Talk:Colemanballs

"The bowler’s Holding, the batsman’s Willey"

For those many folks who want to add the above quote, please see Johnson's profile at ICC-Cricket.com or this Guardian online column from March 2006 - it's now generally acknowledged to be an entirely apocryphal quotation. Sorry. -- DeLarge 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Even so, the reference makes it clear that it was intentional, so it wouldn't count as a Colemanballs anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.11.222 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Meatballs

The statement in the lease "Colemanballs probably borrows from Colemans Meatballs" looks a lot like OR to me,I've tagged it citation needed, can someone find a source for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.169.142 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am the one responsible for the "Colemans Meatballs" reference. It was a common understanding of the day in the UK that part of the joke was that Colemanballs was a contraction of a well-known product. Colemans Meatballs were heavily advertized on TV featuring an inane video portrait of a family dinner of meatballs. Colemans no longer make the original meat balls, though they make 'healthy chicken meatballs' amongst others. I am putting the reference back with the explanation which I think explains some of how the phrase caught on. The only way to know for sure would be to ask Ian Hyslop or other at Private Eye. That might be a fun thing to do. Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Singular vs plural

Should this article be Colemanball, given the Manual of Style's preference for titles in singular form? ENeville 21:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they're never referred to in the singular. -- Arwel (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Freudian Slip

Dumb as it may sound, I just don't get the Freudian slip. What's "colemanballs" about that? -- Anton1234 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It was both the "far-right section of the ground" as seen from the commentary position, and politically. -- Arwel (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That's quite obscure, and if you dig hard enough, you can find political commentary in ANYTHING. Well, thanks! Anton1234 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

None of those are Freudian slips. A slip is when you accidently say something you were not consciously thinking of. None of those examples apply with the exception of the Lebanese one - Jaz.

Unreferenced tag

I've added the above tag to the gigantic bulleted list. Wikipedia frowns on bulleted lists in general, and unsourced ones in particular; see WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:ATT. I'm going to slowly work my way through the list over the next wee while, finding a source for each quote, and removing those we can't attribute.

While I'm here... I can see a lot of stuff I should be removing; the "Hyperbole" stuff for starters. Coleman clearly meant to say what he did about the Battle of Santiago, so how does that qualify as a balls up? --DeLarge 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong editor listed

Barry Fantoni edits all the Colemanballs books - NOT Ian Hislop. I've changed the entries once, but they've now been (incorrectly) changed back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.125.79.238 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

"One ball left"

I seem to recall hearing about a Colemanball by the late great John Arlott -- in a test match a batsman was hit in the nether regions on the fifth ball of an over. As the bowler began his run up for the final ball of the over Arlott said dryly (and completely deliberately) "one ball left...". Not sure if this is true, but it would be typical Arlott. Can anyone verify its authenticity? --ukexpat 17:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples

Using examples in this article approaches copyright infringement and denotes a lack of content. Selecting examples to be used in this article counts as original research. I'm removing them. Jdcooper 17:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no, quoting counts as referencing. Or perhaps the entire wikiquote is copyright infringement? GWP 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I am wrong (I am not) but this is, um, not wikiquote. This is wikipedia, and wikipedia is not a place for advertising, an indiscriminate collection of source material, a jokebook or a directory of stuff. Wikipedia is just an encyclopaedia, and it is therefore flagrantly inappropriate to have as an entire page an incomplete list of other publications' material. What this article should do is present information about Colemanballs, being as it is a tertiary source. Incidentally, what is also flagrantly inappropriate is describing the good faith edits of another editor as "vandalism", when you simply disagree with them and know them to be in good faith. When presenting your counter-argument to the above wikipedia policies, please use other wikipedia policies, and not your personal feelings. Thanks and happy editing. Jdcooper 10:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have little grasp of the wikipedia project, so i shall debate with you no further. GWP 13:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way, but I must urge you to be more constructive in your attitude. I would like to think that I do in fact have a grasp of the wikipedia project, particularly that its quality is lowered by becoming an indiscriminate collection of data. I have no interest in removing any information whatsoever from wikipedia. If you look at my merges you will see that. I think a) that the coverage of Private Eye is best served by collating all the information we have into as few articles as possible and b) examples are unnecessary and inappropriate, and prevent a). An encyclopaedia is not stuff, it is about stuff. What exactly am I saying that is causing a problem for you? Jdcooper 11:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

