Talk:Fiona Themann

Secondary Sources

Wikipagecreator10, go to this page and look for the sources that don't have 'netball' in the websites primary address (such as netball.com, adelaidethunderbirds.com, you get the idea). The sources you are using now are too close to the sport and count as primary sources (see NSPORT). You can use them, they just have to be used to support secondary sources. The way things are now, you might have to merge this into Netball in Australia. — Myk Streja ^{[citation needed]} 19:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Exact date of birth

A call for a consensus

In this edit Myk Streja restored the exact date of birth that I had recently removed from this article. As WP:DOB says: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. Simply being a 'matter of public record" is not enough. I don't think the cited source constitutes wide publication, and i do think this person fits the "is borderline notable" description. So on two counts, the date should not be there. Besides, what is the encyclopedic purpose in listing it? The year gives context by showing the age of the person, but the exact month and day are not usually highly significant. I call for the info to be removed again, limiting the birth date in the article to the year only. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Using your logic, full birth dates should never be mentioned. As for the edit summary, I could have been more specific and made a big entry quoting the appropriate policies: I thought I made my point. The subject of this article is mentioned specifically on a site called World Netball Cup Sydney 2015. Netball seems to be best known in Australia. Granted, it's not as well known as baseball is here, but there are other sports that are not all that well-known and still get mentioned in Wikipedia. NASCAR racing comes to mind. I think you're splitting hairs here. Normally I would just say to heck with it, but I think this is an interpretation issue, and I disagree. Fiona Themann is a notable person of interest in Australia and is a member of an international sport. Coverage of Ms Themann is, of course, concentrated in Australia but she is not unheard of. The birth date should remain. — Myk Streja ^{[citation needed]} 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Myk_Streja,Frankly I would favor a policy that says we never mention full birth dates for living people unless there is a very specific stated reason to do so in a particular case. (For no longer living people, I don't see the need for such a restriction.) But such a practice does not currently have consensus. WP:DOB does. I was one of those who debated the current wording, some time ago, so i have some idea what is meant by it, although others may well disagree, and I don't claim special privileges.

Let me be clear: It isn't a question of how well known Fiona Themann is in Australia or elsewhere. Her notability, in the somewhat odd way that Wikipedia uses that term, is still borderline -- there are relatively few sources available with non-routine coverage of her. Secondly, the cited source is just a list of players on a particular team. How many people will consult that list? Does this really constitute wide publication of her date of birth? Thirdly, what is the advantage of including the exact date? What encyclopedic purpose does it serve? Hpow does it help the reader better understand Themann or her sports career, however important, beyond what the bare year provides readers? Last year all the biography infobox templates were revised to suggest using {{Birth year and age}} instead of {{birth date and age}}, for living subjects. This is part of the same effort.

I don't object to you disagreeing with me, I posted here to attempt to build consensus, giving my reasons to try to persuade other editors. That is how Wikipedia works and what the talk page is for. Nor was i complaining about your edit or your edit summary. I understood your argument, I think -- I was giving the reasons i disagreed with it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

All right, I can understand your point, but I'm going to take one more shot at this: 1990. Having said that, if a consensus is reached against me or no one else participates in this discussion in one week, I will concede. Agreed? — Myk Streja ^[who?] 00:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that I follow your point with the link to 1990#Births. Is it that many articles currently list exact dates of birth, and do not comply with WP:DOB, or at least not with my view of it? That is quite true. But then there are huge numbers of articles that are very poorly sourced, and would be promptly deleted if they had been recently created. This is a practice that can only become a general one one article at a time. As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that other articles may be worse does not excuse an article under discussion from complying with standards.

I am still not clear, why do you think it is desirable for the exact date to be included, whether policy permits it or not. Policy certainly does not require it to be included. It is optional. Why take the option? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How can I help improve this page? I know where to get sources but what needs to be changed and what needs additional sources? Nuts4Netball (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)