Talk:Norah Wilmot

A fact from Norah Wilmot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 November 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Florence Nagle and Norah Wilmot were among the first women licensed as racehorse trainers in Britain, after Nagle won a Court of Appeal ruling in 1966?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Nagle.

Wikipedia

Biography

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

Horse racing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing 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.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BRD[edit]

Well over 500 articles transclude infobox horseracing personality; it is common for articles throughout wikiproject horse racing to have infoboxes, (plus thousands for the actual race horses) and it is common for sports figures in general to have infoboxes. Please do not get into WP:OWN or WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues here. This is a project standard. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because info boxes are something you like does not mean they have to be used or are suitable for use in every article. I do not think it is necessary in this instance. I have already asked you at least once elsewhere to quit with the disparaging edit summaries aimed at my editing; kindly show some respect. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that an infobox serves any useful purpose here. Giano (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's phrase it differently: What harm does it do and why not keep this (and the related one) consistent with over 500 other articles about horse racing people? WikiProject Horse racing uses them extensively, so have you a GOOD reason to think it does harm? Seriously, all I'm seeing here is IDONTLIKEIT. And that is absurd Montanabw ^(talk) 22:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is written properly, all relevant information is easily accessible. An infobox can be distracting, easily be misleading or an oversimplification. One hopes that most people have an attention span longer than that of gnat and can bring themselves to absorb the information provided. There is no MOS rue demanding such a box, and on this page the principle content editors don't want one. That should be a good enough reason for you, but I suspect you will want to prolong this; it all gets rather tedious. Giano (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections to adding an infobox here & at Nagle, particularly if that's the standard practice for these sports related BLPs. But, you need to get a consensus for such additions, on a article-per-article basis. GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GoodDay. @Giano:, while I suspect that your mind is also already made up and I fear you have no intention of changing it, your argument this is not true for sports articles in general, where there is a need for some statistical information that is simply clunky as a narrativeyour reasoning is incorrect. (see, e.g. D. Wayne Lukas, Bob Baffert, and even a less-well-known trainer such as Kathy Ritvo) As usual, the "we don't like infoboxes" argument is basically, "anyone who can't be bothered to read the whole article is inferior to us so why should we provide a summary." But you also argue that they are "distracting" whereas I find they are intended to draw the eye as a design element (I find them particularly useful for U.S. Presidents, for example) The too simple yet too distracting" argument is weak even for the music and literature articles where it is most prominent, it is flimsier yet for sport. The principal content editors are not the only people allowed input, it is a consensus issue. Clearly, I do not have a consensus, but yes, I am willing to see if we can reach any kind of reasoned discussion here. I cannot yet locate Ms. Wilmot's or Ms. Nable's lifetime racing stats, but they should be found - and included. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but I have seen little to change my mind. If the person who created the infobox at D. Wayne Lukas had spent the time researching the subject that was obviously spent creating that huge box, it would be a far more informative article. Giano (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think the list that follows in the text is better than an infobox?; I don't. Let's try a better example, a GA that I worked on where we tweaked the infobox to collapse. A jockey, not a trainer, but same infobox (and also a table, later). Rosie Napravnik. Trust me, when dealing with sports statistics, infoboxes and tables are what we need. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if there is a free version?[edit]

Found this: Not free, but very cool. Wonder if a PD version exists: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/horse-trainer-miss-norah-wilmot-engaged-in-tackling-a-news-photo/3365186 Montanabw ^(talk) 05:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that a while ago, but it doesn't really show us what she looked like, whereas the existng picture does. Giano (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not proposing it for the lead, as I agree on that point, but possibly as an action photo elsewhere in the text; she was a horse trainer after all (though the image isn't precisely one of "training"); we did something like this for Lady Wentworth - lead image is a portrait, but horse photos elsewhere. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see what you mean. It woudl be great within the text to liven things up = presumably she's the one in the middle in the regulation hat - no real lady is ever seen without one. Giano (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen[edit]

I already know Eric's opinion and generally I agree with him and bow to his opinion on all matters of grammar, but this time I don't. To me, the Queen (when referring directly to ER2) is a definite individual person and should have an uppercase letter. It won't wreck the rest of my life or cause me to rechristen Eric if no one agrees with me. Hopefully Eric will forgive my temerity in challenging him. Giano (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS is certainly consistent with your interpretation – "When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II", but that seems far too deferential to me. Eric Corbett 17:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she's your queen not mine, but I do know that deferential etiquette demands that I should have said: "Her Majesty is your queen not my queen" as the Queen is never 'she.' So I suppose it's all down to how deferential do you want to be. Giano (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A true gentleman at work. Giano (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, for once, an Issue I don't really have a strong opinion on! Carry on... Montanabw ^(talk) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have queens in Monatana then? Giano (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few, mostly in Missoula. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance[edit]

Congratulations folks, on getting this article to appear at Main page's 'DYK' section. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]