![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This edit is disputed. A text-based list, or alternatively a presentation more like this one, would improve usefulness and accessibility for the reader and reduce the problem of template bloat. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@ PlanespotterA320: - drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - if you continue to personalize the dispute and make false accusations, it will not end well for you. As for the issue at hand, it's not standard practice to put medal images in the infobox, they should be formatted as per the example Nikki cited in her first post here. Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION is the relevant section of the Manual of Style that covers this sort of thing. Parsecboy ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Making explicit for transparency the notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Request for input at Natalya Meklin Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow... what a thread. I was directed here from a discussion at WT:MILHIST. I definitely don't want to get into any of the wider issues, off-topic debates or flame wars, but I will say that on the subject of awards and decorations, we typically don't add icons or device images to the infobox, certainly not in a ribbon rack format. Infoboxes usually contain a plain list of awards, and even then only major awards. If the list becomes lengthy, its collapsed. Most military BLPs have an "awards and decorations" section, usually near the end of the article/bottom of the page. These sections contain device images with linked descriptions and often sources, if not found elsewhere on the page. On US military BLPs (the ones I edit the most), the devices will usually be in a ribbon rack display, identical to the one that would be on the BLP subject's uniform, and below that a table with linked award descriptions in the same layout as the rack, to make identification quick and easy. (This BLP is an example: Frank E. Petersen#Military awards).
I'm not sure if the same holds true for Russian/Soviet military BLP pages (I suppose I'll find out as I start to edit more of them), but in this case, on this page, I have to agree with Nikki, Cinderella and even Parsecboy, among the others that have put forward a consensus here. As such, I have added the award device images to the list (article body, not infobox) and re-added the complete list, as opposed the having half of it replaced with "and various other awards". It's still a list format, which I don't think is ideal, but its certainly an improvement visually and only adds information, which I can't see being a problem. (JMHO) - wolf 18:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea why everyone here wants this article to be an exception to standard practice,". That is called "consensus". You've said it yourself, "everyone". I realize that's an exaggeration, but just the same, several editors have spoke up here about this. Conversely, has anyone here supported your version? You said there was a consensus in support of your edit... where is it? I asked you for this already, but you still have not provided it. You say your version is "standard practice". Where? You say the MoS "strongly discourages arguing over formatting"... yet that is exactly what you are doing here; "arguing" with everyone. This was not my edit, I re-added content that was originally added by another editor, content that is supported by other editors here, but you keep changing it to your preferred version. This is known as tendentious editing, with battleground behaviour. And repeatedly controlling content in an article like this is also known as attempting to exert ownership over it. When you repeatedly revert, instead of following WP:BRD, you are edit warring. All of this is collectively known as disruptive editing. You say most Soviet bios aren't written like this. Again, where? The English WP? Can you provide anything to support this? (and the slow-edit war you've engaged in?) Anything beyond just your say-so? Perhaps a recent consensus about this very issue? Or a specific policy or guideline about this very issue? If not, then you should stop removing (reverting) this content, and leave it as the version supported by consensus. You are needlessly removing information. The article is quite small, only 9.5Kb, (this is after you removed ≈15% of it), and beyond that, WP is not made of paper. There is no reason to remove content, just because you don't like it. I look forward to your answers to these questions. - wolf 17:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen your formatting before." - It's not "my" formatting and clearly you didn't look at the linked example (one of many) that I included above.
There is practically an unwritten rule that you shouldn't list jubilee medals" - Really. An "unwritten rule". That's what your basing your argument on...?
If you go look at Russian Wikipedia" - Maybe that is your problem. This is the English Wikipedia. The standards at that project have nothing to do with this one. Don't confuse the two.
There was a vote at warheroes.ru..." - Which means absolutely nothing here.
You will NEVER find a biography of a Soviet World War II pilot that lists the jubilee medals they received except on a Wikipedia article written by people unfamiliar with jubilee medals." - Unless apparently, there is a consensus to include them, which would only be disputed by people unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
I request that you stop this and read a few dozen Soviet pilot biographies at ru.wikipedia" - Uh, no. I request that you read few dozen (and more) policies & guidelines here at en.wikipedia.
And Ukrainian Wikipedia. And Russian Wikipedia. And Chuvash Wikipedia. And Chechen Wikipedia. And Uzbek Wikipedia." - Again, this is the English Wikipedia.
Please do give weight to those wo are more familiar with Soviet awards". - "Weight" is given to proper, reliable sourcing and consensus, not your personal preferences.
This is getting ridiculous. There may be a lot of editors here that want them on this one article, but why the heck should one article go against all the rest of Wikipedia" - That is called consensus.
Don't set rules about things you do not understand." - Of all the condescending, insulting comments you've made, that is actually kind of funny.
