![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Catalan. (June 2012) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
There is a little mistake: Pere Bertran was substituting Gener Rabassa, not in the opposite way. -- 83.36.31.145 12:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The question is not the position of this deed in the article but the description that some users are enforcing in it calling the Compromise as a unanimous election. This point of view is not concordant with the vast majority of historians, actually only one takes it. I ask to Escarlati and Maragm to stop this ideological fight for actual politics and respect the neutrality of the article as the rest of historians explain in their books (more than the shown at the references of the article!).-- Galazan ( talk) 14:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
-- EeuHP ( talk) 00:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia article, not a battlefield. Galazan, you are free to disagree with the weight that Escarlati and Maragm are giving one interpretation, and we can discuss that here, but to accuse them of using multiple accounts to circumvent a policy is a serious failure to WP:AGF and will not move this discussion toward consensus. The only way to get there is to tackle each item of contention individually and work toward an version that everyone can accept. The most recent reverts I saw were over the image, and that is what this Talk page thread started off with here, so let's solve that first. As I see it, Escarlati and Maragm feel the document image is most representative of the topic, EeuHP seems to favor the image of Ferdinand (after all, he keeps putting it back), Gala doesn't appear to care, and Mafoso has no stated opinion. Independent of whether the document is a representation of the process or simply a report of the result, it does appear to be closest to the heart of the specific event being described, so I have to agree that it is the one to lead with. That means there seems to be a strong preference (3 to 1) for putting that image in the feature position at the start of the page. Now, since Gala (and perhaps EeuHP and Mafoso) objects to the text describing the image, the best next step is to come up with alternative text, so Galazan, what would you like the caption to read - how would you like this image to be described so that the naive reader understands what they are looking at, while not giving undue weight to either of the contesting POVs? Then we can see what Maragm and Escarlati think of your version, and finally progress to pursuing a consensus in the body of the article. Agricolae ( talk) 14:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
About the position of the images: the subject of the article (most important thing) is the choice of a king, not the deed of proclamation. For a reader who begins a search for information is much more descriptive image of the deliberations or the king proclaimed that the deed. The position of the deed should be more where this refers to (Conflicts and deliberation). For example: at the Nuremberg Trials the main images are not the documents, are the images of the trial.-- Mafoso ( talk) 09:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Catalan. (June 2012) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
There is a little mistake: Pere Bertran was substituting Gener Rabassa, not in the opposite way. -- 83.36.31.145 12:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The question is not the position of this deed in the article but the description that some users are enforcing in it calling the Compromise as a unanimous election. This point of view is not concordant with the vast majority of historians, actually only one takes it. I ask to Escarlati and Maragm to stop this ideological fight for actual politics and respect the neutrality of the article as the rest of historians explain in their books (more than the shown at the references of the article!).-- Galazan ( talk) 14:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
-- EeuHP ( talk) 00:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia article, not a battlefield. Galazan, you are free to disagree with the weight that Escarlati and Maragm are giving one interpretation, and we can discuss that here, but to accuse them of using multiple accounts to circumvent a policy is a serious failure to WP:AGF and will not move this discussion toward consensus. The only way to get there is to tackle each item of contention individually and work toward an version that everyone can accept. The most recent reverts I saw were over the image, and that is what this Talk page thread started off with here, so let's solve that first. As I see it, Escarlati and Maragm feel the document image is most representative of the topic, EeuHP seems to favor the image of Ferdinand (after all, he keeps putting it back), Gala doesn't appear to care, and Mafoso has no stated opinion. Independent of whether the document is a representation of the process or simply a report of the result, it does appear to be closest to the heart of the specific event being described, so I have to agree that it is the one to lead with. That means there seems to be a strong preference (3 to 1) for putting that image in the feature position at the start of the page. Now, since Gala (and perhaps EeuHP and Mafoso) objects to the text describing the image, the best next step is to come up with alternative text, so Galazan, what would you like the caption to read - how would you like this image to be described so that the naive reader understands what they are looking at, while not giving undue weight to either of the contesting POVs? Then we can see what Maragm and Escarlati think of your version, and finally progress to pursuing a consensus in the body of the article. Agricolae ( talk) 14:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
About the position of the images: the subject of the article (most important thing) is the choice of a king, not the deed of proclamation. For a reader who begins a search for information is much more descriptive image of the deliberations or the king proclaimed that the deed. The position of the deed should be more where this refers to (Conflicts and deliberation). For example: at the Nuremberg Trials the main images are not the documents, are the images of the trial.-- Mafoso ( talk) 09:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)