Talk:Penny Rowson

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 article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Cycling Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling 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.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Do we need an infobox in a stub article?[edit]

The infobox practically contains as much information as there is in the main text. I tend to look favorably on infoboxes but strictly when they add encyclopaedic value. I fail to see any such value here. Comments, anyone? -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I add infoboxes to every article I create. For cyclists, it displayes all the relevant info about their team history, and per other infoxes, displays the subject's age. It looks odd, to me at least, just to have a floating image of a subject, with no infobox. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are a matter of choice and not of necessity. If there is a dispute, consensus is sought. Jimmy Shales knows , Wikipedia has been through a lot of infighting on the subject of infoboxes! We do not need more aggrevation by "add[ing] infoboxes to every article [we] create"! Please consider, Lugnuts, if an infobox is really necesssary for a stub article, when the information in the infobox is practically the same as in the main text. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any response, please, Lugnuts? What may look "odd" to an editor is actually the default practice in Wikipedia. A significant number of Wikipedia articles contain images of their subject without an infobox in them. The two do not necessarily go together, either by convention or esthetically. Here, moreover, we have the preposterous situation of an infobox in a tiny stub article! -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You made a statement, not a question, hence no reply. There's no real reason to remove the infobox, apart from you not liking it, is there? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the Cycling Project has an infoxbox in its style guide in "an effort to standardize the cyclist biographies". Maybe you would like to start a WP:RFC to change it? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I opened this discussion by presenting my point of view about having an infobox in this article and invited comments from others, and first of all by you, since you're the one who reinstated the infobox. I don't understand what more would one want from the initiator a public dialogue.

As to having infoboxes as something "standard" in every article about a cyclist, you're totally wrong, Lugnuts. The relevant style-guide, WP:CYCLING, states simply that the cyclist infobox is designed to be used in any cycling biography. It jhas been designed, and it is ready & there to be used; but its use is not mandatory. (Anything to the contrary would contravene MOS:INFOBOXUSE.) The cycling style-guide then suggests we check out the Template:Infobox Cyclist for "usage instructions." There, we learn that Infobox Cyclist is intended for elite (professional) cyclists across disciplines and should only be used for racing cyclist professionals competing at Olympic or World level. The subject of this article evidently falls outside that category, so even if we wanted to have an infobox (which is, again, not mandsatory for any type of article), the guide advises against that. Moreover, as I kept pointing out, this is merely a stub of an article! (Which is another proof of the relatively low professional status of our cyclist subject.) In conclusion, I ask you to remove this entirely redundant infobox. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. I'm sure you've got more important things to do than this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right now, this issue is what's important to me, in Wikipedia. You claim I had not "made a question" and when shown explicitly the error of your ways, you argue the text it's "too long." A pity but there is a better way of moving on from here. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for infobox[edit]

Closing per request WP:ANRFC. The consensus appears to be to retain the infobox, with three editors adopting this view, against one who takes the opposite view. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article with the biography of a cyclist should have an infobox, Yes or No? -The Gnome (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per the above of "an effort to standardize the cyclist biographies". No real reason to remove it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but honestly what a thing to have an RfC about! Generally, I think infoboxes are good for sportspeople, as they provide a quick snapshot of the person's career. The answer to the imbalance between the body and the infobox would seem to me better solved by expanding the article. Harrias ^talk 16:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No since the infobox is meant to offer a condensed info of what's in the main text. And here, after a lot of effort (by me, as it happens) the article has been expanded to perhaps more than it is worth: It's about a cyclist who was active for 3-4 years, never won anything of notability, and then suddenly retired. Infoboxes in a stub article seems preposterous. The justification offered about "standardizing" cyclist articles does not hold water: Infoboxes cannot be part of any standardization, since their use everywhere is shaped by the relevant guidelines, i.e. they are never mandatory. Equally preposterous is the justification, advanced in the discussion above, of having an infobox in the article because the portrait doesn't look good outside one. -The Gnome (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per Harrias. I particularly agree with their first comment. If the topic fails notability, it should not be here. (summoned by Legobot). · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would you, Peter Southwood or Harrias, would suggest is the way forward when there are two strongly held opposite positions about an issue, such as this? This is a simple, little RfC to resolve it and move forward. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if the concern was just this one stub article, then after the initial attempt to remove it, I'd have shrugged and carried on with my life, happy I'd probably never come across the article again, and aware that it really wasn't much of an issue. If I felt that it was a wider issue within cycling articles, I'd have initiated a discussion at the cycling WikiProject. If simply a wide-spread issue for sporting stubs, then maybe at the village pump. But a RfC for the inclusion of an infobox in one specific stub? Not the method I would have chosen. But I have to grant you that it has generated some more discussion than you would probably have otherwise got, so I guess I can't fault the results. Harrias ^|talk]] 14:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Harrias. Appreciate it. It's just not the way I approach my work in Wikipedia. The discussion above the RfC was an attempt at a meeting of minds but unfortunately the other party was not into deliberation and thorough discussion (e.g. see comment "TLDR"). Then they suggested an RfC so I started one here first. -The Gnome (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much like Harrias suggests. Why bother to remove it, it does little or no harm. (Rhetorical question.) I am not interested in a tirade against infoboxes, they almost always do less harm than the squabbles to remove them. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm generally in favor of infoboxes; for that, I've been many times at the receiving end of the anti-infobox possee's wrath.

-The Gnome (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.