Talk:Norah Wilmot

BRD
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)
 * 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)
 * I really don't think that an infobox serves any useful purpose here. Giano    (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 21:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you, GoodDay., 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Wonder if there is a free version?
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

The Queen
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)


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


 * Ah, for once, an Issue I don't really have a strong opinion on! Carry on...   Montanabw (talk)  07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you have queens in Monatana then? Giano    (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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