Nothing you have said here justifies your reverts. If you don't agree with the consensus, then go about it the right way; post an RfC and try to change it. Meanwhile, not only do you not have a reason to remove that content, but if it remains in the article, it will not cause the website to blow up while you pursue proper means to seek change, so stop edit-warring already. - wolf 21:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I've made it very clear that your formatting is not good for the everyday Wikipedia reader, considering the high number of people using mobile devices to read it. Not to mention that is certainly goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. And you removed some important things, like one of her native names (very useful in google searching). I noticed you were so fast to revert my edit you didn't realize you removed important information establishing notability in the heading, causing you to have to revert your own edits. So calm down.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 00:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
And we never add numbers icons to Soviet ribbons." - The article at Order of the Red Banner says different. FYI - wolf 01:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Since Nikkimaria was pinged, and there was an attempt to canvas admin with disingenuous info to have the page locked, perhaps the other participants here should be pinged as well; such as Parsecboy, Cinderella157, Kges1901 and Biografer. Hopefully we can collectively come up with a solution. - wolf 05:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
So instead of comparing apples to oranges..." Er, I am comparing English Wikipedia articles to English Wikipedia articles, in other words, I'm comparing apples to apples. I'm not sure why you feel that articles about Russian military subjects should receive some kind of special exemption from consensus, policies & guidelines or standard, common practices, but they don't. I'm not sure why you feel you should be the sole arbiter of what content does or does not go into these articles, but you're not. I'm sure you put quite a bit of work into these articles, and that is certainly appreciated, but they belong to the project, they can and will be edited by other editors here, and are subject to Wikipedia's rules. Just because you don't like something, doesn't give you edict to repeatedly remove it, to the point of being disruptive. I think that these are important points that you really need to understand. - wolf 19:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Having been pinged in consequence of my earlier comments, I offer the following:
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
In regards to point #2 by Cinderella157, I had already considered alternative formats, other than the simple list (which is not my preference, but I didn't want to put to much effort into anything if it's just going to be continuously removed).
The typical format found on more and more American and UK/Commonwealth military bio's is the ribbon rack followed by a medal table. I think this is most beneficial to the readers because it allows them to correlate what they see on ribbon racks worn on uniforms. Then the subsequent table of course provides the links. This also gives the article a better appearance, and rounds it more while often taking up less space. A lengthy list of medals will predominantly take up the left side of the page, leaving a great deal blank space on the right. And of course, the longer the list, the more page that is needed.
Basically, for Meklin, it would look like this;
(keep in mind that the templates used here for the ribbons would have to swapped for image file links, so they can be enlarged. Unless the enlargement can be done via the template, but I'm not aware if that's possible. I just quickly put this together for demo purposes.)
Interestingly, this has the benefit of including the ribbon rack presentation style that PlanespotterA320 repeatedly asked for earlier in this discussion and had previously attempted to add to the article infobox (though it's since been made clear that the infobox is not the appropriate location for that).
I'm willing to find and add the image file links for the ribbon bars so they can be enlarged, but I'll wait until I know that the effort won't be wasted. - wolf 23:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The very premise that the image needs ribbon icons is false. Yes, I changed my mind. I have been unable to find a single photograph of Natalya Meklin wearing a ribbon rack (she only wore the medals, and often after the war she wore only the gold star), defeating the purpose of having ribbons at all. Not to mention, designing something like a table or chart for ribbon bars is very time-intensive - it is easier for all of use to have a plain bulleted list, with the names of awards wikilinked if users want to know more about an award.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 01:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The very premise that the image needs ribbon icons is false." - Based on... what?
Yes, I changed my mind." - So that's what you base all your reverting and vehement opposition on? A "change of mind"? At least you admit you did at one point support the additions of award ribbons, like so many others on WP do.
I have been unable to find a single photograph of Natalya Meklin wearing a ribbon rack (she only wore the medals, and often after the war she wore only the gold star), defeating the purpose of having ribbons at all." - So based solely on not being to find an image of her wearing her award ribbons, you are trying to affirmatively assert that she never wore them? And as long as we have sources supporting that she was awarded these medals, what's wrong with visually displaying them for the readers? (Whether you have an image of her wearing them or not?)
Not to mention, designing something like a table or chart for ribbon bars is very time-intensive" - Actually, it's not at all difficult to do and can be done in relatively short order. As you can see, I've already done the layout of both the ribbon rack and the medal table for this article (just need to enlarge the ribbons). You didn't, and don't, have to do anything.
it is easier for all of use[sic]
to have a plain bulleted list, with the names of awards wikilinked if users want to know more about an award." - Speak for yourself. Even then, repeating it over and over, does not make it so. We should think about what is best for the readers, and on that point, you haven't addressed any of my comments in that regard. - wolf 03:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry to say this, but PlanespotterA320's most recent comments above are just more of the same; unsubstantiated arguments, based solely "I. don't. like. it". He has repeatedly removed content based on nothing other than opinions such as; "The article does not need ribbons" and "The ordinary reader does not need it" and "Icons RUIN the article". I'll say it again, this is a military bio article on the English Wikipedia. Unless he can offer a reason based on the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia, I see no reason to continually override consensus. Further, I believe there is now an onus on PlanespotterA320 ( talk · contribs) to explain why he has suddenly gone on a mass-deletion spree, removing the awards sections from dozens of bio articles, just in the past couple days. Pinging @ Nikkimaria:, @ Parsecboy:, @ Kges1901: and @ Cinderella157: This WP:OWNership behaviour is now out of control and affecting multiple pages. - wolf 19:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)First off, don't threaten me. Second, if you are now "editing per consensus", then you should have no problem abiding the consensus here and stop removing content that was added, per consensus. Third, as for these other articles, so... you admit you added all those award ribbons? So only now, because you've railed against them sooo much on this page, you're removing them from all those other pages? Why not just move them article body where the "awards" section is? To clarify, this is what I would like you to explain. Fourth, as long as you continue revert-warring, tendentious and disruptive editing, violating consensus and WP's policies & guidelines, violating WP:OWN, IDLI, IDHT, BATTLE, I will continue to accuse you of such, hence the accusatory tone. If, however, you would like to finally
drop the stick and go to WP:DR, like I suggested ages ago, the you won't have to worry about tones anymore. Lastly, I can refer to you "she" all you like, but, in light of the fact that I innocently used the other pronoun, and in view of your on-going behaviour here, you are the last one who should be preaching to anyone about "rudeness". -
wolf
20:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Added note: Just because you list some images of one member of the Soviet military (post 1943) not wearing ribbons does not "substantiate" anything. This is an English Wikipedia article... what about that do you not get? -
wolf
20:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Both parties in this dispute need to calm down, as this is getting very much out of proportion, even more so than before. Thewolfchild, PlanespotterA320 simply removed the ribbon icons from the infobox, which is accepted as ribbons without explanation in the infobox are generally frowned upon; these articles still have awards sections in the body. Planespotter, what Thewolfchild is referring to as DR is WP:Dispute resolution, not deletion; this seems to be a misunderstanding that is inflaming the issue. Kges1901 ( talk) 23:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
if you bite the newbie" - wtf?
I will ping every admin on my speed-dial." - Feel free to start pinging. The sooner the better, the more the better.
Connect the dots ... that's a warning" - wtf??
I will not let an article I am proud of be ruined." - It's not for you to decide what does or does not go into an article. Or what "ruins" it.
And honey, the whole point of a ribbon rack in an article is to help with visual identification of the awards on a person's ribbon rack their photos"
Thewolfchild and PlanespotterA320, since my last post, the tone of the discussion has become personal and hostile, in which, I do not think either party is without blame. Trying to reach a consensus on the subject question has stalled.
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni, thank you for your reply. The matter has been discussed extensively with input from outside editors, including myself. I am involved, to the extent that I have expressed an opinion but I am not invested in the issue. I am much more interested in resolving the dispute. I am optimistic that, once this particular issue is resolved, normal editing might resume. I am thinking that a request for closure (other) might be appropriate and intend making such a request. Ping Thewolfchild and PlanespotterA320. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
As indicated, I have posted a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards. I have also notified this request at MilHist TP. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Cinderella157: I'll again thank you for your efforts to close off this discussion, hopefully with a resolution. Speaking on the content issue only, and leaving other concerns aside, this about the repeated removal of content, first added by Nikkimaria and supported by consensus. That is all this is really about. You identified that consensus yourself in your comments above (but that consensus was not noted in your otherwise well-written RfCl). Just after the content was again removed, the page was locked. That consensus should still be recognized and the edit re-added, when the page is unlocked, if not immediately. If PSA320 wants to challenge that edit, properly, then per wp:brd they should leave the content in place and seek a new consensus via wp:dr, which would likely require an RfC (you can tell me if any of that is incorrect). That is all I have asked of them all along. This should not be a case of " the squeaky wheel gets the grease". The proper steps should be followed, just like everywhere else, by everyone else. Thanks again - wolf 04:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
In response to the request for closure of the above debate at WP:ANRFC#Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards, here's what we're going to do. There's no way I'm going to wade through all of the above. WP:TLDR, for sure.
I've created two blank subpages, one for each of the two major contributors to this debate. Each of you should provide a concise summary of your positions. Concise means no more than 250 words. I'm going to use
this web page word counter to enforce that. Check your work before submitting it. If the tool says 251 or greater, I'll reject your comments. Use your quota wisely. Stick to policy-based arguments. I don't need a blow-by-blow history of how this debate evolved, or who said what.
When you've completed your comments, update this page with a permalink to the exact version you want me to look at, and ping me. When you've both submitted your arguments, I'll make a decision.
I'm assuming nobody other than User:PlanespotterA320 and User:Thewolfchild will want to comment. If anybody else does, ping me and I'll consider setting you up with your own page to comment (and most likely, a smaller quota).
