Talk:Dale Steyn
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Untitled
editThere is almost no information on this page. Why does it exist?
- How this stub and a lot of others came about is a long story and I won't go into it. There are some 450 cricket articles of < 250 bytes around at the moment. See the list at User:CricketBot/substubs. We, at WP:Cricket, are working on them. 50 odd have already been expanded. The rest, including Steyn, will be done in a few weeks. Tintin 02:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
"Controversies"
editThe section headed "Controversies" only mentions a single 'controversy' -- when Dale Steyn was fined 100% of his match fee for spitting at another player in a Test match. It goes without saying, then, that if this section is to remain in this article, it shouldn't be titled "Controversies" when it only mentions one incident. The more important question, though, is whether this section should remain in the article at all. Not that I want to say spitting at another player is trivial and irrelevant, but surely most players get fined some of their match fees at some point in their career - do we really need to mention every such incident? At the very least, maybe the section could be renamed "Spitting incident" or "Spitting controversy" or something like that, to better indicate the actual content of the section. And if the section is to remain, it should probably be expanded to show clearly why this incident is so worthy of inclusion on his page (e.g. was there a huge fallout from the scandal, with lots of pundits furious at his behaviour? was that degree of punishment very rare, or unusually harsh, or whatever? seems to me like 100% of match fee fines are relatively rare, but is it rare enough to warrant such prominent mention on his page?)99.120.41.190 (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Uncited change to height
editThis edit changed the height. Neither the original nor the change are cited, so it needs to be checked out. Greenman (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- In response: Removed uncited, constantly changed (it was now at 1.76, go figure) and trivial detail per WP:V. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