JD, you do seem to be imposing on other editors' good will. Don't tell us what you think wikipedia is; it is what people want it to be. The consensus of editors is against you.

• Please quote policy and refrain from personal attacks. If you were to explain which part of my argument you have a problem with then maybe we could make progress? Policy (which is the consensus of editors) is actually with me on this matter. Please see Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, and, again, please refrain from personal attacks. Please understand that I am not "conceited", "rogue" or a "vandal". Jdcooper 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jd, I'm not sure I see your point. One of the pages you suggest reading makes it clear that short examples such as those on this page are acceptable: Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles is a direct quote from Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. And this page doesn't seem to be covered by WP:NOT at all - unless it is "Wikipedia is not a battleground". If you think this stuff belongs in Wikisource rather than here, the correct procedure would be to take your case to Wikisource, start an equivalent page there, then move the examples on this page, leaving a link to the Wikisource page in their place. Unilaterally deleting a large part of an article which has been worked on by many editors over the last few years is not an acceptable alternative, as it will do nothing other than anger other editors and remove information which could be useful on a page either here or at Wikisource. Until such a page is set up on Wikisource, this is the best place for such quotations, abnd I can see nothing against Wikipedia's policies in them being here. GWP - I do agree with Jd in that your comments were a little out of line. Please respond to what he didrather than attacking Jd him/herself. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• The reason this article falls under WP:NOT is that, in its present state, this article is just a directory of stuff that people have said. If it is to be kept in this form it should be entitled something like List of daft things that notable figures have said. Admittedly this page is not really the problem, it is one of a whole series of articles created solely to showcase primary source materials, but happens to be the only one of them which has encyclopaedic information on it as well. However, this one as well suffers by being, as it is, 95% stuff, rather than about stuff, which is what an encyclopaedia is. Jdcooper 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Throwing in support for Jd's position - currently it reads as an article on Colemanballs greatest hits and holds an indiscriminate list of primarily sourced Colemanballs. Having said that, it isn't a position that appears to hold sway on this project these days. MLA 00:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My take on this issue is that Jdcooper is technically correct - the giant list of quotes should really be slashed down to three or four good examples - but, on a pragmatic level, he is on the losing side. I am not sure of the copyright situation in this case; the article quotes from collections of quotes. We could, after all, quote the original sources of the Colemanball examples, and then add "this quote also appears in Private Eye's Colemanballs #12 (1978) (for example). -Ashley Pomeroy 19:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have reneged on my point regarding copyright, I no longer believe that argument is relevant (though it would be nice, as you say, if we could quote the issue number). I still believe, however, that the giant list of quotes is highly detrimental to the quality of the article, and if I am technically right then how am I pragmatically on "the losing side"? Firstly, the dispute should not be viewed in terms of sides in the first place, since the whole of wikipedia is simply the application of consensual policies to different information, and secondly, it is clearly practically feasible to not include a giant list of quotes. I am quite happy for particularly illuminating examples to remain, but the list should be cut down so that at the very least it is not longer than the prose information. After all, it is the job of wikipedia to inform, not amuse, and stressing that is not unpragmatic, surely? Jdcooper 19:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Fully agree with Jdcooper on this one. WP:QUOTE says that "Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject", which seems reasonable - quotes should only be used where they usefully illustrate the subject of the article; we need quotes about Colemanballs, not more and more examples.
  • These are probably suitable to be transferred across to Wikiquote, but extensive lists of quotes don't belong in an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon 09:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jdcooper why do you have such a thing about this? Quoting is not breach of copyright (well answered GWP!) Quoting is not original research (how would that work?). Wikipedia should not be what one person's idea of what an encyclopedia is. It is made by the people who work to edit it and contribute to it. Wikipedia is spoiled enough by geeks making policies to suit themselves just to have back up to have their won way. There are 1,900,000+ articles in English Wikipedia, surely you can find something positive to work on? People have spent many hours making this article, it is arrogant to impose yourself in this way. Haven't you done enough damage to good will here already? Have a nice day.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.202.151 (talk • contribs)

