Talk:Callum McManaman

Relation to Steve McManaman

it says that callum is related to steve mcmanaman and there is a citation for it (#3) but citation #4 directly refutes that: "Yet, contrary to reports you will read elsewhere, let's make one thing clear - Callum and Steve are not cousins. Indeed, they are not related. Except in terms of talent." http://www.fanhouse.co.uk/2010/03/31/on-the-bench-with-callum-mcmanaman-a-famous-name-at-wigan/ so this seems like a questionable thing to have on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.117.14 (talk)

Both the BBC and Wigan's official site claim that they are distant relatives, which are definitely more reliable sources than FanHouse. I agree it's questionable whether to include it on the page or not though, as it's not a direct relation and they apparently don't even know each other [1], but hopefully things become more clear once he receives more media coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if they are not related, you could include the fact, since a lot of people are probably wondering. Athox (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Yes, locked due to vandals. I've no objections if someone wants to add a sensible description of today's incident which seems to have caused some kerfuffle - there's a source here. Someone might want to check the rest of today's edits -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed some of the POV, also sources need for the referee claiming not to see the incident and ex-players comments.--Kingjamie (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've sourced the referee saying he didn't see it and the reactions of Yorke and Cole on their live broadcast. I've deleted Lawrenson because, in this column, he DEFENDS Halsey. I'm still looking for a cite for Nevin. But in the meantime, the whole thing was reverted by another editor here with an edit summary that's very unhelpful. I've reverted his deletion and invited him to join this discussion. David in DC (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

And now, after more trimming and sourcing, I've been reverted a second time by the same editor, without his taking up my request to discuss it here. David in DC (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The sourced material is opinion-based (and one is basically a blog). So it's opinion acting as a reference for an opinion. If he is banned, then this can be amended. And it's Sky Sports, not Sky News. And it's a British article, so use British spelling. - Dudesleeper talk 00:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've invited BLP/N editors to join us. In my view, the sourcing is more than adequate and there's no need to wait to insert enough sourced info for some future additional action. I've trimmed the prose back, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. But three rounds of wholesale deletion (one by an IP editor, two by Dudesleeper), is quite enough. The edit summary for Dudesleeper's first deletion is just plain incivil. The second edit summary is a wee bit better but making the second edit, instead of coming here as requested, seems like an editing style that is not particularly well-suited to a collegial, collaborative editing project. I'm just sayin'. David in DC (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

With a good night's sleep, I looked at this with fresh eyes. The single sentence about the game is ridiculous. The score and the fact that they won is clearly not the most notable thing about that game. The most notable thing is covered in every reliable source that covered the game. Even the sole remaining source for the game in this bio emphasizes the "horror tackle" rather than the score. Keeping it out is daft. David in DC (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me this is making a mountain out of a molehill. So he tackled someone and should have gotten a red card and didn't? Fans of the other side are enraged? Wowzers, that happens every weekend everywhere in the world where football is played and covered hysterically by the press, which is to say pretty much everywhere. This isn't Zidane head butting Materazzi in a World Cup final. Unless someone can prove that this will be still receiving substantial coverage next month, just keep it off the bio please. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't prove it, per WP:CRYSTAL. But the likelihood seems exceedingly high.

Ah, that's quite another thing. No problem including that, obviously, since it has significant repercussions off the pitch - for the player and the team. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Common sense seems to have arrived. Thanks, all. - Dudesleeper talk 22:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've taken note that the BBC got it wrong. I've deleted that ref and replaced the sentence with one that says the "rough play" drew no penalty, after a two-day review by the FA, all sourced to the Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and The Sun. The two-sentence paragraph is now shorter and ends with McManaman's exoneration, all reliably sourced, per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Callum McManaman. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705040356/http://www.wiganlatics.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10429~1710863%2C00.html to http://www.wiganlatics.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10429~1710863%2C00.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)