Talk:Kate Heffernan

Unhelpful edits

• @Mpk662: Please use the talk pages to explain edits. Not the summary bar. Very unprofessional. If someone can't be "a Twenty20 International" then why is there a List of New Zealand women Twenty20 International cricketers. Bates and Kasperek were her team mates. Perfectly reasonably to mention them in this article. Now please grow up and stop your unhelpful edits. Djln19 Djln19 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Djln19:

• She is a cricketer first and foremost. Yes, she played two Twenty20 Internationals, but she also played 11 List A matches and 17 T20s for Otago. Look at most cricketer articles, from Eoin Morgan to Kaia Arua, and the opening sentence will describe them just as a "cricketer", reflecting to fact they play/played both internationally and domestically. Yes, Twenty20 International cricketers exist, but describing a player as "a Twenty20 International" is rare, and usually reserved for describing the match type itself.
• Yes, Bates and Kasperek were her teammates, but so were eight other players. Why should only Bates and Kasperek be mentioned? It's not as if they had (as far as I am aware) any notable partnerships/occurrences with Heffernan. The choice seems to be between listing none of her teammates or all of them, rather than randomly listing a couple. The article is about Heffernan, so it seems enough just to mention that she was part of the team that won that particular tournament. Mpk662 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• First of all she is far more notable as a netball player. Just because other cricket articles have been badly written does not mean this one should be as well. Just linking her to a generic article about cricket adds nothing. Linking her to List of New Zealand women Twenty20 International cricketers shows exactly why she is notable. Based just on domestic cricket matches played, she would not be notable as cricket player.
• Along with Heffernan, Bates and Kasperek are mentioned in both the 2016–17 New Zealand Women's Twenty20 Competition article and in the reference provided. This justifies their inclusion. Just because the article is about Heffernan, does not mean other people cannot be mentioned. For example, the article about Eoin Morgan mentions several other people. I lost count. This is an absolutely ridiculous point. Just about every decent Wiki bio mentions other people. Djln19 Djln19 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Djln19: I'm not saying she's not more notable as a netball player - she is. And I'm also not saying she shouldn't be linked to the T20I cricketers article, or that other people shouldn't ever be mentioned in article. However, the opening line of a Wikipedia article is pretty standard (and does not need to do all the work to establish notability) - NAME is a NATIONALITY PROFESSION. Heffernan is a New Zealand netball player and former cricketer. It also keeps it simple for a general reader (including those reading from a netball perspective), who may not know what a Twenty20 International is. On Bates and Kasperek, I just don't see why only those two should be mentioned. Yes, they are prominent internationals, but Katey Martin and Beth Langston played in the final too. Again, for a general reader, it may imply that only those three made up the team that won the tournament, which isn't the case. Far more interesting, perhaps, to mention that Heffernan took 4/21 in the final and was behind only teammate Kasperek in the most wickets standings?

Honestly, though, if neither of us want to back down on this, I'm happy to notify other editors at WikiProject Cricket and WikiProject Netball (or elsewhere if preferred - although the Netball Project has a note saying it's inactive, but as this dispute mainly relates to the cricket section of this article that's probably the best one to notify anyway) Mpk662 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have given you my answers already. Nothing you have said here convinces me to change my mind. Stop treating Wiki readers like idiots. If a reader does not know what a "Twenty20 International" is, they are just a click away from finding out. It's not rocket science. This is how Wikipedia has always worked. Plus the suggestion that someone might think her cricket team might only have three players is just laughable and is also treating readers like idiots. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. The article was perfectly fine before your tinkering and I would grateful if just left it alone. I am absolutely stunned you are making such a big issue over this. Have you seriously nothing better to do. There are thousands of cricket articles that need improving. Why don't you work on them. If you insist on getting a third opinion, I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport might be better. Djln19 Djln19 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Mpk662 is clearly right here from a cricketing perspective. I don't think I've ever seen anyone called a Twenty20 International - male or female, in any source. It's certainly extremely uncommon. Just add the word cricketer and no one gets confused - as you had it I think a non-specialist reader would assume that a Twenty20 International was something to do with netball. Fwiw, I tend to be of the view that we should be treating Wiki readers as non-specialists. Not as idiots, but as people who might have happened across a page and want to know more about it. We absolutely should not be requiring them to click on something when adding a single word clearly solves the problem Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have added the scoring stat from final that thought should be included. Djln19 Djln19 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• I've posted on WikiProject Cricket and WikiProject Women's Sport in an attempt to get some sort of resolution. Mpk662 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• I am happy for the word "cricketer" to be added to the intro, if you think it adds clarity, but the other tinkering needs to stop. The cricket infobox clearly has "Years" not "Seasons". Plus your version just looks cluttered and confusing. Plus stop with long winded explanations in the summary bar. Djln19 Djln19 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• The use of 2016/17 is the preferred way to do seasons, per the cricket infobox documentation. It's not cluttered and confusing - it adds no clutter and tells someone that she played for 3 seasons. Which she did. Rather than 2016-2019 which gives the impression that she played for four seasons, which she did not. It's a subtle difference but one that can become important and that's generally considered a less confusing way to do things. This, fwiw, might be a good time to realise that there are people trying to make this a better article.

Personally I'd rather leave a specific edit summary so that it's clear what I've done and why I've done it. In the past it has been suggested to me that I do that. So I do. As you've raised it here, I'll reply to your point - but there's no real need for me to have done so as all the information I needed to impart was in the edit summaries really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Each of the cricket seasons in New Zealand span multiple years, so 2016/17 is the correct way to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In the cricket infobox it clearly says "Years" not "Seasons". So the "cricket seasons in New Zealand" argument is just absolute nonsense. It needs to be changed back. Djln19 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Following the same pattern as every other cricket article is sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Not if they are badly edited and can't tell the difference between Seasons and Years. Otherwise we are just mindless sheep. Just makes Wikipedia look stupid and unprofessional. Djln19 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Plus the team was known as Otago Sparks when she played for it. Please just stop your ridiculous childish edits. Next stage will be a report to an admin. talk Djln19 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to get an admin involved if you want. Wikipedia editing is based on consensus, and there are three editors here, all part of WikiProject Cricket, saying that 2016/17 is the way New Zealand seasons go in infoboxes. Again, easy to look at any cricketer who's played in a country that has their season in the Southern Hemisphere Summer to see that's the standard way of doing things. As to Otago Sparks, definitely a case could be made either way for having Otago or Otago Sparks (just Otago being the historic name, Sparks being a nickname used today), but for consistency's sake with every other Otago cricketer, it makes sense to me to go with just Otago here (unless you want to change every other New Zealand cricketer of course, in which case I'd suggest raising it at WikiProject Cricket to gain consensus). Mpk662 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Basically you just got two other editors who clearly don't know what they doing to agree with you. Congratulations. You should be very proud. Djln19 (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I find editors who don't know how to edit a violation. Especially when they mess up articles, start an edit war and then invite other "editors" to join in. But it looks like I'll have to put up with. I suggest you do the same. Djln19 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)