Even if it was made by geeks, it is official Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a directory, and we have to follow that. Listing over a hundred Colemanballs is a very unencyclopaedic way to write about the subject, in the same way that we don't list pages of examples when writing about light bulb jokes.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you think we're losing by moving the quotes to Wikiquote - you do realise that the article would have a clear link to the Wikiquote page, for anyone who wanted to read the quotes? --McGeddon 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments anonymous user, and thank you for in future refraining from personal attacks. Using quotations in this way is original research, because we are arbitrarily selecting which examples to use, and there is no objective way to choose which are "good" examples of Colemanballs and which are "notable". There's no such thing. In answer to your concerns about the nature of wikipedia, you can rest assured that wikipedia most certainly is not just one person's idea of what an encyclopaedia is, and that no-one is trying to make it such. We have dozens and dozens of policies (WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL to name just some) that have been agreed on by the whole community, in consensus and reasoned debate. Nobody can "make policies" themselves, never fear. I myself am a big fan of Private Eye, so, while I am grateful for your suggestion of finding some other articles to work on, I will keep working on these ones to improve them and give Private Eye the wikipedia coverage it deserves. To this end, I hope we can all come to some reasoned consensus here, based on existing policies, and things the community has already decided, to improve these articles so that they are not just indiscriminate collections of quotes. Wikipedia isn't a jokebook after all, and why would anyone want it to be indeed, because its far more useful as an encyclopaedia. We know we can always read the actual Colemanballs column in the magazine itself if all we are looking for it examples. Jdcooper 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of examples

This is a dispute about whether/how many examples are needed to illustrate the phenomenon. 11:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note, the same dispute is also in effect for Luvvies, Pseuds Corner and Dumb Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcooper (talk • contribs) 13:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

GWP, I'd start by recommending that you take a more constructive attitude to dispute resolution and not question the motives of people you have a dispute with, such as Jdcooper. That said, I do take your side. The quotes are really what make this article for me. While the list seems a bit too long, I think it makes for an entertaining article about the phenomenon. Quoting people hardly seems like copyvio, as essentially every newspaper in the country quotes people daily, and there are entire columns made up only of embarrassing or odd quotes. As per McGeddon's stance, that makes sense in the general case. However, the article is *all about* a phenomenon involving quotations, so it's only natural to need a lot of them. That policy is to make it so that, say, an article on the TV show Firefly doesn't turn into a big long list of quotes from it, or whatnot.

So, count me on the side of keeping quotes, but trimming the list down a bit. -- Rei 16:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the copyvio argument doesn't hold up, when these are all public statements. But I disagree that an article about quotations "needs a lot of them" to be a good article. We should certainly mention the "batman's Holding" and any other genuinely remarked-upon Colemanballs, and it's definitely useful to give one or two examples of each type of Colemanball to get the idea across, but a full list seems inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.

Are there any prominent Wikipedia articles about this sort of subject that do have large lists of examples? I've checked obvious things like light bulb jokes, and they all seem to have the minimum required to explain the concept. Although WP:QUOTE isn't official policy, it does seem to reflect current consensus on how to handle the sorts of articles that could easily turn into lists of quotations.

