Talk:Frederick Birks/Archive 1

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

POV reversion
In this edit, user:Backslash Forwardslash provides an edit comment stating: "Every FA on Aus VC winners doesn't have this section, and it is not aesthetically appealing"

Separating the two opinions:

"it is not aesthetically appealing" - Please advise when "I don't like it" became an acceptable justification for reverting facts with supporting references.

"Every FA on Aus VC winners doesn't have this section"

1. Is there an easier way to find out which are the "FA on Aus VC recipients" without going through the List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients one by one?

2. Why is that sentence sufficient justification for reverting facts with supporting references?
 * Is there some guideline somewhere that says: "Featured articles must not have 'medals' sections"?
 * Has anyone put up an article for FA with a medals section and had it rejected?

I would prefer you provide an argument based on facts rather than the opinions of you and your friends, and it is my understanding that Wikipedia requires this. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I came across rude, but you seem to have misjudged my intentions with this edit. I don't know where you got the idea I was attempting to provoke an edit war - perhaps you misjudged the removal as a personal attack?
 * Yes there is. I went to the trouble of making a template that could keep track of the articles, and User:Abraham, B.S. has been kind enough to keep track of it. It is located here. As you will see, none of the FA articles - or indeed any of the articles have separate sections for medals. FAs are scrutinised for minute infractions of our manual of standard, so any need for a medals section would have been raised. The reason for this is that per our Manual of Style, we should avoid entering textual information as images. Every soldier who participated in those battles were awarded those medals, and that can be addressed in the text - the article is still being worked on. Having a separate section for a collection of coloured bars also overwhelms the text; which goes against our layout recommendations.
 * Look, it's going to be subjective no matter how you approach this; we are dealing with layouts of articles and there aren't any 'facts' that I can give to you to support my argument. Similarly, you are equally as burdened to provide an explanation as to why this section should be included. After all, it goes against the standing consensus displayed across most of our military articles, and while consensus can change, I haven't seen an argument from you as to why this article should be an exception. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I notice there have been quite a few additions... all from yourself. I take the comment about 'all the articles' back but I stand by those that have been improved and peer reviewed have not got the section. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (Your response is written in a much more reasonable tone than I was expecting. Yes, I do seem to have misjudged your intentions; I expect I reacted negatively to your initial removal-without-mention followed by your subsequent removal-accompanied-by-a-poorly-justified-statement, rather than you responding by dropping me a line on my talk page and discussing the matter. No, I didn't categorise the removal as "a personal attack", but given your implied question as to what my judgement was, I will answer that I thought it was rather bad manners, particularly given that you are an admin. But I digress. I had not intended to mention any of the above. However, you seemed to be asking/implying direct questions, so I felt that you probably deserved direct answers. Meanwhile ... )


 * Regarding "an easy way", I gather the answer is "no" - i.e. we are reliant on the good efforts of people like you & Bryce to manually keep records. Well, it's a good thing that there are such people doing such things, isn't it. ;-)
 * So, getting to the subject at hand:


 * "FAs are scrutinised for minute infractions of our manual of standard, so any need for a medals section would have been raised. The reason for this is that per our Manual of Style, we should avoid entering textual information as images."
 * Mmmmmm. That is one way of interpreting the situation. However, you could just as validly come to a number of other interpretations.
 * I don't necessarily agree that "any need for a medals section would have been raised". Keeping Occams Razor in mind, it may simply be the case that no-one has thought of, (or raised), the topic of "the need for a medals section" ...
 * I will spend some time reconsidering WP:MOSIMAGES before I comment further.


 * "Every soldier who participated in those battles were awarded those medals, and that can be addressed in the text - the article is still being worked on. Having a separate section for a collection of coloured bars also overwhelms the text; which goes against our layout recommendations."
 * You have raised a number of points here.
 * "Every soldier who participated in those battles were awarded those medals"
 * That statement is somewhat ambiguous. Depending upon what you mean, the majority of replies would be: "Well, no. That is not exactly the case."
 * "and that can be addressed in the text"
 * Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Which "that" is it that "can be addressed in the text"?
 * I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. The text can indeed tell you what the ribbons look like, but why? An image of the ribbons and accompanying explanatory text does a far superior job in describing the ribbons than just text. After all: Q: Why are the ribbons worn? A: They quickly communicate a lot of information that it would take the proberbial "thousand words" to otherwise communicate.
 * "Having a separate section for a collection of coloured bars also overwhelms the text;" - That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see how it usefully contributes to this discussion.


