Talk:Ian Ayre (tennis)

Infobox
There is no requirement for an article to have an infobox. See relevant Arbcom rulings. If he had won an Olympic medal, it would have the advantage of displaying the appropriate little colored box, but as it is it adds nothing to the data in the article and is purely a matter of personal editorial preference. I have therefore removed it again. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am waiting for one good argument why this article must have an infobox. Neither of the editors imposing the thing have contributed to referencing or filling out the article, and there is no requirement, according to Arbcom. Nor do I see it as useful. The article itself fits comfortably on the screen and provides all the data. Why is it necessary to have the ugly and useless thing that makes the article less encyclopedic? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a fact file which gives you quick, easy access to data - there is zero reason for removing it. Any tennis player deemed notable (i.e. has a wikipedia page) that doesn't have an infobox (the overwhelming minority) is because someone hasn't got round to adding one yet. You cite that we haven't "contributed to referencing or filling out the article" as if that has any bearing at all (even though I had included a couple of references for doubles results, but besides the point). Not that it's required in itself, but there is also information in the infobox that isn't contained in the small paragraph that is the article itself. I don't really understand what you have against the standard tennis player biography infobox that 90% of players on wikipedia have other than you think it looks "ugly"? Asmazif (15 August 2014)
 * Arbcom has ruled that infoboxes are neither required nor deprecated and that discussion - involving those who have built the article - is expected. There are types of article - such as ships, where the engine specifications and the list of successive owners are tedious in text, and species, for which the things were invented, which in current science require cladistics diagrams, and similarly languages and writing systems - for which a table can be justified. I also see its utility for Olympic medallists, and for association footballers; both involve tabular information (medals, teams played for and goals scored for them). But as a general rule, there is no advantage to pre-empting the article with a tacky box as if this were a junior high-school textbook. It's demeaning to apply them indiscriminately to biographies. Absent a specific reason, such as those I've mentioned, he argument of "quick, easy access to data" boils down to "the article doesn't matter, just read this instead". If you did indeed contribute to this article, thank you. But just because editors who personally like infoboxes have plastered them on 90% of tennis players' biographies, that does not mean there has to be one, and I do not see the advantage here. If some result or other was missing from the text, why didn't you add it to the text? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you have now re-reverted the damned thing in. OK, I am sorry Mr Ayre, I am unwatching this article. I hope you two single-minded infobox fanatics will watchlist it and protect it from any possible vandalism, rather than simply moving on to deface other articles because you personally like boxes more than you like articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was actually writing this directly after reverting it, you seem to be taking things too much to heart:

I can see your point of view, but it's still an opinion, and therefore there is no real reason to delete an infobox from a page other than personal preference on presentation - "demeaning" is a bit melodramatic. These infoboxes are used to display essential information as well as in this case, the best slam performances for the player, both singles, doubles, mixed, davis cup, etc. I believe it to be useful in almost every instance with tennis player pages, though of course that's my personal opinion. as for them displaying the ethos of "the article doesn't matter, just read this instead" - no, it's used to compliment the article, people can obviously (and will) also/instead read the main body of the text. When referring to the actual sports results themselves (rather than careers and biographies in more details), they lend themselves to display/factboxes rather than prose in my opinion. Asmazif (15 August 2014)
 * I share 's opinion: out of deference to the creator, one should refrain. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's pretty needlessly getting rid of information, a simple display box of a sportman's greatest sporting results. Asmazif (15 August 2014)
 * No, it's getting rid of needless duplication, in this case. The box is bigger than the article. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It also conflicts with the article. This source that I cited states that although he was on the Davis Cup squad three times, he never played in a match. The thing really is a detriment here. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)