * with #. Well, copious free time — it is a relative term; I don’t have good internet , hardware, time and health to work, so I could call on that; but, how much do you know about football? Would you be able to review match reports? I don’t know if you feel it is bread and circuses; but FIFA World Cup (men’s) will start in less than eleven weeks, and from experience, 2016’s UEFA Euro tournament was, to be honest, mental torture as I had to write while traveling and could not miss. I intend to write about it, and if there are more than one reviewers, that would be helpful. (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I did play football on a team when I was younger, but I don't follow it now. I watch the FIFA World Cup when it comes around every 4 years, but that's about it. I think match reports are news, but Wikinews can't keep up. Sports fans want to know the score of a game within minutes of the game. So many sites have live statistics and scores ... we will never compete. Transfers, contracts, and injuries are better suited for Wikinews, imho. An article about a final, like who won the World Cup, the French Open, etc. can be compelling and give a summary of the major events during the tournament. You are not the first, and probably not the last, to try to make match reports on Wikinews, but I fear we are just to slow. I only have one upcoming sports story that I am interesting in writing and the hint is my current profile image. --SVTCobra 23:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

regarding the stats for its popularity; English is an official language in India, and considering India's population, just like how some editors say mentioning name of Country when headline has Texas or California is not necessary, a "tit-for-tat" would suggest me not to mention "India" in articles mentioning Karnataka, Maharashtra and other Indian territories.
•–• 12:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't publish a story with just a US state name without the country anymore than you would publish such a story about an Indian state or union territory. But I think sports are different and I think you have shown that in your own history. Fictional examples, "Baskeball: Lebron James is best in NBA" (no need to mention United States), "Football: Lionel Messi is top scorer in La Liga" (no need to mention Spain or Argentina). Equally, I think IPL would have been enough to tip off the readers that it is India because it is a cricket story. It's not click-bait, imho, cricket fans would know the number one league in the world; casual readers would click on it anyway because the scandal is the story. I still think the title is too long and "incident" could have easily been dropped. But I am not going to make a big deal about it. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Regarding that NBA title; I know NBA is Baskteball association in the US because my school classmates would play NBA game by EA Sports. I was never into watching basketball. So. But for Messi’s, I feel it is important to add a prefix mentioning the sport name. LaLiga needs an explanation too; so it would become “Football: Messi becomes top scorer of Spanish LaLiga”. The reason it is important is because if you consider Seria A; it is Italian as well as Brazil League. La Liga’s actual name is Primera Division and that too is not a unique name. Two months ago there was TTT event where I tried to explain why all of this matters. Tell me, which ABC do you think of when I say “ABC News to be acquired by XYZ”? Australian? American? Albanian? Japanese? Something so obvious for many people might be not so obvious for other group of people. (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
You say these things, yet less than a year ago we have Messi makes new record as Barça beats Real Madrid 3-2 in LaLiga. It doesn't even specify football or any country. Do you see why I feel you are picking on me and being a little bit hypocritical? --SVTCobra 18:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
<dropping in> An alternative interpretation might be that we figured out how to do better. I concern myself, when reviewing, not to set bad precedents; but a nuance I've gradually come to recognize is that on Wikinews, just because something has been done once doesn't necessarily mean it's forever okay. On Wikipedia, if somebody wants to do something on one article, and can show that it's been done on another, that means either that the one article should be allowed to do it, or perhaps that the other article should be disallowed from doing it. But we don't significantly "fix" archived articles; so we have to try to distinguish good examples, that we aspire to compete with going forward, from poor examples that we don't wish to emulate. --Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Did I not mention that Terry joins Aston Villa was the article which made me realise the problem? If I had not improved, and at the same time, told you to do it, it would be wrong. If you find current headline has a problem, let me know. (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

update: regarding FSB, IPS, MPS, PAP — I asked another classmate about it. He doesn’t know any (unless IPS was for Indian Police Service). (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4393878 [Passed]

Again, think of it in this way; “Spanish footballer accused of not paying tax, hearings scheduled for April 3” vs “Spanish Footballer John Doe accused of not paying tax, hearings scheduled for April 3”. The former, I feel is a click bait. (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Keeping in mind I didn't remove the names here, that example seems more personal. But, yes, the 'click bait' objection is not entirely without sting; the essence of click bait, as I understand it, is to deliberately provide too little information for the reader to know whether they want to read more, and the feeling lingers about it regardless of whether it's deliberate. --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Again, that depends on which players were involved, because websites like would often use headline like ManUtd signs Barcelona star; and always it turns out to be some teenager who is yet to prove their talent. (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
In that can the characterization of the individual is misleading. There may be situations where the specific identity of the person isn't what's important. But, when in doubt, it's likely best to keep the name (which I did, here). --Pi zero (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply