Talk:Christopher Martin-Jenkins

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange POV segment

I just excised the following:

"Martin-Jenkins is a strong supporter of public schools, viz his comments in his 2007 Cowdrey lecture:

"The consequence is that young people are getting an increasingly contracted, one-tracked view of sporting life and also that those who want a decently written report on a county match, or, even in the small print, to know the scores in - say- The Cricketer Cup, the Walker Cup, the President’s Putter or the Queen Elizabeth Cup at Henley, are increasingly in danger of not being able to get them."

The Cricketer Cup is a competition only open to old boys of public schools, the President's Putter only open to graduates of Oxford or Cambridge Universities and the Princess Elizabeth Cup only to current students of schools."

I have no strong opinion on whether the editorial opinion derived from the context-less quote is correct or not, but as presented it's pure WP:SYNTHESIS. What would be needed is a reliable source drawing that inference from those remarks.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Infobox

The infobox I recently added to this article was removed with an edit summary of "rem drive-by addition of "info" box: please discuss properly on the talk page". I can't find a Wikipedia policy on "drive-by" editing. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What an odd statement about a policy on drive by editing - can we try and keep at least vaguely to the point? There is no need for an infobox for this article - and certainly not one that looks so ridiculous as to be longer than the rest of the article on some screens. The same facts appear in the article above their needless repetition in the summary box. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It is you who chose to invoke "drive-by" editing, not me. The unusual appearance of the article on your system, which is by definition different to most people's, is of minuscule import. You make no suggestion as to why the contents of the infobox are not suited to this article, so it seems reasonable to deduce that your objection is to infoboxes per se, in which case, you should take that objection to a centralised discussion to test whether your views coincide with the consensus of the community; a community which generally sees its well over 1.25 million infoboxes and their repetition of key points from articles as useful to the readership, and the metadata they emit as worthwhile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

An infobox is perfectly appropriate - indeed I added one (and SchroCat reverted it) without being aware of this discussion. There is no reason whatsoever not to have one, and it collates useful biographical information into a consistent and easy-to-find location. I strongly urge SchroCat to replace the infobox. Modest Genius ^talk 19:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I support adding back the infobox, in fact I have just done so.--ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm staggered by the bad faith here. There is an ongoing discussion about the infobox and yet you just go ahead and add it back before the conversation has run its course? I'm utterly disgusted by these actions that you cannot even be bothered to discuss this properly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, three different people independently thought that an infobox should be added. You're the only one against it, and have presenting no arguments (other than 'it was drive-by, we should discuss it first'). Modest Genius ^talk 21:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a discussion: you wait til its finished before enacting decisions. You at least wait for more than an an hour and a quarter for other editors to come online. (I'm excluding your first addition, which I think was probably in good faith, not having seen this discussion). Not to wait, but to force the issue is staggeringly poor practice. Just to clarify, I have presented arguments: (the information appears below ALL the text on two systems now - one a wide screen, one a narrow screen laptop). Having an summary box, with the information below the article text is pointless: people will read through the article, scrolling down before they get to the summary. With such a short article we've moved straight into the laughableWP:DISINFOBOX territory here. Additionally—and as I've aready said—it looks ridiculous; it contains such pointless trivia (who gives a flying monkeys about his school or university. Years active? Misleading: he was active between 1945 and 2013, not the rather pointless field in there). Once you've stripped out the pointless and misleading shite there really is little reason to have much beyond his name - maybe his DoB, but not much else. Either way, it's still a bad faith addition not to at least forewarn an ongoing discussion what is about to happen - and to wait for people to come back. There is no reason to rush to add something in: the aritcle is going nowhere in the meantime. - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Without getting involved in any wider issues, there is something of a precedent for having an infobox here. Several cricketing journalists have one: Alfred Pullin, Jim Kilburn and Neville Cardus. For radio commentators, Brian Johnston (probably the closest equivalent as a radio commentator) has one. Other such commentators are often former players, so often have the standard cricket infobox with some extras added, such as Henry Blofeld. So in this case, I think an infobox could be argued quite comfortably. Perhaps the information could be improved, and certainly the article could, but I don't think there is too much wrong with the principle in this case. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

All very good points which should be taken into account in a discussion. It is the ignoring an ongoing and active discussion that is utterly poor practice in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)