Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
142.160.89.97 (talk)
Acjelen (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
8,368 edits
Line 114: Line 114:
:::I believe it is pointless having an allegiance flag because as a British soldier he had to pledge allegiance to the monarch of the United Kingdom so this is totally redundant. The British army flag is a useful addition because few people know that there is a flag for the Army other than the Union Flag (which is the war flag) . This is similar to the RAF and Navy ensigns. [[User:Domdeparis|Dom from Paris]] ([[User talk:Domdeparis|talk]]) 20:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
:::I believe it is pointless having an allegiance flag because as a British soldier he had to pledge allegiance to the monarch of the United Kingdom so this is totally redundant. The British army flag is a useful addition because few people know that there is a flag for the Army other than the Union Flag (which is the war flag) . This is similar to the RAF and Navy ensigns. [[User:Domdeparis|Dom from Paris]] ([[User talk:Domdeparis|talk]]) 20:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
::::How do you reconcile the latter position with [[MOS:FLAGICON]]? [[Special:Contributions/142.160.89.97|142.160.89.97]] ([[User talk:142.160.89.97|talk]]) 01:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
::::How do you reconcile the latter position with [[MOS:FLAGICON]]? [[Special:Contributions/142.160.89.97|142.160.89.97]] ([[User talk:142.160.89.97|talk]]) 01:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::A start might be that in the case of military service details in infoboxes, everybody is ignoring [[MOS:FLAGICON]] and there's no reason why we shouldn't ignore it as well. I don't know if everybody is ignoring [[MOS:FLAGICON]] because of ignorance or if it's because all of the editors of biographical articles are flagrantly violating [[MOS:FLAGICON]] purposefully because it is stupid. But whatever the reason, we should not follow a style point no one else is. -[[User:Acjelen|Acjelen]] ([[User talk:Acjelen|talk]]) 03:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


== Quick question ==
== Quick question ==

Revision as of 03:04, 19 August 2018


Template:Vital article

Proposal: move moratorium — Adopted through December 24, 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Move moratorium imposed, backdated from June 25, 2018, through December 24, 2018. There is an extremely narrow but sufficient consensus in favor of a six month moratorium. This is intended to stop any trivial or sore loser discussions based on the current facts. Should something important happen, such as the death of the Queen, Prince Charles or both during the next six months which would materially effect the status/title/name of the subject, editors should, of course, feel free to ignore this moratorium and introduce the appropriate naming proposals. I have backdated the moratorium to the date of the latest page move. Safiel (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent frequency of move requests and drama that has come from certain editors' involvement in them, I propose that whatever the outcome of the 17 June 2018 request, a moratorium on move requests be implemented on this article for a minimum of six months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently nine (9) level-2 headers on this page bookending discussions about what the article title should be, just most of them don't have the move request template. There were three concurrent discussions alongside the 19 May request, and discussion over the result of that request has continued right up to the opening of the present request. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to moving the page every few weeks depending on who shows up to the move discussion at any given time, and puts off new editors at a time when a high-profile topic like this should really be attracting new editors to the project. It really doesn't matter so much what the title is, but we should have one final fulsome discussion and then stick with whatever title is chosen, until there is some future change in circumstance necessitating a new discussion, not just that some editors don't accept the result of the last one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an RM keeps popping up every month or two, after the current one? then I'll go along with a moratorium of six months. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now ten. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to object to a close and controversial close, especially if outside developments that affect people's thinking quickly follow. It's too arbitrary and, I hope, unnecessary. I assume no one wants a perpetual move discussion. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - agree a perpetual move discussion is not what editors want. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: if moratorium, then not more than 1 month, to allow for a general shift evidenced by sourceable publications from "Prince H...." to "Prince H..., Duke of Sussex". Qexigator (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't think a moratorium would be necessary or appropriate. If the RM is controversial, or if the consensus is not clear, then we should still allow users to express their concerns with the outcome. Also, what about an WP:MR? It should still be allowed.
A moratorium on further discussion would defeat the principles of WP:CCC, and should only be applied when we expect users to be disruptive after the RM is closed. At this time, I don't see a reason to believe that disruption will occur. Edge3 (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bumping thread for 158 days. Safiel (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reversions

