Jump to content

Talk:Liam Miller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLiam Miller has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 18, 2008Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 10, 2018.
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

Wasn;t his loan extended?--Vindicta 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've also removed the Stuff about Tapping because it was a rumour and pointed fingers at Ferguson unfairly. Stabilo boss

Lead contradicting infobox

[edit]

In the lead, it says he played 9 times for United, scoring no goals, whereas the info box lists him as scoring once for United. Which is it? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accoding to the United stat site (http://www.stretfordend.co.uk/playermenu/miller_l.html), he never scored a league goal for United, so I'll change accordingly.

Removal of reliable source

[edit]

Just wondering if User:PeeJay2K3 would mind explaining this edit in which he removed a reliable source from this biography of a living person.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask the same of you. What is the point of replacing one source with another just to satisfy your POINTY crusade to enforce the measurement of human height in centimetres? – PeeJay 22:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask anything you wanted. Will you answer my question though?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. You removed a valid reference without a valid reason. Stop it. – PeeJay 23:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've already removed a high-quality source from this BLP and accused another editor of bad faith. Now you're refusing to discuss your actions on the talk page. If you look again you'll see that I did not remove the source, as two references to it were still present in the article. You appear to think the source I added has absolutely no business being used in this article. Again, could you please explain yourself?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've remained eerily silent on what unit is used in the source you deleted the Football Federation Australia one in favour of. If I were you and I had a copy in front of me, I'd be letting everyone know it uses metres, if, of course that is in fact the case (although that would be very surprising to me). User:Lukeno94 has now said "it was rather lame of you to replace a good reference that used feet/inches with one that used cm just to further your viewpoint". He might like to look at my version (and its reference) a little more carefully and perhaps think about retracting this statement.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson, please can you explain why you removed a reliable source from a biography of a living person? GiantSnowman 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay also closer attention GiantSnowman, you'll see that I did not remove the source, I only replaced a reference to it with one to an additional source (whose inclusion is clearly warranted), thus strenthening this article's sourcing overall. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it become true.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeating something over and over doesn't make it become true" - take your own advice. Did you, or did you not, replace a reliable source being used to verify the height with one which used your preferred cm format? Did you, or did you not, remove that source from where it was placed in the article, and from the information it was verifying? GiantSnowman 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my comment, and suggest that you either voluntarily stop this pointless crusade, Gibson, or I will have no choice to recommend that you get topic banned. You seem simply incapable of seeing that people are disagreeing with you, and that you could possibly be wrong. You also are doing a very good job around skirting the question of "why did you remove reliably sourced information just to replace it with the same information, but in a manner that reflects your POV?" And your claim of "I added an extra source, the article therefore must be better" is, purely and simply, utter bollocks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you've come to the party a little later than the rest, Lukeno94, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not aware of the following details:
Now, just so you don't think I'm skirting the question of "why did you remove reliably sourced information just to replace it with the same information, but in a manner that reflects your POV?" I'll explain the problems with this inherently bad faith question. I was in fact attempting to reflect more closely the preference of Football Federation Australia, a reliable source I'm sure you'd agree. How adding Miller's biography from the club he's currently playing at can be construed as not enhancing this article's sourcing is what needs explaining here. It's removal from this article is indefensible, as this thread shows.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside for now the continuing blatant disregard for Wikipedia:Assume good faith, editors urging the continued exclusion of the FFA source from this article would do well to make at least one meaningful policy or source based argument in their favour. As far as I can tell, only arguments very closely resembling WP:IDONTLIKEIT have been forthcoming.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Empirical evidence would suggest that good faith went out of the window with good reason. Besides, who says that the FFA source has to be included? What makes it a better source than Barry Hugman's book? As far as I can see, you're only including it because it uses centimetres over feet and inches, and this actually has nothing to do with either source being of higher quality than the other. – PeeJay 23:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise Wikipedia:Assume good faith was not merely being overlooked, but actually consciously thrown "out of the window". I stand corrected. There appears to be some confusion. Are you saying, PeeJay, that in fact your problem with my version is that it puts metric units first (with imperial units in parentheses) rather than imperial units first (with metric units in parentheses), as this would offend the sensibilities of Miller's countrymen (as per WP:ENGVAR)? I thought the focus here was on the metric units themselves and whether to use metres or centimetres. I have no problem with imperial units appearing first (with metric units in parentheses). My only concern was that the metric units used in the article (m) are not reflective of the metric units used in the WP:SOURCE I added (cm).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my problem is that you replaced a perfectly valid source with another one just to push your POV. – PeeJay 01:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought the ft/in thing looked suspiciously like a straw man. We've already been over how I did not replace once source with another. I left the existing source in the article and included an additional one. Please try to get this right. Now, the only reason I can think of for you to say what you just did is that Miller's height is displayed as 1.73 metres in Barry Hugman's book. Is this the case? Also, considering that Wikipedia's core policy Verifiability states that The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine, ask yourself the following: should a sophisticated organisation that currently has access to Miller and the ability to take recent photos and measurements of his height and weight be disregarded. Now, it's very important, for your own sake, that in your response you try to make reasoned arguments grounded in policy/sources, and avoid any more of these.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you actually talking about? Hugman's book gives Miller's height in feet and inches. You replaced that source for his height with one giving it in centimetres. If you were adding a second source, you would have left the original source in its place and added the other one next to it, but you didn't – you just replaced it. That is what we mean by "replacing" a source. It doesn't matter where else in the article that source appears, you removed it as a source for Miller's height and added a different one that expressed his height in units that you found preferable. As an isolated incident, I could have viewed that as an edit made in good faith, but your edit history clearly indicates that you are a man on a mission. By the way, I really don't see how you can view Hugman's book as an inferior source when it is an official publication of the Professional Footballers' Association (which, in case you don't know, is the players' union in the UK). – PeeJay 02:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What am I actually talking about? I'm trying really hard to come up with possible reasons for your insistence on metres and the exclusion of the FFA source, since you won't provide a single one. And I think my edit history and this discussion will bear out any scrutiny with regard to good faith. Shall we just go back to my version with the references stacked then? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is insisting on metres here. The original source gives Miller's height in feet and inches, and that is exactly the primary unit used in the article. Now who's clutching at straws, fella? – PeeJay 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. So how about this:
5 ft 8 in (173 cm)Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