 * "Look, it's going to be subjective no matter how you approach this." - I'd like to think that the matter can be approached and resolved objectively. So, at the moment, I'd like to try to do that. So, at the moment, I don't agree that "it's going to be subjective no matter how you approach this". So far I believe I am yet to make a subjective statement, and for the moment I'm going to attempt to continue to do so.


 * "Similarly, you are equally as burdened to provide an explanation as to why this section should be included." - Am I. Hmm. It will be a challenge to do so in an objective manner! I guess I'd better get started on it.


 * "After all, it goes against the standing consensus displayed across most of our military articles, and while consensus can change, I haven't seen an argument from you as to why this article should be an exception."
 * I'm not sure I follow that sentence.
 * Why "After all"? "After all" what? Sorry, I don't understand.
 * "it goes against the standing consensus".
 * What is a "standing consensus"?
 * What is the "standing consensus"?
 * I would venture to suggest that there can be no consensus about something that isn't defined - only about something that is defined.
 * I gather the concensus is what is defined in the Manual of Style? I am of the impression that the MoS does not address this particular issue.
 * "I haven't seen an argument from you as to why this article should be an exception"''
 * No, you haven't. And you won't, because I do not believe that this article should be an exception.


 * "but I stand by those that have been improved and peer reviewed have not got the section."
 * I have not challenged (and do not challenge) the accuracy of that assertion. But equally, I don't believe that assertion is relevant to this issue. I'm sure there are many attributes which do not appear in the set of articles to which you refer. But that does not necessarily mean that those articles should not have some of those attributes. It just means that, currently, those articles do not have them.


 * I'm not sure which attributes such articles should and should not have, but I do not believe that (the fact the the articles do not currently have them) means that (the articles should not have them.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ribbons

 * My main argument so to speak, is that the ribbons do nothing to add informative value to the individual soldiers article. The Medals section serves to provide information about which medals were awarded, which can be easily explained in the text. I have done so here, as the medals don't appear to have been mentioned earlier. I'm willing to compromise, however. I can see the merit in the table, as it is providing information that could not easily be transferred in the text. I'm just not sure about the ribbons above that. Is it an attempt to imitate how they are worn on the shirt? I don't believe they add any more information than the table does. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Is it an attempt to imitate how they are worn on the shirt?" - Yes.
 * "I don't believe they add any more information than the table does." - Only a little more. (i.e. As you deduced, the "more information" they add is "how the ribbons appear on the uniform".)
 * I'm guessing you are suggesting that you would like the ribbon bar removed? Not my personal preference, but is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that doesn't make the section look as intimidating, and fits in a lot better with the text. Thanks. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Backslash, although I didn't bring it up in the GA review as it isn't really in the criteria. Frankly, the ribbons look out of place and make the article look bloated; more importantly, however, they add no real information and seem to be purely decorative. Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 
 * That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see how it usefully contributes to this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please advise when "I don't like it" became an acceptable justification for reverting facts with supporting references. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And in case it wasn't obvious, I have a different opinion, and it, too, is irellevant to this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Backslash Forwardslash and Skinny. The ribbons add very little, if anything, to the article, and, if at all, Birks' medal entitlement should be presented in prose format. You are right, of course, Pdf, that "I don't like it" is not a reason to remove something, but MOS: Images, consensus and consistency are. Just my two cents. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet another irrelevant opinion.
 * Please explain precisely what MOS: Images and consensus say that is relevant.
 * As for consistency, when discussing disambiguations, one of your heros has said "consistency is not important". (You can look up the archives as easily as I can.) So, apparently, that too is irrelevant.
 * Look, I'm playing by YOUR rules here, "your" as in "You plural in the Milhist community".
 * How about you plural playing by the rules you impose on others rather than cherry picking the ones you want to impose and ignoring the inconvienient ones that don't support your current point of view?
 * I had a civil, sensible and productive conversation with Backslash Forwardslash that addressed facts, not opinions.
 * Neither Skinny nor Abraham, B.S. have expressed anything other than their opinion.
 * For the third time I will state:
 * That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see how it usefully contributes to this discussion.
 * I have no interest in who agrees with whom about what. (I have no doubt that the members of the Nazi Party agreed with each other, but that too is irellevant.)
 * How about some FACTS and some supporting EVIDENCE.
 * (Also, you will note that I have expressed NO opinions. Only asked questions, and expressed facts.)
 * Awaiting a relevant reply that is based on facts and evidence.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are disregarding other people's facts and opinions just because they do not agree with your own. Backslash Forwardslash has already provided a rational in regards to MOS: Images above that this impinges on. WP:MOSICON would also be applicable here; most noticeably from WP:ICONDECORATION down. Consensus is, basically, based on agreement and "majority rule"; hence its mention. If the majority agree on something, that is traditionally the way things head. I have no idea where "disambiguations", "heros" (sic) or "consistency is not important" came from, nor its particular relevance here, but anyway ... There was very little opinion, but supporting fact in the above posts (i.e. MOS: Images, consensus), and we have also posted in a civil manner. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 
 * "It seems that you are disregarding other people's facts and opinions just because they do not agree with your own." - That sentence either makes no sense, or is false.
 * "you are disregarding other people's facts" - Which facts am I disregarding?
 * "just because they do not agree with your own" - As you have no idea what my opinions are, it is a mystery to me how you can know what I do and don't agree with. How about sticking to the facts?
 * "Backslash Forwardslash has already provided a rational in regards to MOS: Images above that this impinges on." - And I have already responded to it.
 * "WP:MOSICON would also be applicable here; most noticeably from WP:ICONDECORATION down." - Perhaps, but I don't see how that is relevant. Perhaps you can be specific?
 * "Consensus is, ... " - Factual, but irellevant.
 * "There was very little opinion ... " - That in itself is opinion.
 * "and we have also posted in a civil manner" - Factual, but irellevant.
 * How about some FACTS and some supporting EVIDENCE.
 * Still awaiting a relevant reply that is based on facts and evidence. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting to the point, I will reiterate for the third time: this particular section is in violation of MOS: Images and WP:MOSICON. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "this particular section is in violation of MOS: Images" - As I said in my reply-before-last: "Please explain precisely what MOS: Images says that is relevant." I have now read it for a third time, and I can find nothing in there that could be interpreted as saying "pictures of medal ribbons are a violation of this policy". Specifically, what are you referring to?
 * "and WP:MOSICON" - With the exception of the single paragraph WP:ICONDECORATION, I can find nothing in there that could be interpreted as saying "pictures of medal ribbons are a violation of this policy". Other than WP:ICONDECORATION, specifically, what are you referring to? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic purpose

 * Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.
 * Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.

1) The icons have been added to this and other pages for a number of reasons. Two that I can quickly think of are:
 * They inform the reader of what the recipients medal ribbons look like, so that if/when they see the ribbons, they are able to identify what they are, and what they mean.
 * The text can indeed tell you what the ribbons look like, but why? An image of the ribbons and accompanying explanatory text does a far superior job in describing the ribbons than just text. After all: Q: Why are the ribbons worn? A: They quickly communicate a lot of information that it would take the proberbial "thousand words" to otherwise communicate.

2) "Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction" - Not applicable. They are not there for decoration; they are there to convey information in a more efficient manner than text alone would convey the information.

3) "Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout." - These icons "have a useful purpose in providing visual cues".

4) "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader." - Not applicable. These icons provide "additional useful information".

5) "Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration." - They do. Refer to 1) and 3) above.

In summary, I fail to see how "this particular section is in violation of MOS: Images and WP:MOSICON", and you have provided NO specific evidence to support your assertion. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They are purely decorative, PDF. What, exactly, do they convey that is encyclopedic and useful? What colour they are? What height and width they are? They are decorative, and provide no useful further information that isn't decorative - all they show is colour and size, which I fail to see as encyclopedic or improving the reader's understanding of the article, the medal, or the recipient. Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "They are purely decorative, PDF. What, exactly, do they convey that is encyclopedic and useful?"
 * The icons have been added to this and other pages for a number of reasons. Two that I can quickly think of are:
 * They inform the reader of what the recipients medal ribbons look like, so that if/when they see the ribbons, they are able to identify what they are, and what they mean.
 * The text can indeed tell you what the ribbons look like, but why? An image of the ribbons and accompanying explanatory text does a far superior job in describing the ribbons than just text. After all: Q: Why are the ribbons worn? A: They quickly communicate a lot of information that it would take the proberbial "thousand words" to otherwise communicate.
 * "What height and width they are?" - Why do you ask?
 * "They are decorative, and provide no useful further information that isn't decorative - all they show is colour and size, which I fail to see as encyclopedic or improving the reader's understanding of the article, the medal, or the recipient." - Already addressed above. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm frankly tired of this wikilawyering. I've given my reasons for opposing the addition of the medal ribbons, and frankly don't care a whit if you think they're opinions of not. You would appear to be the only one here supporting them, against at least three others. Should WP:Consensus solidify, which I believe it may already have, on this page, please obey it. That's all I have to say. Skinny87 (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the rational of consensus by Skinny, the images of the medal ribbons should be removed from this article and the mention of Birks' medal entitlement converted into prose. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)