Template talk:Infobox golfer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Golf (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Highest World Ranking[edit]

I think this infobox should have a section like the tennis players do which shows the golfer's highest world ranking to date. I'm not sure how easy it is to find each player's highest ranking, but I'm sure we'd be able to manage it. Christophee (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where we would find that information, I think it would be difficult. michfan2123 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
That kind of information adds no value to the infobox even if it could be found for anyone other than former number ones. wjematherbigissue 22:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that highest ranking should be in the infobox. Many articles about golfers already say something like "He has featured [sic] in the top [#] of the Official World Golf Ranking," which isn't even proper English. The new ranking graph feature at OWGR.com provides a fairly easy way to find a player's highest ranking. (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 16:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I've added a |role= parameter, defaulting to "golfer", because this infobox doesn't actually tell readers what the person is known for. I also added a discrete gender indicator, because, again, the infobox doesn't state that key aspect of the subject's being. My edits have been reverted with an edit summary of "unnecessary characters" but the gender symbols are not "unnecessary" - they display cited factual information about the subject which is not otherwise clear in the infobox, and not queryable programmatically (each symbol is marked up as an abbreviation, with the text value it represents). The revert also removed the possibility to change "golfer" to some other subheading where appropriate. I've restored the code for that reason, and so that people can see what is involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been reverted again, with an edit summary of "significant change without consensus". Please note DNRNC and that no consensus is required before changes are made. I also note that the editor reverting has made no response to my comments here; and no attempt to refute the points I made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:DNRNC, that's a policy is it?
Another interesting essay is WP:BRD, which says "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. Therefore, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus." Jevansen (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Which Andy did, he posted on this talk page. No one else responded on this talk page except another revert without any real explanation, this time by you. Even your comment above does not explain why you reverted the edit. Garion96 (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Not quite. He reverted User:Tewapack, then created this talk page discussion. Check the times. Jevansen (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that was an almost perfect BRD from Andy indeed. You still fail to explain why you are against his changes. Garion96 (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It was a perfect Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, discuss cycle. Clearly the same thing. Anyway, whether it's through reverts or talk page comments, I'm seeing plenty of objections to his infobox changes. Notice he still hasn't had the courtesy of informing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf of his intended amendment to their infobox, or the one he has already done. He has had his experiment, now it's time to get a Consensus. Jevansen (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not their infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You're right, my claim that WP:DNRNC is a policy is bogus. Oh, wait, where did I claim that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One month on, there has been no comment here suggesting a reason why my edit was not a good one, or explaining why it was reverted. I propose, therefore, that it be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What would "role" be other than golfer? This is infobox golfer after all. The gender parameter is as unnecessary here as has been stated in other discussions: Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 17#Gender, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes/Archive 7#Gender, and Template talk:Infobox snooker player#Recent changes. If a reader can't determine the subject's gender in the first few sentences then the article needs to be copyedited. And, the ♂ or ♀ symbols are not universally understood and are distracting. Tewapack (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Your opening question is a red herring. It may be that the label golfer is never changed to anything else, but that's not the point; as I noted in my openings sentence of this thread, "this infobox doesn't actually tell readers what the person is known for". the gender parameter is necessary, because, in a similar way, the infobox doesn't tell us whether the subject is male or female. Your point about the opening sentences is also a red herring; a key purpose of an infobox is to summarise key points, even if they are in the lede. That may be obvious in most (but not all) cases where there is a picture; or where the name is an gendered one from our own culture, but what about names like "Kim", or say, Chinese names? The symbols are marked up as abbreviations, but we could use text if you feel they're not recognised widely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm dead serious about the "role", what can it be other than "Golfer", and still have this infobox actually be used in an article? The version before your latest addition left the "— Golfer —" at the top of the box intact. Gender parameter has been rightly rejected elsewhere and I see no need for it here. A spot check of the other infoboxes you've added it too show little actual usage of the parameter. Tewapack (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, so what happens when this template is used for someone who was a golfer then, say, television commentator? The switch was added after complaints about exactly such cases, for other sportspeople. Your other argument appears to be "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS". Because you can see no need does not mean that others do not; that's what WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is about. As for "little usage, "WP:NODEADLINE" applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The golfer infobox only summarizes their golfing career, not there post-playing career. Secondary occupations should not be displayed at the top of the infobox, if anywhere in the infobox - they are rarely notable by themselves. Please point out those complaints. I am far from the only one who sees the uselessness of the gender tag as noted above. Tewapack (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The existence and common use of a death-date parameter rather negates your claim about the infobox's coverage ending when they cease playing golf. And such an occupation may not be "secondary", but of equal importance. Shared inability to appreciate usefulness is still not evidence of usefulness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Now you're really grasping. Please direct me to where "role" was requested for other sportspeople. Tewapack (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have been sidetracked. Shall we now restore the edit in question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Tewapack (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder whether anyone else has a view? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

PGA Tour Latinoamerica[edit]

I believe the events on this tour now have sufficient standing not to be classed as other wins but to have their own separate category on the info box alongside Australia, web.com and Challenge Tour. I have no idea how to add this and wouldn't want to without a discussion on here first but I think they should be classified separately to other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracland (talkcontribs) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There are six tours that only receive the bare minimum in OWGR points, six: Asian Development Tour, Korean Tour, OneAsia Tour, PGA Tour Canada, PGA Tour China, and PGA Tour Latinoamérica. I believe this shows their low status as seen by the golf world and that they don't need separate entries in the infobox. But if one is added then they all should be added. Tewapack (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clearing that up, and thanks for tidying up my other article, as I'm sure you can guess I'm not 100% sure on here yet. Tracland (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)