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 sourcedmust 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
Ebony Antonio is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Koavf, what's wrong with "Emily Bates battled hard in the middle for the Allies, while King, Brennan and Ebony Antonio were in the best" (and listing Antonio under the Allies' best players further down) in this source? How can you say that the honour isn't sourced at all? If there's any website whose opinion you'd take notice of as to who the "best" players in a match were, it'd be afl.com.au (given womens.afl didn't exist at the time), and she actually needs to play (rather than be named but then not play due to injury, etc.) to achieve the honour, so any sources naming her in the team prior to the match can't be used. Also, as far as I'm aware (having never seen it before), this isn't something that we do at Australian rules footballer articles. 4TheWynne(talk•contribs)00:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4TheWynne, I pressed "Ctrl+F" and didn't find that string in the article. If it's sourced, please add that back with a reference, per WP:V. You'll please excuse me if this comes across as rude (I am particularly sensitive to this issue) but "we don't add captions for the blind because who cares if they can learn about Australian rules football" is not a compelling argument. As I referred you to, all data tables need captions. Why would Australian rules football somehow be exempt? Did you read MOS:TABLECAPTION? I'm just confused by this line of reasoning in principle. I'm happy to work with you on improving this article but WP:V and MOS:TABLECAPTION are not negotiable, so I feel like I'm at a loss here for how to find compromise on including unsourced information and either having or lacking a table caption for basic accessibility for the blind. I only came here because this article had unsourced claims in it and I did not expect pushback on including sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, I pressed Ctrl-F and found the string no problem (it's not that far into the article, so it's not that hard to find anyway). Don't twist my words – I'm not intimating that we shouldn't have captions, just saying that we don't (currently). I don't really mind when it comes to adding the captions, provided that it's not just at one article – hence what I said in my edit summary at the template (that this should be discussed at project level, as it affects multiple templates and thousands of articles that don't utilise this). I don't know why you keep saying that the honours aren't sourced, because they are – like with the infobox, citing sources in honours and achievements sections just isn't something that we seem to do if the honour is mentioned/sourced in the body, and if it isn't, that's when it isn't included in the section at all. 4TheWynne(talk•contribs)04:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4TheWynne, Why should something that has consensus for the entire encyclopedia be removed to discuss at the project level? Should we have a few hundred localized discussions at all projects to just ratify what the community had a month-long RfC about? Since it's pretty painless to add <ref name="foo" /> to show that something is sourced in the body of the article, it seems best to do that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf (regarding the extra citing), if that's what makes you happy... I don't see how it's as important as these captions seem to be, though. With the captions, all I'm saying is don't just change one template and one article, as it creates unnecessary inconsistencies (hence the "pushback" from people like me) – at the very least, you could make the same edit to the ten or so AFL/AFLW statistics templates and then bring it up at WT:AFL so that you can explain why it needs to be done; this way, other WP:AFL editors can get to work on adding captions to the thousands upon thousands of articles instead of you doing it all yourself or (as I feared you were doing) just leaving it at one article. 4TheWynne(talk•contribs)06:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4TheWynne, Yes, I was just planning on editing one article. If you would like me to post somewhere and add a few more, that is doable. Thanks for working with me on this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯07:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, I still don't think you've gone about this the right way – you should have edited the other statistics templates like I suggested, not a selection of other player articles and different tables (thereby creating even more inconsistencies). At least we've continued this discussion at a more appropriate forum where more people are likely to weigh in. 4TheWynne(talk•contribs)08:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, I've gone and just done them myself. Just to be clear (as I think my underlying message somehow keeps getting lost in all of this), I was not trying to coerce you into editing any of these templates (and fair enough, I should have listed the specific ones I was referring to), just saying that I don't think you should just edit one/a small selection of them (depending on the type) and leave the rest; yes, I know you're trying to create project-wide change mostly based on MOS (as what you're trying to change is pretty consistent across the project), but that was only after I suggested you bring the issues that you have up at project level. 4TheWynne(talk•contribs)11:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, this isn't a collaboration... there isn't even much discussion, you're just enforcing MOS:TABLECAPTION on a small selection of our templates and I'm just giving into your wishes (even though I don't agree with a lot of these changes), at least until other people get in on the discussion. Doesn't feel like much of a collaboration to me. No need to reply, though, as there's another more important discussion to continue. 4TheWynne(talk•contribs)22:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4TheWynne, Agreed: I didn't see that you had undone my accessibility edits that have site-wide support. It definitely seems a lot more like, "I don't like this" and me enforcing accessibility guidelines (is that a bad thing?) It's unfortunate to see that you are tacitly agreeing that you are interesting in undoing what the community has all agreed to for the benefit of the disabled community based on personal preference. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