@GoodDay: Having been reverted without explanation, I'm wondering why. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is claiming flagcruft does not apply to royals Govindaharihari (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These flags are used in the other British royal bio infoboxes, where military service is involved. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: That sounds like "other stuff exists". How do you reconcile your position with MOS:FLAGICON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One article should not stand out, from the others. Why are you so fixated on this one article? GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that one edit qualifies as "fixated", GoodDay. This was just the article I happened to come across. I don't see why this need become so personal. But anyway, that doesn't address the question: How do you reconcile your position with MOS:FLAGICON (bearing in mind that "[c]onsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale")? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article shouldn't be made different from the others, see Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below. Additionally, that still doesn't address the initial question: how do you reconcile that position with MOS:FLAGICON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @GoodDay: And if the hope is that articles don't "stand out, from the others", shouldn't we be moving to conform to the standards that consensus dictates apply to all biographies (outside exceptional circumstances)? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delete the flags from the infoboxes of all the British royal bios? then by all means, do so. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Why is the scope "British royal bios" as opposed to, for example, all military persons or all members of royalty? And I would certainly like to see all articles conform to the MOS, while of course recognizing that there is no deadline. But how can we move towards that if you're reverting such changes? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You were only deleting the flags at this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question, GoodDay. Why is the scope "British royal bios" as opposed to, for example, all military persons or all members of royalty? (And, for that matter, how do you reconcile your position with MOS:FLAGICON?) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose your deletions, if you do them to all the British royal bios' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the issue, GoodDay. I'm not opposed to it being done elsewhere, but we're discussing why you oppose them in this particular case.
You have asserted that it is because uniformity in this particular regard is required for "British royal bios". Where has that consensus been established? And why is it limited to that scope? Why not all biographies of military persons or all members of royalty – or all articles for that matter, seeing as all articles are subject to MOS:FLAGICON outside of exceptional circumstances?
And how do you reconcile your position – that flag icons are permissible provided that they're used consistently in a particular context in a particular class of articles that you define – with MOS:FLAGICON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained it to you. I opposed your removal, because you were doing it to just this article, while ignoring the others. Either delete the flags from ALL the British royal bio infoboxes 'or' don't delete any of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: You did explain that, but you did not explain:
  1. Where consensus exists for such a policy;
  2. Of what relevance the class of "British royal bio infoboxes" is over any other definable class; or
  3. How you reconcile your position with MOS:FLAGICON (which does not have a "well, other stuff exists" clause).
Please clarify. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that unregistered editors are not able to edit all biographies of members of the British royal family. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to go forward and delete the flags from all the aforementioned British royal bio articles? then I will. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, because like I said, it is technically infeasible for me to do so. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the manual of style for flag icons applies to all infoboxes for those with military service, not just royals, as the only exception allowed for this style given is Olympic athletes. If anyone needs articles to edit so that they conform to this style, the articles on John McCain, Chris Kyle, and Erwin Rommel all violate the no flag icons in the info box rule. Good luck editing! -Acjelen (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately most articles on Wikipedia need to be brought into conformity with the MOS in one way or another. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is pointless having an allegiance flag because as a British soldier he had to pledge allegiance to the monarch of the United Kingdom so this is totally redundant. The British army flag is a useful addition because few people know that there is a flag for the Army other than the Union Flag (which is the war flag) . This is similar to the RAF and Navy ensigns. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reconcile the latter position with MOS:FLAGICON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A start might be that in the case of military service details in infoboxes, everybody is ignoring MOS:FLAGICON and there's no reason why we shouldn't ignore it as well. I don't know if everybody is ignoring MOS:FLAGICON because of ignorance or if it's because all of the editors of biographical articles are flagrantly violating MOS:FLAGICON purposefully because it is stupid. But whatever the reason, we should not follow a style point no one else is. -Acjelen (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Why is there a field missing from Prince Harry's infobox? I mean I assume he was allied with the UK during his service in the British Army, but why leave that field out? --Acjelen (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless otherwise stated, it can be inferred that a soldier of the British Army is allied with the United Kingdom. (Only a small, small fraction of military personnel ally bear allegiance to a foreign power rather than the state in whose military they serve.) And as MOS:INFOBOX provides, "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's silly to mark allied to the UK for a British Army soldier because every soldier pledges allegiance to the Queen as per Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)#Armed_forces. So you cannot be a British soldier without pledging allegiance to the monarch of the United Kingdom. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F855545611
No tags for this post.