This article is very entertaining reading and it would be a shame if this selection of quotes was deleted permanently from the Internet, but that doesn't mean that they should be kept in Wikipedia, particularly when Wikiquote exists. --McGeddon 17:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The copyvio thing was a mistake, I realise I was wrong about that as soon as I first wrote it, but to get to the real issue, per McGeddon, this is an encyclopaedia article, and the wikiquote site should be doing the job that this article is being burdened with at the moment. There are lots of other extremely funny things I could think of that could be reproduced on wikipedia, but that isn't what an encyclopaedia is. This article has enough historical information and analysis to stand as an article on its own; the more important decisions are to be taken on the other articles listed, which are better served by merging into List of regular mini-sections in Private Eye. We could make the Rush Limbaugh article more amusing by listing all the funny things Bill Hicks has said about him, or the Michael Moore article more amusing by listing all the funny things Ann Coulter has said about him, but that would jeopardise those articles' encyclopaedic credibility. If nothing else, the list here should be pruned, but I have no idea how we are supposed to do that ourselves without our actions constituting original research, so I figure the best approach would be like the one taken on light bulb jokes. Jdcooper 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill Hicks and Rush Limbaugh are not topics about quotations. The very subject of this article relates to quotations. As I noted, the list is too long, but I don't think it should be hacked away too badly. Anyways, you asked for an outside opinion, so this is the one that you got from me. I'm sure you'll get other opinions from other people.  :) -- Rei 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a recurring column in a magazine. That column is about quotations. Your opinions are greatly appreciated, just attempting to put across my arguments fo' consensus. Did you take a look at the other articles? I think they are more black and white. Jdcooper 18:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The real argument there is that we don't even have a big list of Bill Hicks quotes in the Bill Hicks article, we just have a couple of minor, pertinent quotes that illustrate wider points, and put the bulk of them in Wikiquote. Even though he's a comedian known for his spoken material, a Bill Hicks article with a hundred Bill Hicks jokes would be unencyclopaedic. --McGeddon 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was that it is not what is funny that determines inclusion. Jdcooper 18:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm just stressing that it's not even appropriate in articles which are about the source of the quote. --McGeddon 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated to other points, the whole idea of "Notable Colemanballs" seems strongly WP:OR. Apart from the well-known "the batman's Holding" quote (which could feasibly have been mentioned in a newspaper article that referred to it as a "Colemanball"), I think we'd be hard pressed to actually identify any of these quotes as being more "notable" than others. This makes the section endlessly expandable into an indiscriminate list, which is bad for an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon 19:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very much agree (again!), neither the column nor the supporting books make any distinction between one colemanball or another, particularly in terms of importance. They are pretty much all just very funny, varying funniness seems to be the only criterion for separating them, and obviously that's totally subjective. Jdcooper 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, you did start a RFC here. Why are the vast majority of comments in it coming from people who appear to have been around from before the RFC? -- Rei 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if starting a new thread in the RFC section is bad form, the WP:OR thing just occurred to me, and I thought it'd be more useful to bring it up here than in the previous section. I don't know why we aren't getting more comments, but I don't know how much attention RFCs normally get... --McGeddon 17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep: the wishes of the editors of particular articles should decide the nature of the article - not the chuckleheads who create policy or the even greater chuckleheads who run around being 'enforcers' of ill-considered and badly drawn policy. Why do so many people on wiki want to be the police, or why are they so anxious to do what they think is the police's business, terrified that the sky will fall in unless they obey? 62.64.214.229 10:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

After weeks of silence, I've boldly reformatted and migrated the quotes to Wikiquote (here), keeping back only the Brian Johnston quote. The article already mentions a few Murray Walkerisms in prose, as well as Frank Bruno and John Major to illustrate non-commentator quotes - I think that's more than enough to illustrate the article. If anyone's got any more thoughts on how many quotes the article needs, though, speak up. --McGeddon 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The quotes page was deleted from Wikiquotes in 2009. Great. One thing this page currently lacks is any Colemanballs uttered by Coleman himself. He was particularly prone to them, that's why they are named after him, and yet we have no examples. Quaestor23 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)