Talk:Nina Morrison

Recent edits to lead and infobox

There's been a bit of back-and-forth editing between User:4TheWynne and me so rather than continue I'll address some of the points of contention. While most of the changes made are great there are some minor edits which are problematic, particularly in the lead and infobox:

1. The lead should summarise the body of the article and include all the important information. For a footballer, this surely includes position and, particularly for a footballer at an early stage of her career, important junior accomplishments. As a compromise I suggest not listing the actual junior clubs, merely the competitions she played in and important accolades. This is consistent with many high-quality articles on modern-day footballers, e.g. Joel Selwood or Jack Watts.
2. Using GMBHA Stadium instead of Kardinia Park is problematic: it deviates from the actual article title (apparently) without good reason, and the stadium has been known variously as Skilled Stadium, Shell Stadium, Baytec Stadium and Simonds Stadium. It only became GMBHA Stadium early last year, and undoubtably these name changes will continue in future. So there are three options: update the stadium's name every single time there is a name change (obviously unworkable), use whatever name the stadium was known by at the time (could confuse readers into thinking Skilled, Shell, Baytec, Simonds and GHMBA are different stadiums), or simply use Kardinia Park, consistent with the article's title and applicable to the stadium at any stage of its history.
3. Using the fullname parameter is helpful if there are differences between the common name for the player and their full name (e.g. Chris Judd/Christopher Dylan Judd) but if there is no difference, it's simply restating information already at the top of the infobox and thus a waste of space.
4. If there is more than one year of statistics, rows of contrasting colour are helpful for readers. But currently there is only one year, and the dark grey is very similar to the top and bottom rows' colour; a lighter colour creates a better contrast. – Teratix ₵ 10:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Teratix, I can see that you mean well, and I appreciate your efforts to try and help improve/expand this article. Let me address your points directly:

1. The lead does not have to summarise the full body of the article, nor does it have to include all of the important information if it ends up being too long for the length of the article. Although the article has been expanded very quickly in a short amount of time, there's still not a great deal of information on there, and a lot of what was being added to the lead was repeated directly below in the early life section. I also don't think comparing to two established AFL footballers is an entirely fair comparison, even if the pathway to reaching the top level in both competitions is becoming more and more the same. If you want to refer to a well-written AFLW footballer article, look to Daisy Pearce (in my opinion, the lead at that article is the perfect length, and should never be any longer than that).
2. While I agree with this particular argument, the project-wide consensus is to use the name that the venue was known by at the time (and, to be fair, as long as it links to the same article each time, readers will still be able to gather that it's the same venue, and it shouldn't be too big of a problem). This applies to articles, images, templates, etc.
3. While I understand your point, a "waste of space" – which perhaps applies more to your first point, in terms of the length of the lead, than this one – is far from our biggest issue.
4. In the statistics section, I was just using the usual format (even if only for one row), and even if the row colour is the same as the rest of the statistics box, once again, I don't think it's a massive issue; it will eventually turn into two rows, so at this point it's really a matter of usual format vs personal preference.

Also, one thing that you didn't mention was the positions in the infobox. I had included "forward" because Morrison started on the ground at half-forward on debut (and has been listed there again for this weekend's game) and went between the midfield and forward line – yes, I know that players that play almost exclusively in the midfield can drift forward sometimes, and this was only one game, but sometimes the position(s) that a player plays in at the top level can differ from the position(s) that they play in as a junior (and, mind you, that's only two years of playing). I haven't added it back – yet – but that's because I was going to wait until the end of the season and see if she spends a significant enough amount of time forward throughout the season before reassessing this particular point. Anyway, hopefully this clears up what you wanted to address. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, we'll shelve the less-important issues about table colours and full names. Couple of things:

1. Could you link me to that consensus on stadium names? I searched the project talk archives and couldn't find any discussions reaching that conclusion. The year when the discussion took place would probably be enough.
2. I understand your concern about an excessively lengthy lead. Would a 4–6 sentence paragraph be fine? It could mention position, the significant leagues and competitions she predominantly played in (TAC Cup Girls, U18 AFLW champs) and the most significant accolades (joint-TAC Cup B&F, joint-2018 U18 AFLW MVP)
3. Regarding positions; I simply deferred to however she was described in the sources (even very recent sources describe her as a midfielder: [1] [2]). If there's any ambiguity it can be explained in the article, and if her position changes during the season then it can easily be corrected in the infobox. – Teratix ₵ 12:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

With the venue name consensus, I never really looked for it myself, however I will say that it was Flickerd, a prominent editor in this area, who made me aware of this consensus some time ago, and I think it's fair – feel free to rehash the discussion at the project talk page, though, if you feel strongly enough about it. I personally think, for the current length of the article body, that the length of the lead is fine as it is (though I will understand if you disagree); it will inevitably expand (as will the rest of the article), however, as Morrison continues what is hopefully a stellar career and presumably wins more accolades/achievements. Regarding the positions, I understand what you mean, but it's not like the people writing these news articles were limiting her to that position, and I'm in no way insinuating that she isn't a midfielder. It's as I said: sometimes the position(s) that a player plays in at the top level can differ from the position(s) that they play in as a junior; for now, though, I'm fine with leaving that particular detail as it is, and we can reassess that later. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: well, so much for that idea – guess we'll have to revisit this in another year or so. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a shame. In the meantime, I've come up with an alternate lead:

Nina Morrison (born 13 December 2000) is an Australian rules footballer playing for the Geelong Football Club in the AFL Women's (AFLW). She has played as a midfielder since her junior football in the TAC Cup Girls and AFL Women's Under 18 Championships. Morrison was the first selection in the 2018 AFL Women's draft. She received a nomination for the 2019 AFL Women's Rising Star award in round 1 of the 2019 season, her debut match.

I think this a good compromise which keeps the length and repetition to a minimum while still including the key points. Especially at the current stage of the article and the player's career, where a good portion of the content is devoted to junior football, the lead should at least mention the bare essentials of the junior career to be a meaningful summary of the article. – Teratix ₵ 13:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done – I was never against adding something smaller to the lead, just not a whole paragraph, which you understand. What I've added instead is a bit more general and more of a short summary of her junior days, which I thought would be appropriate, and the wording places less emphasis on her position (which is why I didn't think the proposed wording would work) and more on summarising her achievements. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. – Teratix ₵ 00:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)