Talk:Jonty Rhodes

Pic

a pic would be nice?

It would. The problem is that freely licensed pictures of cricketers are not easy to come by; we can't just yank one from a magazine and claim it's fair use. Loganberry (Talk) 02:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hockey

I'm pretty sure he was a South African field hockey representative as well though the article makes no mention of this.

Position of photo

Hi Mikker, I hope we're not going to start a little revert war about the positioning of this photo. To reply to the points you raise:

• 1 Conventions certainly are only important if they make sense - this one does not. Putting a photo amongst a ream of ststistics is logically and aesthetically unsound.
• 2 I would ask you not to be abusive or use strong language - it will not help to resolve any problem.
• 3 Consensus means a trend or position which is supported by a majority - there is no evidence of this.

Finally please cite the guidelines stipulating images should be within the databox, and bear in mind that even if there is such a guideline, Wikipedia stresses that guidelines are not hard and fast rules. Paul venter 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just coming in as a third party here, and I haven't seen the previous version by Mikker. But to me the current layout is not aesthetically good. (side-note: I browse with pics off to save bandwidth but I do see the pic place-holders.) It is a bit jarring to have the pic on the left with the text running down the middle of the page. As far as putting it in the infobox, iff we got a landscape pic then yes, it should go in the box and replace the current left-aligned pic. It would neaten up the layout and is consistent with most other articles that have infoboxes with pictures. Zunaid©® 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC.

Sorry to butt in guys, but every other cricketer article (or even any famous peronality) has their photo in the infobox. See Imran Khan for instance. Also note, the infobox has a section saying "image" for this reason. Not just convention. I really don't see why Paul is insisting on having the photo outside the infobox? I really do think there is a consensus here, and it is that the photo goes in the infobox.Rueben lys 14:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I have better things to do. Just follow the damn conventions. Mikker ^(...) 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm glad you have better things to do - I was beginning to think that this was your sole occupation. Infoboxes should do what their name says: they should contain info not photos. If someone who helped design the template included a position for a photo, then he was misguided and one shouldn't cement that mistake and then whine "tradition", "convention" or most pathetic of all "but other articles also do that". For heaven's sake, rattle your grey cells just a little bit and realise that an infobox is a totally unsuitable place for a photo. This article is about a person, and the first thing a user wants to see is what that person looks like, not to find some microscopic likeness crunched into a box of statistics.Paul venter 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Paul, please have a look at any article relating to any sort of famous personality. Wherever there is an infobox and a photo, the photo has been put in it. This is not only because of convention, but because it is an intergrated information box. If you see what I am trying to say, the photo is not the only thing about Jonty Rhodes. And wikipedia is not simply an image gallery. When somebody looks up this article, the first thing that jumps out that huge abominable photo. It is quite a rude shock actually. (This is how I found it when I first looked up this article). If you put the photo in the infobox, you get the stats which you're looking for, and you get a very good idea how Jonty Rhodes looks like. The aim of this article is however, not to publicize how he looks like, since you can have the article without the photo, if you see what I am trying to say. And please have a look at other cricketer's article and see what we're saying.Rueben lys 15:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rueben, not one of the comments I've made above seems to have found a fertile niche. If you find the photo abominable, then I will get it withdrawn and there should be no further friction. I don't know what you mean by "integrated information box", but if the idea behind such a box is to remove as much material from the body of the article as possible, then obviously grammar, syntax and language will become redundant, and every factoid in an article will have a slot in the infobox. Somehow I don't think Wikipedia intend having that as an ideal arrangement. I agree that the aim of the article is not to publicise the subject's looks, but then neither is the aim to produce a super-concentration of facts in something called an infobox. Rather, an article is a blend of a number of aspects that balance each other - images and text, hard statistics and character insights, and so on. I'm putting the image back where it was, and if you still object, then I will get it deleted. Paul venter 21:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul venter seems to be taking the name "Infobox" and not only treating the "info" part as a rigid description, but insisting that information can't be visual. Why? This seems to be onomatolatry (neol.), at best. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear as to Zunaid's position, but the position seems to be that five or six editors on this page are saying that the image should be in the infobox, and one rejects this. In what sense is this not consensus, even apart from the consensus indicated by usage in other articles? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, but I must point out, as far as I am aware, you don't own the article or the image. You can try to get it deleted if you wish, and if it was uploaded under a false license or distribution, I am sure it could be deleted. But I don't think a disagreement over it's position is good grounds for deletion. And really, we're trying to work towards a consensus. Please understand, it's nothing against you or your views. It's just that the image is disproportionately large, and keeps everything awa from view when you open the article if you put it where you want it to go. As I said earlier (and everyone else is saying still), it looks good, feels good, and fits in coherently in the infobox.Rueben lys 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite right Rueben, I don't own the article, but then neither do you. My perception of the situauion is that you have adopted a stance and will not modify it for any reason. I have run into the same dinosaurian attitude on a few other pages, and I sincerely hope that your attitude will go extinct, because I don't think that Wikipedia benefits from such intransigence. Paul venter 07:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul, please desist from making personal attacks on my attitude and views and whether they are beneficial or not. I am trying really hard to assume good faith on your part, respect your views, and build a consensus in keeping with what everyone has to say. I expect the same courtesy from you.Rueben lys 12:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

First of all, if you wish to leave any messages for me (which I hope you won't), please do so in the talk page. Secondly, if you see here I have consistenetly tried to respect your views and tried to make you see mine (ours). In fact everyone has before you've started calling everyone dinosaurs and Tyrannosaurs etc etc and accused them baselessly of engaging personal attacks and ultimately managed to piss them off. I have even gone to the request for comment to solve this issue, to build a broader consensus with more editors. Thirdly, you've consistently tried not to see anybody else's point, and insisted that you're point holds or the photo gets withdrawn, much like a school kid wanting to get included in the team. And lastly, I have stopped assuming good faith on your part, because obviously you do not wish to engage in a constructive process. I do not wish to carry on this conversation. Please do not post on my talk page (or even my user page) unless if it's a matter of life-and-death.Rueben lys 14:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I did not understand what you meant by your message.

Which is exactly why you should not be editing the English version of Wikipedia........Paul venter 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"I have consistenetly tried to respect your views" "huge abominable photo" "quite a rude shock actually" Rueben, these are your comments and if you can't laugh hysterically when you see their inconsistency, then you really do wear rose-coloured blinkers about yourself. Paul venter 16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is enough: if Paul venter moves the image again, against clear consensus and Wikipedia guidelines, he will be blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, there are no clear guidelines justifying your position, neither does the so-called consensus mean much. What you have here is simply mob rule with the slogan "if enough of us feel this way, then it must be right, mustn't it? - surely we can't be wrong...."Do look up User:clawson, User:Runcorn and User:AED - you have a lot in common and should soon become bosom buddies Paul venter 08:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul, for God's Sake!!! Do yourself and the rest of us a favour, take a deep breath,chillax, stop thinking the world is out to get you, and generally stop getting stressed. The world is actually a nice place.Rueben lys 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rueben, I thought you were through talking to me. Don't flatter yourself into believing that you have stressed me - I've come across much worse than you. And I do think this world is a very nice place - except for the bits that you have touched. Have an excellent day. Paul venter 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

HahaRueben lys 11:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

If you continue to move the image at Jonty Rhodes, against consensus and Wikipedia guidelines, you will be blocked from editing for disruption. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mel Etitis, Someone obviously showed bad judgement in giving you blocking powers to enforce your POV. The consensus you talk about consists of three editors who are hidebound in their conservatism and interpretation of guidelines. Block to your heart's content, and the only thing it will prove is your abuse of power which you should not have been given in the first place. Paul venter 14:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't say that I'd block you; I can guarantee, though, that someone will. Secondly, it isn't only three editors; I counted at least five editors beside myself, all of whom disagree with you. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style: Images

To resolve your matter, please review Images Manual of Style, image choice and placement, and generally image help. -- Jreferee 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 17:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it me?

Or does the photo with the caption Jonty and wife look like a palm tree or something. Probably me. Never mind. --Tom 17:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Request for Remediation

It appears that there is one editor (Paul venter) who is disagreeing with the rest over the placement of a photo in the infobox. With the lack of any black and white ruling on the issue, we must base our decision on convention. Almost all of the bio articles on Wikipedia of at least this length have a photo in the infobox. As such, I believe that there should be a picture in this infobox. If Paul venter, or anyone who shares his beliefs, can find a rule or policy, or some kind of precedent, that contradicts my opinion, then I will be more than happy to change my opinion. Until that time, however, I must stress that the picture remain in the infobox. However, a picture of Rhodes in action would be much more appropriate for the infobox than a zoom-and-crop job on a photo which is used later in the article. Most importantly, however, let's not turn this into a revert war which will only serve to get people banned Bensmith53 08:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits/reverts of 20-21 January 2009

Hi. I edited the page yesterday to revert the date-links to unlinked versions (of which there were MANY) as per the new MoS recommendations (date-linking only benefits registered users rather than 99% of our readership). At the same time I removed some unreferenced statements ("widely regarded as the finest fielder in the history of the game"), as well as the factoid about him playing for Ireland (which I myself added way-back-when). As it turns out, Ireland has invited several players to play for them (including Hansie Cronje), thus the fact that Rhodes turned out for them is of no importance to Rhodes' career taken as a whole. I've also reworded some sentences to make it read better. Taken as a whole I think I've improved the article, however I was reverted by Dodger67 citing "over-zealous deletion". The only deletions I made were the Ireland factoid and the unreferenced statements (any editor is allowed to remove unreferenced material, the burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to add material). The diff does seem big because every paragraph is affected by the date unlinking, but overall there is not much info removed. I'm posting here looking for consensus opinion of other editors. Thanks. Zunaid 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I will concede that your changes to date-links are correct. I don't accept your reason for deleting the information that he played for Ireland. Why should such information be supressed? The statement in the intro paragraph "widely regarded as the finest fielder in the history of the game" is fully supported with citations in the main body of the article. According to the MoS statements in the introduction of an article do not need citations provided the same facts/opinions are presented with proper citations in the main body of the article - the relevant cites are numbers 2 and 5. Roger (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-retirement section.

The section is full of undated contradictory information. It seems like every time he changed to coaching a different team a "current" statement was simply added to the section without stating when anything began and ended. The word "currently" is completely meaningless in this context. Roger (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonty Rhodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120914002254/http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Cricket/245/91db30e579f94bffaf1cec30b25e254d/14-01-2010-07-34/Jonty_dumps_wife_for_girlfriend to http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Cricket/245/91db30e579f94bffaf1cec30b25e254d/14-01-2010-07-34/Jonty_dumps_wife_for_girlfriend

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)