Talk:Nathan Coulter-Nile

Role field - disputed accuracy on a BLP

The infobox source says that Coulter-Nile is a Bowler, not al all-rounder. The same editor, working with 3 different IP addresses (which all geolocate to the same area) has changed this multiple times but has yet to provide sources to support this. We get this sort of thing on other articles. Anyone got any sources which support a definition of all-rounder for Coulter-Nile? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Tags I've placed have been removed without adding sources. The lack of sources needs addressing - this is a Biography of a Living Person where there is factually disputed information. Either put up sources or leave it as it is. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Same IP editor editing with precisely the same pattern. This article has been protected in the past as a result of this sort of editing. It's disruptive to cause articles to be protected, but there may be no alternative here. If the IP editor can't find a single source which classes Coulter-Nile as an all-rounder then they need to accept the cited source for the infobox which clearly categorises him as a bowler. Blue Square Thing (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And once more this talk page has been blanked by the same editor. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

So, I've cited the role - CricInfo is very clear that he's a bowler. I can't find any reliable sources which suggest that he's an all-rounder. The recent edit summary of "He bats, he bowls. Makes him an all rounder" is deliberately ignorant - by this categorisation, Chris Martin, one of the worst international batsmen of recent times, would be considered an all-rounder - a term with a specific meaning in cricketing terms. Certainly he doesn't come close to any accepted statistical definition and the whole insertion of this attempt to, in my view, deliberately mislead seems to have come about after his single ODI half-century in June 2019 (against West Indies). One score of 92 runs in a single match simply does not make make someone an all-rounder overnight - yet that's precisely when the term started to be inserted into the article (see page history - from 6 June 2019).

I've also removed the WP:OLINK issue - there is no need to link to large geographical entities such as Australia in this context - and the obvious tautology whilst I was at it - where else, exactly, do you propose locating Western Australia rather than in Australia? In an article such as this we simply don't need the addition of the country name to be clear where he was born - in an article about the state, yes, sure, we need it. Obviously.

Please feel free to discuss, especially if you can provide sources to support his role as an all-rounder. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the lack of any sources being provided, I've just semi-protected the article for a month after a particularly vigorous edit-warring visit from this IP editor. ~ mazca ^talk 01:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

And the same as all the above. He's a bowler. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk page blanked again - as in the past. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know how his stats equate to being an all-rounder, despite what CA have on their profile. I see using both CA and Cricinfo as sources is a happy medium. Of sorts. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing: Does it make sense to request that the IP address user be blocked? Pathawi (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Pathawi - the range of IP addresses is far too wide. They're using such a dynamic range that a block is pretty much out of the question. We just need people to think before they accept pending changes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies has upgraded the page protection. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I blocked a couple IPs, but realized pretty soon this needed protection, yes. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)