PS: to clarify, the sub-pages you want to edit are:
@ PlanespotterA320 and Thewolfchild: neither of you have responded here, but I see both of you have been active. I'm assuming that means you have no interest in getting this resolved, so I'm just going to close this discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Pinging others that have been involved in the discussion as a courtesy and per suggestion of Wolf: Nikkimaria, Parsecboy, Kges1901, Biografer, TonyBallioni, Peacemaker67 and K.e.coffman
Replace this text with your comments... Per WP:ICONDECORATION, I think and many other editors it is best to leave out ALL award icons in the article in ALL places. Plainlists are everywhere, and there is no possible way to interpret any policy as a ban on them. But the issues with the complexity of the Soviet awards system and the frequency of no-merit jubilee medals (which obviously few people here are familiar with) renders many of the most common ways to format icons very redundant, excessive, and disruptive. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Do_not_use_too_many_icons. By the way, editing the manual of style during a discussion so that quotes cannot be found (not naming names) is VERY frowned upon. The example of Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig does not contain half a dozen medals of being alive every decade and anniversary: there is no need for the average Wikipedian to see a full list of jubilee medals with icons. I would also like to note that the formatting method was additionally unusual in that there would sometimes be more than one icon per row in the list, resulting in an one row of icons in between text on a narrow screen. The icons DO NOT aid the reader in understanding the accomplishments of Meklin, that is what text and biographical details are for. Not a single one of Melkin's colleagues from her regiment have the formatting proposed by wolf and Cinderella in their articles - Meklin is not a biographical exception to her colleagues, so neither should her biography be. Icons are so small anyway they are impossible to see without a magnifying glass anyway - how can they help the reader? If a reader wants to know more about a particular award, they can click the wikilink. Please do not make Meklin's article look like a Brezhnev meme - if you don't understand anekdoty like that, you probably shouldn't be in this discussion in the first place. While the icons and table options are fine for Western military people, such systems are hardly compatible with the Soviet awards system - where not all military awards have ribbon bars and many civilian awards do, and being alive every decade is something awarded. I do not see how Cinderella's proposal is a compromise - how is having icons a compromise in an argument between having icons (wolf) and not having them (me, biographer, K.e.coffman, and others). As for the "K.e.coffman's view above is hardly the consensus position across the project on the presentation of military awards in articles" - that is complicated. Kecoffman's view is the exact consensus for Soviet soldier and Commonwealth of Independent States biographies (except for Marshalls), but not the consensus for Western military biographies due to the difference in award systems. But because Meklin was a Soviet citizen and she received primarily Soviet awards, we should follow the general consensus for Soviet military biographies, which matches coffman's opinion.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 05:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The initial discussion was in respect to using medal ribbon icons in the infobox. This has been resolved. The current dispute is whether to use them in an awards section of the main text where they are referred to as a ribbon rack. A list might also be made, with or without icons. Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig is an alternative presentation most useful where medals and not ribbons are worn in accompanying photos. There are arguements that ribbon icons are acceptable and not contrary to WP:ICONDECORATION in that they allow cross-reference with a photo. This utility does not rely on colour in the photo but is enhanced by it. I tend to favour this and in this specific case, a list with icons (given that medals are worn). I note there is no P&G specifically for or against such options so it comes down somewhat to preference (for which there may be good arguements). My preference is a compromise between the position of the two protagonists.
Note: per comment by Peacemaker67: "K.e.coffman's view above is hardly the consensus position across the project on the presentation of military awards in articles."
Other editors have commented and have been pinged. It appears that the two protagonists don't wish to partake of this process; however, it may be possible to reach a close based on past comments and any further input from involved editors. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@ RoySmith: - First off, I didn't receive a notification about your proposed essay contest here, and since PsA320 didn't jump in here with yet another long winded lecture about how we should all just let her do whatever the hell she pleases, otherwise Wikipedia will fall, etc. (and good luck keeping her to 250 words), it would appear she wasn't notified either, so your ping didn't work. But I wouldn't participate in your one-on-one format here anyway, because you're going about this the wrong way, every editor involved in the "discussion" should be involved here. I didn't join this "discussion" until almost a year after it began. By that point, other editors had contributed, a consensus had formed and I simply tried to edit according to that consensus. I saw how she managed to chase everyone else away and eventually I decided to take a break from this timesink as well. Enter you;
If you want to resolve this properly, then you should notify all the editors who were involved, not just Psa320 and me, and hold an RfC, which you could then moderate (this is not unlike a recent suggestion made by another admin). Then, perhaps we could re-establish consensus and have it implemented without any further disruptive interference from any self-entitled page-owners. Cheers - wolf 17:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thewolfchild and PlanespotterA320: RoySmith has responded to my request to close the discussion per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards. They have explained their reasons for the process they have adopted in requesting each of you to add a statement. This process adopts eliments of DR. Roy, it does appear that you did not actually ping the two "participants", so Wolf does have a valid point in that respect. Wolf, the balance of your response is largely unhelpful and personalises the dispute. Having made your point about the ping I would suggest you consider striking you edit in full. It would be a significant show of "good faith" and a favour to me. PsA320, I would ask the same of you. I have pinged other involved editors as a courtesy. Roy, I hope we are able to move forward. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys, it doesn't look like I can do anything useful here. Have fun. I'm out of here. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys, it doesn't look like I can do anything useful here." "Can"...? Of course you "can", if you choose to. But, thanks anyway I guess. I would like to point out that another admin, Peacemaker67 was able to assess the entire discussion and gave a synopsis with this comment, a salient part of which states; "
As far as I am concerned, I am getting the sense from this TLDR thread that PlanespotterA320 has a strong sense of ownership over this and other related articles. Stop flooding the talk page and accept that there are differing and equally valid opinions on this.". That about sums it up.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This edit is disputed. A text-based list, or alternatively a presentation more like this one, would improve usefulness and accessibility for the reader and reduce the problem of template bloat. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@ PlanespotterA320: - drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - if you continue to personalize the dispute and make false accusations, it will not end well for you. As for the issue at hand, it's not standard practice to put medal images in the infobox, they should be formatted as per the example Nikki cited in her first post here. Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION is the relevant section of the Manual of Style that covers this sort of thing. Parsecboy ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Making explicit for transparency the notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Request for input at Natalya Meklin Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow... what a thread. I was directed here from a discussion at WT:MILHIST. I definitely don't want to get into any of the wider issues, off-topic debates or flame wars, but I will say that on the subject of awards and decorations, we typically don't add icons or device images to the infobox, certainly not in a ribbon rack format. Infoboxes usually contain a plain list of awards, and even then only major awards. If the list becomes lengthy, its collapsed. Most military BLPs have an "awards and decorations" section, usually near the end of the article/bottom of the page. These sections contain device images with linked descriptions and often sources, if not found elsewhere on the page. On US military BLPs (the ones I edit the most), the devices will usually be in a ribbon rack display, identical to the one that would be on the BLP subject's uniform, and below that a table with linked award descriptions in the same layout as the rack, to make identification quick and easy. (This BLP is an example: Frank E. Petersen#Military awards).
I'm not sure if the same holds true for Russian/Soviet military BLP pages (I suppose I'll find out as I start to edit more of them), but in this case, on this page, I have to agree with Nikki, Cinderella and even Parsecboy, among the others that have put forward a consensus here. As such, I have added the award device images to the list (article body, not infobox) and re-added the complete list, as opposed the having half of it replaced with "and various other awards". It's still a list format, which I don't think is ideal, but its certainly an improvement visually and only adds information, which I can't see being a problem. (JMHO) - wolf 18:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea why everyone here wants this article to be an exception to standard practice,". That is called "consensus". You've said it yourself, "everyone". I realize that's an exaggeration, but just the same, several editors have spoke up here about this. Conversely, has anyone here supported your version? You said there was a consensus in support of your edit... where is it? I asked you for this already, but you still have not provided it. You say your version is "standard practice". Where? You say the MoS "strongly discourages arguing over formatting"... yet that is exactly what you are doing here; "arguing" with everyone. This was not my edit, I re-added content that was originally added by another editor, content that is supported by other editors here, but you keep changing it to your preferred version. This is known as tendentious editing, with battleground behaviour. And repeatedly controlling content in an article like this is also known as attempting to exert ownership over it. When you repeatedly revert, instead of following WP:BRD, you are edit warring. All of this is collectively known as disruptive editing. You say most Soviet bios aren't written like this. Again, where? The English WP? Can you provide anything to support this? (and the slow-edit war you've engaged in?) Anything beyond just your say-so? Perhaps a recent consensus about this very issue? Or a specific policy or guideline about this very issue? If not, then you should stop removing (reverting) this content, and leave it as the version supported by consensus. You are needlessly removing information. The article is quite small, only 9.5Kb, (this is after you removed ≈15% of it), and beyond that, WP is not made of paper. There is no reason to remove content, just because you don't like it. I look forward to your answers to these questions. - wolf 17:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen your formatting before." - It's not "my" formatting and clearly you didn't look at the linked example (one of many) that I included above.
There is practically an unwritten rule that you shouldn't list jubilee medals" - Really. An "unwritten rule". That's what your basing your argument on...?
If you go look at Russian Wikipedia" - Maybe that is your problem. This is the English Wikipedia. The standards at that project have nothing to do with this one. Don't confuse the two.
There was a vote at warheroes.ru..." - Which means absolutely nothing here.
You will NEVER find a biography of a Soviet World War II pilot that lists the jubilee medals they received except on a Wikipedia article written by people unfamiliar with jubilee medals." - Unless apparently, there is a consensus to include them, which would only be disputed by people unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
I request that you stop this and read a few dozen Soviet pilot biographies at ru.wikipedia" - Uh, no. I request that you read few dozen (and more) policies & guidelines here at en.wikipedia.
And Ukrainian Wikipedia. And Russian Wikipedia. And Chuvash Wikipedia. And Chechen Wikipedia. And Uzbek Wikipedia." - Again, this is the English Wikipedia.
Please do give weight to those wo are more familiar with Soviet awards". - "Weight" is given to proper, reliable sourcing and consensus, not your personal preferences.
This is getting ridiculous. There may be a lot of editors here that want them on this one article, but why the heck should one article go against all the rest of Wikipedia" - That is called consensus.
Don't set rules about things you do not understand." - Of all the condescending, insulting comments you've made, that is actually kind of funny.
Nothing you have said here justifies your reverts. If you don't agree with the consensus, then go about it the right way; post an RfC and try to change it. Meanwhile, not only do you not have a reason to remove that content, but if it remains in the article, it will not cause the website to blow up while you pursue proper means to seek change, so stop edit-warring already. - wolf 21:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I've made it very clear that your formatting is not good for the everyday Wikipedia reader, considering the high number of people using mobile devices to read it. Not to mention that is certainly goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. And you removed some important things, like one of her native names (very useful in google searching). I noticed you were so fast to revert my edit you didn't realize you removed important information establishing notability in the heading, causing you to have to revert your own edits. So calm down.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 00:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
And we never add numbers icons to Soviet ribbons." - The article at Order of the Red Banner says different. FYI - wolf 01:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Since Nikkimaria was pinged, and there was an attempt to canvas admin with disingenuous info to have the page locked, perhaps the other participants here should be pinged as well; such as Parsecboy, Cinderella157, Kges1901 and Biografer. Hopefully we can collectively come up with a solution. - wolf 05:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
So instead of comparing apples to oranges..." Er, I am comparing English Wikipedia articles to English Wikipedia articles, in other words, I'm comparing apples to apples. I'm not sure why you feel that articles about Russian military subjects should receive some kind of special exemption from consensus, policies & guidelines or standard, common practices, but they don't. I'm not sure why you feel you should be the sole arbiter of what content does or does not go into these articles, but you're not. I'm sure you put quite a bit of work into these articles, and that is certainly appreciated, but they belong to the project, they can and will be edited by other editors here, and are subject to Wikipedia's rules. Just because you don't like something, doesn't give you edict to repeatedly remove it, to the point of being disruptive. I think that these are important points that you really need to understand. - wolf 19:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Having been pinged in consequence of my earlier comments, I offer the following:
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
In regards to point #2 by Cinderella157, I had already considered alternative formats, other than the simple list (which is not my preference, but I didn't want to put to much effort into anything if it's just going to be continuously removed).
The typical format found on more and more American and UK/Commonwealth military bio's is the ribbon rack followed by a medal table. I think this is most beneficial to the readers because it allows them to correlate what they see on ribbon racks worn on uniforms. Then the subsequent table of course provides the links. This also gives the article a better appearance, and rounds it more while often taking up less space. A lengthy list of medals will predominantly take up the left side of the page, leaving a great deal blank space on the right. And of course, the longer the list, the more page that is needed.
Basically, for Meklin, it would look like this;
(keep in mind that the templates used here for the ribbons would have to swapped for image file links, so they can be enlarged. Unless the enlargement can be done via the template, but I'm not aware if that's possible. I just quickly put this together for demo purposes.)
awards
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
References
|
Interestingly, this has the benefit of including the ribbon rack presentation style that PlanespotterA320 repeatedly asked for earlier in this discussion and had previously attempted to add to the article infobox (though it's since been made clear that the infobox is not the appropriate location for that).
I'm willing to find and add the image file links for the ribbon bars so they can be enlarged, but I'll wait until I know that the effort won't be wasted. - wolf 23:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The very premise that the image needs ribbon icons is false. Yes, I changed my mind. I have been unable to find a single photograph of Natalya Meklin wearing a ribbon rack (she only wore the medals, and often after the war she wore only the gold star), defeating the purpose of having ribbons at all. Not to mention, designing something like a table or chart for ribbon bars is very time-intensive - it is easier for all of use to have a plain bulleted list, with the names of awards wikilinked if users want to know more about an award.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 01:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The very premise that the image needs ribbon icons is false." - Based on... what?
Yes, I changed my mind." - So that's what you base all your reverting and vehement opposition on? A "change of mind"? At least you admit you did at one point support the additions of award ribbons, like so many others on WP do.
I have been unable to find a single photograph of Natalya Meklin wearing a ribbon rack (she only wore the medals, and often after the war she wore only the gold star), defeating the purpose of having ribbons at all." - So based solely on not being to find an image of her wearing her award ribbons, you are trying to affirmatively assert that she never wore them? And as long as we have sources supporting that she was awarded these medals, what's wrong with visually displaying them for the readers? (Whether you have an image of her wearing them or not?)
Not to mention, designing something like a table or chart for ribbon bars is very time-intensive" - Actually, it's not at all difficult to do and can be done in relatively short order. As you can see, I've already done the layout of both the ribbon rack and the medal table for this article (just need to enlarge the ribbons). You didn't, and don't, have to do anything.
it is easier for all of use[sic]
to have a plain bulleted list, with the names of awards wikilinked if users want to know more about an award." - Speak for yourself. Even then, repeating it over and over, does not make it so. We should think about what is best for the readers, and on that point, you haven't addressed any of my comments in that regard. - wolf 03:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry to say this, but PlanespotterA320's most recent comments above are just more of the same; unsubstantiated arguments, based solely "I. don't. like. it". He has repeatedly removed content based on nothing other than opinions such as; "The article does not need ribbons" and "The ordinary reader does not need it" and "Icons RUIN the article". I'll say it again, this is a military bio article on the English Wikipedia. Unless he can offer a reason based on the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia, I see no reason to continually override consensus. Further, I believe there is now an onus on PlanespotterA320 ( talk · contribs) to explain why he has suddenly gone on a mass-deletion spree, removing the awards sections from dozens of bio articles, just in the past couple days. Pinging @ Nikkimaria:, @ Parsecboy:, @ Kges1901: and @ Cinderella157: This WP:OWNership behaviour is now out of control and affecting multiple pages. - wolf 19:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)First off, don't threaten me. Second, if you are now "editing per consensus", then you should have no problem abiding the consensus here and stop removing content that was added, per consensus. Third, as for these other articles, so... you admit you added all those award ribbons? So only now, because you've railed against them sooo much on this page, you're removing them from all those other pages? Why not just move them article body where the "awards" section is? To clarify, this is what I would like you to explain. Fourth, as long as you continue revert-warring, tendentious and disruptive editing, violating consensus and WP's policies & guidelines, violating WP:OWN, IDLI, IDHT, BATTLE, I will continue to accuse you of such, hence the accusatory tone. If, however, you would like to finally
drop the stick and go to WP:DR, like I suggested ages ago, the you won't have to worry about tones anymore. Lastly, I can refer to you "she" all you like, but, in light of the fact that I innocently used the other pronoun, and in view of your on-going behaviour here, you are the last one who should be preaching to anyone about "rudeness". -
wolf
20:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Added note: Just because you list some images of one member of the Soviet military (post 1943) not wearing ribbons does not "substantiate" anything. This is an English Wikipedia article... what about that do you not get? -
wolf
20:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Both parties in this dispute need to calm down, as this is getting very much out of proportion, even more so than before. Thewolfchild, PlanespotterA320 simply removed the ribbon icons from the infobox, which is accepted as ribbons without explanation in the infobox are generally frowned upon; these articles still have awards sections in the body. Planespotter, what Thewolfchild is referring to as DR is WP:Dispute resolution, not deletion; this seems to be a misunderstanding that is inflaming the issue. Kges1901 ( talk) 23:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
if you bite the newbie" - wtf?
I will ping every admin on my speed-dial." - Feel free to start pinging. The sooner the better, the more the better.
Connect the dots ... that's a warning" - wtf??
I will not let an article I am proud of be ruined." - It's not for you to decide what does or does not go into an article. Or what "ruins" it.
And honey, the whole point of a ribbon rack in an article is to help with visual identification of the awards on a person's ribbon rack their photos"
Thewolfchild and PlanespotterA320, since my last post, the tone of the discussion has become personal and hostile, in which, I do not think either party is without blame. Trying to reach a consensus on the subject question has stalled.
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni, thank you for your reply. The matter has been discussed extensively with input from outside editors, including myself. I am involved, to the extent that I have expressed an opinion but I am not invested in the issue. I am much more interested in resolving the dispute. I am optimistic that, once this particular issue is resolved, normal editing might resume. I am thinking that a request for closure (other) might be appropriate and intend making such a request. Ping Thewolfchild and PlanespotterA320. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
As indicated, I have posted a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards. I have also notified this request at MilHist TP. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Cinderella157: I'll again thank you for your efforts to close off this discussion, hopefully with a resolution. Speaking on the content issue only, and leaving other concerns aside, this about the repeated removal of content, first added by Nikkimaria and supported by consensus. That is all this is really about. You identified that consensus yourself in your comments above (but that consensus was not noted in your otherwise well-written RfCl). Just after the content was again removed, the page was locked. That consensus should still be recognized and the edit re-added, when the page is unlocked, if not immediately. If PSA320 wants to challenge that edit, properly, then per wp:brd they should leave the content in place and seek a new consensus via wp:dr, which would likely require an RfC (you can tell me if any of that is incorrect). That is all I have asked of them all along. This should not be a case of " the squeaky wheel gets the grease". The proper steps should be followed, just like everywhere else, by everyone else. Thanks again - wolf 04:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
In response to the request for closure of the above debate at WP:ANRFC#Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards, here's what we're going to do. There's no way I'm going to wade through all of the above. WP:TLDR, for sure.
I've created two blank subpages, one for each of the two major contributors to this debate. Each of you should provide a concise summary of your positions. Concise means no more than 250 words. I'm going to use
this web page word counter to enforce that. Check your work before submitting it. If the tool says 251 or greater, I'll reject your comments. Use your quota wisely. Stick to policy-based arguments. I don't need a blow-by-blow history of how this debate evolved, or who said what.
When you've completed your comments, update this page with a permalink to the exact version you want me to look at, and ping me. When you've both submitted your arguments, I'll make a decision.
I'm assuming nobody other than User:PlanespotterA320 and User:Thewolfchild will want to comment. If anybody else does, ping me and I'll consider setting you up with your own page to comment (and most likely, a smaller quota).
PS: to clarify, the sub-pages you want to edit are:
@ PlanespotterA320 and Thewolfchild: neither of you have responded here, but I see both of you have been active. I'm assuming that means you have no interest in getting this resolved, so I'm just going to close this discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Pinging others that have been involved in the discussion as a courtesy and per suggestion of Wolf: Nikkimaria, Parsecboy, Kges1901, Biografer, TonyBallioni, Peacemaker67 and K.e.coffman
Replace this text with your comments... Per WP:ICONDECORATION, I think and many other editors it is best to leave out ALL award icons in the article in ALL places. Plainlists are everywhere, and there is no possible way to interpret any policy as a ban on them. But the issues with the complexity of the Soviet awards system and the frequency of no-merit jubilee medals (which obviously few people here are familiar with) renders many of the most common ways to format icons very redundant, excessive, and disruptive. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Do_not_use_too_many_icons. By the way, editing the manual of style during a discussion so that quotes cannot be found (not naming names) is VERY frowned upon. The example of Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig does not contain half a dozen medals of being alive every decade and anniversary: there is no need for the average Wikipedian to see a full list of jubilee medals with icons. I would also like to note that the formatting method was additionally unusual in that there would sometimes be more than one icon per row in the list, resulting in an one row of icons in between text on a narrow screen. The icons DO NOT aid the reader in understanding the accomplishments of Meklin, that is what text and biographical details are for. Not a single one of Melkin's colleagues from her regiment have the formatting proposed by wolf and Cinderella in their articles - Meklin is not a biographical exception to her colleagues, so neither should her biography be. Icons are so small anyway they are impossible to see without a magnifying glass anyway - how can they help the reader? If a reader wants to know more about a particular award, they can click the wikilink. Please do not make Meklin's article look like a Brezhnev meme - if you don't understand anekdoty like that, you probably shouldn't be in this discussion in the first place. While the icons and table options are fine for Western military people, such systems are hardly compatible with the Soviet awards system - where not all military awards have ribbon bars and many civilian awards do, and being alive every decade is something awarded. I do not see how Cinderella's proposal is a compromise - how is having icons a compromise in an argument between having icons (wolf) and not having them (me, biographer, K.e.coffman, and others). As for the "K.e.coffman's view above is hardly the consensus position across the project on the presentation of military awards in articles" - that is complicated. Kecoffman's view is the exact consensus for Soviet soldier and Commonwealth of Independent States biographies (except for Marshalls), but not the consensus for Western military biographies due to the difference in award systems. But because Meklin was a Soviet citizen and she received primarily Soviet awards, we should follow the general consensus for Soviet military biographies, which matches coffman's opinion.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 05:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The initial discussion was in respect to using medal ribbon icons in the infobox. This has been resolved. The current dispute is whether to use them in an awards section of the main text where they are referred to as a ribbon rack. A list might also be made, with or without icons. Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig is an alternative presentation most useful where medals and not ribbons are worn in accompanying photos. There are arguements that ribbon icons are acceptable and not contrary to WP:ICONDECORATION in that they allow cross-reference with a photo. This utility does not rely on colour in the photo but is enhanced by it. I tend to favour this and in this specific case, a list with icons (given that medals are worn). I note there is no P&G specifically for or against such options so it comes down somewhat to preference (for which there may be good arguements). My preference is a compromise between the position of the two protagonists.
Note: per comment by Peacemaker67: "K.e.coffman's view above is hardly the consensus position across the project on the presentation of military awards in articles."
Other editors have commented and have been pinged. It appears that the two protagonists don't wish to partake of this process; however, it may be possible to reach a close based on past comments and any further input from involved editors. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@ RoySmith: - First off, I didn't receive a notification about your proposed essay contest here, and since PsA320 didn't jump in here with yet another long winded lecture about how we should all just let her do whatever the hell she pleases, otherwise Wikipedia will fall, etc. (and good luck keeping her to 250 words), it would appear she wasn't notified either, so your ping didn't work. But I wouldn't participate in your one-on-one format here anyway, because you're going about this the wrong way, every editor involved in the "discussion" should be involved here. I didn't join this "discussion" until almost a year after it began. By that point, other editors had contributed, a consensus had formed and I simply tried to edit according to that consensus. I saw how she managed to chase everyone else away and eventually I decided to take a break from this timesink as well. Enter you;
If you want to resolve this properly, then you should notify all the editors who were involved, not just Psa320 and me, and hold an RfC, which you could then moderate (this is not unlike a recent suggestion made by another admin). Then, perhaps we could re-establish consensus and have it implemented without any further disruptive interference from any self-entitled page-owners. Cheers - wolf 17:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thewolfchild and PlanespotterA320: RoySmith has responded to my request to close the discussion per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards. They have explained their reasons for the process they have adopted in requesting each of you to add a statement. This process adopts eliments of DR. Roy, it does appear that you did not actually ping the two "participants", so Wolf does have a valid point in that respect. Wolf, the balance of your response is largely unhelpful and personalises the dispute. Having made your point about the ping I would suggest you consider striking you edit in full. It would be a significant show of "good faith" and a favour to me. PsA320, I would ask the same of you. I have pinged other involved editors as a courtesy. Roy, I hope we are able to move forward. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys, it doesn't look like I can do anything useful here. Have fun. I'm out of here. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys, it doesn't look like I can do anything useful here." "Can"...? Of course you "can", if you choose to. But, thanks anyway I guess. I would like to point out that another admin, Peacemaker67 was able to assess the entire discussion and gave a synopsis with this comment, a salient part of which states; "
As far as I am concerned, I am getting the sense from this TLDR thread that PlanespotterA320 has a strong sense of ownership over this and other related articles. Stop flooding the talk page and accept that there are differing and equally valid opinions on this.". That about sums it up.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |