Talk:Ron Evans

Bizarre New INFOBOX (possibly an idiosyncratic intrusion, rather than WikiProject AFL Policy)

See [1] for the discussion. Please place all discussion there until a coherent set of instructions is issued by someone connected with the WikiProject AFL.

Just for reference, my initial question, is repeated here:

I refer to recent work I have performed on the article about Ron Evans. Yesterday, the INFOBOX on the article looked like this [2].

Later, when I went to check on something else (namely, the accuracy of the links that, supposedly gave Evans' particulars as an individual connected with SPOTLESS, and found the supplied link to be "dead") I discovered that User 121.222.160.84 (Talk) had dramatically changed the appearance of the article with what he/she had coded as "Infobox afl player NEW".[3]

It does not appear that this new table comes under the general umbrella-term of VANDALISM, but, in the nature and form that it presently has, it certainly does de-stabilize the transfer of knowledge to a naïve and uniformed reader.

(1) Is this some new policy -- namely, that this sort of INFOBOX must now be used?

(2) Does it [viz., this potential new policy] intentionally have one of these totally-inappropriate-to-earlier-times 2008 generic designations (shorts, talls, etc.) in calling Evans' (195s and 1960s) position "Forward", rather than what it actually was when he played at Caulfield Grammar, at Essendon (whenever he played a full senior game, rather than as a reserve), and at West Perth: namely, that of "Full Forward"?

To me, is just as absurd as refusing to allow other accurate and specific-to-earlier-times designations such as "flick-pass", "drop-kick", "place-kick" to appear on a page in a VFL or AFL article simply because these terms do not apply to the game in 2008.

(3) Next, and this is what is causing me great personal distress. . . Why is it the case that, with this strange and unusual new INFOBOX, the career highlights of Evans are (as a default!) automatically hidden from view?

And, to further compound my distress and disquiet, this "default" of "HIDDEN" must be identified, disengaged, and converted to "SHOW" on every single occasion I visit the page.

(4) Can somebody please explain why, apparently as Wiki policy (i.e., the policy of something that presents itself as an Encyclopaedia), the extraordinary decision has been made -- if, in fact, it has been made at all (which would be the case if this strange infobox is simply an idiosyncratic usage by User 121.222.160.84 (Talk)) -- to make the Career Highlights box default "SHOW", rather than "HIDE".

This choice, of having "SHOW" rather than "HIDE" as the default, when viewed from any sort of structured thinking perspective must be one of the strangest choices that could have been possibly made, given the fact that a large number of the INFOBOXES within the articles of those players from earlier eras have nothing at all in the "Career Highlights" section; and, thus, I am required to do an enormous amount of extra work, simply to discover that there is nothing there.

Surely from any sort of knowledge provision perspective, one should automatically assume that, in all cases, all readers want all information immediately; and, consequently, provide a means for the unusual reader, who does not require all information at all time, to specify such conditions in their own particular case. In other words, the default should be one of "I opt in", rather than "I opt out".

(5) Can somebody please explain why all the details of the player's debut game, debut stadium, debut team, and debut opponent are no longer considered important by the WikiProject AFL??

Anyway can somebody with some authority and some knowledge of the WikiProject AFL please look at this matter for me, and explain to me what is going on??? (Obviously, if this is nothing more than some idiosyncratic attempt by User 121.222.160.84 (Talk) to alter the state of play, the 5 questions above do not apply, and either you or I can simply reverse his/her work.)

For all discussion on this matter of WikiProject AFL conventions, please make your contributions at [4], rather than here.Lindsay658 (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - -

The following has been copied from [5]:

This may not be the correct location for this WikiProject AFL question. Unfortunately, if there is a more appropriate place, I can not find it.

I refer to recent work I have performed on the article about Ron Evans. Yesterday, the INFOBOX on the article looked like this [6].

Later, when I went to check on something else (namely, the accuracy of the links that, supposedly gave Evans' particulars as an individual connected with SPOTLESS, and found the supplied link to be "dead") I discovered that User 121.222.160.84 (Talk) had dramatically changed the appearance of the article with what he/she had coded as "Infobox afl player NEW".[7]

It does not appear that this new table comes under the general umbrella-term of VANDALISM, but, in the nature and form that it presently has, it certainly does de-stabilize the transfer of knowledge to a naïve and uniformed reader.

(1) Is this some new policy -- namely, that this sort of INFOBOX must now be used?

(2) Does it intentionally have one of these totally-inappropriate-to-earlier-times 2008 generic designations (shorts, talls, etc.) in calling Evans' (195s and 1960s) position "Forward", rather than what it actually was when he played at Caulfield Grammar, at Essendon (whenever he played a full senior game, rather than as a reserve), and at West Perth: namely, that of "Full Forward"?

To me, is just as absurd as refusing to allow other accurate and specific-to-earlier-times designations such as "flick-pass", "drop-kick", "place-kick" to appear on a page in a VFL or AFL article simply because these terms do not apply to the game in 2008.

(3) Next, and this is what is causing me great personal distress. . . Why is it the case that, with this strange and unusual new INFOBOX, the career highlights of Evans are (as a default!) automatically hidden from view?

And, to further compound my distress and disquiet, this "default" of "HIDDEN" must be identified, disengaged, and converted to "SHOW" on every single occasion I visit the page.

(4) Can somebody please explain why, apparently as Wiki policy (i.e., the policy of something that presents itself as an Encyclopaedia), the extraordinary decision has been made -- if, in fact, it has been made at all (which would be the case if this strange infobox is simply an idiosyncratic usage by User 121.222.160.84 (Talk)) -- to make the Career Highlights box default "SHOW", rather than "HIDE".

This choice, of having "SHOW" rather than "HIDE" as the default, when viewed from any sort of structured thinking perspective must be one of the strangest choices that could have been possibly made, given the fact that a large number of the INFOBOXES within the articles of those players from earlier eras have nothing at all in the "Career Highlights" section; and, thus, I am required to do an enormous amount of extra work, simply to discover that there is nothing there.

Surely from any sort of knowledge provision perspective, one should automatically assume that, in all cases, all readers want all information immediately; and, consequently, provide a means for the unusual reader, who does not require all information at all time, to specify such conditions in their own particular case. In other words, the default should be one of "I opt in", rather than "I opt out".

(5) Can somebody please explain why all the details of the player's debut game, debut stadium, debut team, and debut opponent are no longer considered important by the WikiProject AFL??

Anyway can somebody with some authority and some knowledge of the WikiProject AFL please look at this matter for me, and explain to me what is going on??? (Obviously, if this is nothing more than some idiosyncratic attempt by User 121.222.160.84 (Talk) to alter the state of play, the 5 questions above do not apply, and either you or I can simply reverse his/her work.)

Also, finally, can you please answer my question here, rather than somewhere else.Lindsay658 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you put brief notes in some of these places: Talk:Ron Evans, Template talk:Infobox afl player NEW (this last page doesn't exist, but you can create it) and User talk:121.222.160.84, inviting people here for discussion about it. Then discuss it with whoever shows up over the next few days, or if nobody except yourself does, then change it to the way you think it ought to be -- especially if you've made sure that 121.222.160.84 has been consulted. I hope this suggestion is helpful to you. You might want to review the WP:CONSENSUS policy. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However, what you have said does not seem to help very much. Also, as far as I can tell, this page is the best page because it deal directly with the issue of the conventions of standardized INFOBOX use in AFL articles; and, to me, it needs somebody connected with the WikiProject AFL to instruct me in relation to the, to me, non-standard INFOBOX that (a) has been inserted unilaterally despite an agreed convention that might cover as many as 10,000 indiviual articles, and (b) does not allow all of its internal information to be shown immediately. (Also, I left a message at User talk:121.222.160.84 directing him/her to this page. I also "copied" my initial question to Talk:Ron Evans, requesting that any contributions be made here.) It would seem that to have this matter sorted out — which certainly seems to be one connected with me getting directions about the very WikiProject AFL conventions, innovations, etc. that are the subject of this page — are far better discussed here. So, in summary, my request for guidance still stands, and my request still occupies this location.Lindsay658 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to the preceding, a further search reveal that matters discussed at [8] and, especially, at [9] may have something to do with this over-zealous, anachronistic "2008-oriented" intrusion into an otherwise convention-abiding "earlier era of Aussie Rules" article. As you can see at [10], and at [11], I have also requested that User:Allied45 give us all the benefit of his/her wisdom on this matter.Lindsay658 (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly sure this is the work of User:Allied45, who might not have been logged in at the time. I don't think there was any sort of grand decision made by WikiProject AFL - in any case that is not important as there is no "authority" over these articles. WikiProject AFL has no more power than anyone else over improving articles. Editors often make big changes without discussion first because it can take too long to get a wide response, and often nobody really cares/minds all that much (although apparently not in this case). So my advice is that if you are convinced of an improvement that can be made - feel free to make it! Get in there and change the Career Highlights to show by default, etc. Wikipedia encourages you to be bold and make edits you think are an improvement. If someone harks up then bring the discussion into here. (It is a big shame that this template change was made as a new template instead of changing the existing one - it means it is not practical for you to revert the changes, and that until the full conversion is done there will be articles with the old template, and some with the new one.) Remy B (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, firstly I didn't create the Infobox discussed. That was User:Boomtish, so you may want to get his/her say on this matter. I did implement the show/hide feature on the infobox, only because some articles had long infoboxes, but only short articles, so the fully extended infobox would take up too much space compared to the rest of the article. The show/hide feature is used in many infoboxes such as Template:Infobox actor for awards won, and Template:Infobox Chef for various items. So this infobox is not alone. Also, nothing is stopping you from adding older footy terms for players of the relevant periods. I also think the players' debut details should be mentioned on the new infobox as the other infobox has, and you can certainly add these to the infobox if you want, as well as anything else you think is needed or not needed. - Allied45 (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your input. My question was, in essence, one relating to conventions. It is now very clear from the above that, whatever might happen in relation to this new sort of INFOBOX, it does not apply to those who played VFL (or WANFL, SAFL, TFL, etc.) football -- or, as well, to those who played AFL football prior to, say, 2007.

One of the principal reasons for this difference is the plain historical fact that, although it seems from today's perspective that the VFL was, indeed, the highest standard competition in the land, it was not the elite Australia-wide competition that we see in the AFL of 2008.

And, moreover, there will never again be the phenomenon of "recruits" entering the competition at, say, the age of 24 (Malcolm Blight, North Melbourne Football Club, 1974) and most certainly there will never again be a "recruit" like Charlie Hardy, at 5'1" (155cm), a member of Essendon's famous "Mosquito Fleet", and later coach of Essendon from 1928 to 1930, who played the first of his 36 senior games with Essendon in 1921 at the age of 34.

You might say "But that was a different era!" That is precisely my point. Yet, it must be clear to you all that the fact that these things will no longer occur does not alter the fact that these sorts of things reflect previous times, and that the status quo of those previous times -- which reflect something like 12,000 individual players (in the VFL and AFL alone) -- must be clearly and unequivocally represented in any thorough historical record of the game's past. I will remove the imposed anachronistic INFOBOX from Ron Evans and, in its place, insert a slightly revised edition of the one it had replaced. Once again, thanks for your valuable input.Lindsay658 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - -

I have removed the anachronistic infobox for the reasons outline above, and replaced it with an amended version of the earlier version.Lindsay658 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)