P.S. I have no idea what that last sentence meant.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC) I don't know why the references I included aren't appearing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because that includes sources for two different heights. 5'8" might equate approximately to 1.78m, but they are not equivalent. – PeeJay 09:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus - in fact significant opposition - into introducing cm into this article, or the Davide Astori article, and indeed any footballer article. That is simply not the format that is widely used in that sport, it is ft and inches or m. Gibson, I suggest you finally accept that and then move on. Feel free to introduce cm to actors and supermodels, but not footballers. GiantSnowman 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PeeJay, my confusion about "why the references I included aren't appearing" related to the wiki coding in my immediately preceding post, which, if viewed through the editing window, shows both of our references along with a reflist template included with the height. Your response ("Because that includes sources for two different heights") is therefore quite puzzling. Even more puzzling though is your next statement: "5'8" might equate approximately to 1.78m, but they are not equivalent." As far as I can tell 5'8" = 68 inches = 173 cm. Also, you just finished telling me that "No one is insisting on metres here" but User:GiantSnowman seems to be doing just that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because me commenting, based on 8 years of editing experience, that that the format widely used in footballer articles is "ft and inches or m" is the exact same as me insisting on metres in these articles...if that is the upper limit of your deduction skills then no wonder your 'arguments' are getting you nowhere. GiantSnowman 13:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh darn it, you saw through my clever ruse to trick you with an accidental typo. No, it really was an accidental typo and what I meant to say was that 5'8" is approximately 1.73m, but not equivalent (whereas 1.73m and 173cm are equivalent). – PeeJay 13:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of trying to create more feeble diversions about feet and inches only being acceptible, no one insisting on metres, the template conversion's rounding, or whatever, why don't you show us exactly how you'd like Miller's height to be displayed in the article? You can see my preference above.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I take your silence as meaning you have no problem with my proposal above?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means I'm done arguing with you as you clearly have no intention of treating either me or User:GiantSnowman with any respect for our opinions. We've expressed disapproval for your edits, now please accept the situation and move on. – PeeJay 00:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That you disapprove of my proposal is clear (although becoming less so). Why you disapprove is entirely unclear. WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you have not - either here or else where - ever made a convincing argument for it. GiantSnowman 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reach a consensus, please explain what the problem is with my proposal above (you'll need to view it through the editing window) and make a counter-proposal with an explanation as to why it should be preferred. Thank you.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources and standard convention give height for footballers in ft and/or m - and hardly ever cm. It's really that simple. GiantSnowman 19:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've seen plenty of evidence that cm is actually more common. It certainly is in Australia, where Miller is currently playing. 173 cm is what's reported by his current club, and that's what should be reflected here. Just so I understand you clearly, are you saying that no source, regardless of reliability, that reports a footballer's height in centimetres is allowed to be used in Wikipedia articles? PeeJay has already said that no one is insisting on metres, and I thought that made sense. Making sense of why the FFA source should be excluded from this article is the difficult part.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we haven't. He may be currently playing in Australia, but he is Irish and has spent most of his career in the UK, where the convention is for ft and m. That is also why he is described as a 'footballer' and not a 'soccer player'. Basic ENGVAR. GiantSnowman 12:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now, after two weeks, we're hearing for the first time that the A-League should be excluded as a source from its foreign players' articles because it reports their height in centimetres, whereas in their home countries metres may be more the prominent format. Why was this not mentioned earlier? It also sounds a lot like you are in fact insisting on metres, despite your previous attempts to distance yourself from that claim. Can you see how this is confusing and forcing this "discussion" to become unnecessarily long? A lot seems to rest on this claim of yours that metres are more prevalent than centimetres in countries outside Australia, specifically, Ireland and the UK. Do you have any evidence for this claim?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who has said that? Where have I said that? My claim is, and always has been, that more reliable sources for footballers use ft and m, so that is what we should use on articles about footballers. Is that simple enough for you? GiantSnowman 09:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple enough as far as it goes. But you keep continually moving the goal posts. One minute no one's insisting on metres, the next you are because he's Irish and cm is uncommon there, then it's something about rounding, then it's something to do with feet, etc. Now it's because of a (no less dubious) claim that there's a sport-specific predominance of metres over centimetres. In that case, what is your position regarding all the WP biographies of footballers right now displaying centimetres?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already stated at the RFC - a few times as well, I believe - is that the convention for footballers is to use ft and m, therefore we should reflect that on Wikipedia, just as we should use cm for actors and models and hairdressers and firemen etc. if they convention for them is cm. GiantSnowman 12:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've already seen how things you've stated previously are continually revised as a discussion progresses, so forgive me for not putting that much stock in them. I'm basically just trying to keep up with what you're saying lately. Case in point: despite attempting to play the ENGVAR card only 2 days ago, today you're saying it's irrelevant as only the profession of a person decides what unit should be used to display their height. You can see how this kind of thing would look to any new set of eyes that comes to this discussion right?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty much sure I've always said "nationality and/or profession" - some of which are linked, like in football, given the prevalence of UK/European countries in that sport. GiantSnowman 13:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liam Miller. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • 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) 14:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Liam Miller. 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).

  • 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) 03:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liam Miller. 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).

  • 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) 20:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liam Miller. 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).

  • 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) 06:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illness

[edit]

While this may seem pedantic of me to bring up given the circumstances, this press release from Miller's employer at the time of his diagnosis [1] says esophageal cancer. There is no other reference for this anywhere on the web, but the fact that it came from his employer makes it confusing when all the other sources say pancreatic cancer. Harambe Walks (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Middle names

[edit]

Are we sure that William is one of his middle names and that "Liam" isn't just a hypocorism of William that he tends to go by? – PeeJay 20:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of sources out there that claim that his full name was William Peter Miller - but none that are reliable. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found one - Fox Sports - and have changed the article. It's fairly obvious from a Google search that William was his real first name but it just needed a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liam_Miller&oldid=1205886347"