Talk:John James Wild

"restored older version with better image layout"
Paul venter recently reverted a bunch of edits, with the edit note "restored older version with better image layout". I reverted the reversion, and I want to elaborate on my reasons why:


 * First: The edit note is insufficient to justify the reversion. Only one of the reverted edits related to image placement. Others related to date format, link format, prose style, and the addition of appropriate categories. No explanation was offered for reverting those edits.


 * Second: The offered justification is insufficient even so far as it goes. Wikipedia has guidelines regarding placement of images. The proposed "better image layout" violates several of these guidelines, including "images in the lead must be right-aligned" and "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other".

(It is of course obvious to anyone who reads the edit history that all of the reverted edits were made by me, and that the version Paul venter reverted to was made by Paul venter. That's not why I did reverted Paul venter's edit, and I hope it's not why Paul venter reverted mine. I am aware that no single Wikipedian owns this article, and I hope Paul venter is too.)

— Paul A (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Re your edit notes: Please discuss any issues you may still have before reverting again - I'd hate for this to develop into an edit war. Paul venter (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1  "(rm expired 'in use' tag)" No problem there
 * 2  "(image layout)" Do you consider that this rather pithy note explains your edit adequately? After my reverting your edit you only then amplify this by a note on the talk page "images in the lead must be right-aligned" The image of the crab was right-aligned and the portrait placed on the left facing into the text per the MoS. If you feel the text has been sandwiched then placing the portrait further down should be appropriate.
 * 3  "(date format; WP:APT; categories)" What about the date format? Which words are 'Peacock terms" in your view? What about the categories?
 * 4  "(external links go at the end)" Were they not already at the end?

Given the small space provided for edit reasons, I tend to be brief, and if the reason amounts to "brought X more in line with guidelines" I generally just put "X".

On the talk page, of course, there is more room, but yesterday I didn't have time for detailed citations. I do now.

Let us, then, be more specific about guidelines:

What the MOS says about images of faces is "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." (WP:MOSIM, WP:IMAGELOCATION) Note that it says often preferable, which is not "always", and means that sometimes other considerations may take precedence.

What the MOS says about images in the lead paragraph is "images ... in the lead must be right-aligned" (WP:MOSIM) and more generally "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text." (WP:IMAGELOCATION) What it says about image sandwiching is "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other". (WP:MOSIM, WP:IMAGELOCATION) Note that these rules say must and avoid, and take precedence over often preferable.

Another thing the MOS says about images in the lead paragraph is "It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article", such as "a photograph or artistic work of a person" for a biographical article. (WP:IMAGE LEAD) This is why I moved the illustrations down the page instead of the portrait, and why I still think moving the portrait down is the wrong solution: when people read an article about a person, they expect the first picture to be a picture of the person. (If there had been no portrait available, the illustration might have been suitable, but since there is a portrait, I think it should be the lead image.)

Moving on.

Date format: Again, "brought X more in line with guidelines". WP:MOSBIO and WP:MOSBD are both clear that the parenthetical after the person's name should include birth and death dates, but not birth and death places; I therefore moved the places to the chronologically appropriate positions in the rest of the article.

Peacock terms: "accomplished", "considerable talents", "obvious talents and achievements", "enormous range of skills". That sort of thing. There are a couple of places where I removed entire sentences because once the peacock bits had been removed there wasn't much point to what was left.

Categories: The article was lacking category tags for year of birth and death, place of birth, and nationality; I added them. What about this requires explanation?

External links: No, they were not already at the end. (As the Difference Between Revisions clearly shows.) If they were already at the end, I would not have had to move them.

Any more questions? — Paul A (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me start with a few words about the MoS and guidelines
 * The banner near the start of WP:MOSBIO states "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus". The MoS is a document under construction and as such has many flaws, inconsistencies and contradictions. One need only glance down its recent history to see that it is riddled with reverts, vandalism, non-consensual alterations in the shape of excisions, additions, grammar and syntax changes, accusations of stupidity, personal vendettas etc etc. I mention all this to emphasise that the content and structure of the MoS have more to do with historic accident than with a carefully reasoned and crafted body of knowledge and recommendations, and that giving undue weight to the placement of a comma, or the use of "preferable" as opposed to "should", places the MoS on a pedestal somewhere near Newton's Laws of Motion.


 * "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text." This is patent nonsense since the start of the text is perfectly plain to the average reader not suffering from visual impairment. There is no compelling reason for this guideline.
 * Date format/places of birth and death - What is this "brought X more in line with guidelines"? Are there now different degrees of compliance? "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." I feel that his Swiss birth and emigration to Australia, where "he died largely unrecognised", feature prominently in his notability or lack thereof - he was not regarded as notable in Australia and New Zealand during his lifetime, but that perception has changed, and his difficulty in finding employment certainly needs mentioning.
 * Peacock terms - "accomplished", "considerable talents", "obvious talents and achievements", "enormous range of skills" are not Peacock terms by any stretch of imagination - they are objective terms used by the Museum itself in their biography of Wild. Is it possible that your crusade against puffery has made you overly-sensitive to the mention of any positive qualities? Paul venter (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I realise that the Manual of Style is a flawed document, but it's the document we have to work with. The guidelines are there to be followed. (I presume that the guidelines are there to be followed, and that the authors of the MoS aren't just constructing it for their own amusement. If you know otherwise, you could have saved us both a lot of time by saying so when I first mentioned it.)

The problem at present is that following the "look toward the text" guideline gives different results from following the "must be right-aligned" guideline, and we need to settle which one takes precedence. One way of making this decision is to observe that one guideline is worded as an absolute rule, and the other isn't. The difference in wording may well be a mere historical accident, but it's something. Do you know of a better way to make the decision?

Regarding the "average reader not suffering from visual impairment": that would be fine, if every reader of Wikipedia were average and none had a visual impairment. Since that isn't the case, part of the reason these guidelines exist is to help make Wikipedia a friendly place even for people with impairments. For them, there is a compelling reason for guidelines like this.

Date format/places of birth and death - I think we're talking past each other here. My focus was on the parenthetical (birth year - death year) bit; I have no objection to elsewhere in the lead paragraph mentioning that Wild was born in Switzerland and emigrated to Australia - in fact I agree it's the kind of thing the lead paragraph should mention.

The problem with peacock terms, apart from being approving (not a problem in itself, necessarily), is that they're not informative - the way the guideline says it is that they "neither impart nor plainly summarize verifiable information". For instance, "enormous range of skills" is neither plain nor verifiable: a more useful approach would be to state what the skills in question were. Similarly for the others. (The Museum's choice of words is irrelevant; this is not the Museum, and the necessities of an encyclopedia article are different from those of a museum display.)

Since you have offered no further objection to the category and external links edits, I hope we're now agreed that those were appropriate. — Paul A (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, we shouldn't be trying to have a conversation in the edit boxes
1. The article needs at least one section heading, because it has two sections: the one-paragraph brief overview, and the full biography. I have tried several section headings, and so far you have rejected all of them. Perhaps you could suggest a section heading that you would not reject?

2. You're doing that thing again where you revert every change that's been made since you last edited, but only mention one change in your edit reason. Your edit reasons are all about the section divisions, but you also keep reverting my attempts to put the article in chronological order. If you don't actually have a problem with the latter, please leave them alone. If you do have a problem, would you mind explaining what it is?

3. For what it's worth, incomplete sections are supposed to look ridiculous. The theory as I understand it is that pointing out which bits of the article are incomplete may – this being the Encyclopedia That Anyone May Edit – inspire some reader to put in the effort to complete them.

— Paul A (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please quote chapter and verse of the MoS guidelines which you are using to support your view? Paul venter (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The article in its current version has the following problems: ciao Paul venter (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 The 'Detailed biography' heading - is one meant to understand that the header is not detailed or that it is not biographical?
 * 2 If you feel that the header has to be distinct from the body of the article - then relax, it can be so by virtue of the space separating them. Why one then has to insert a section heading to underline the difference, only your sense of aesthetics will know.
 * 3 The first line of your 'Detailed biography' states "Wild was born in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1824." Except for 'Zurich' this is a boring repetition of what has been stated in the lead, but there it sits, a veritable jewel in the crown.
 * 4 The next line is no better "Wild met his wife, Elizabeth Ellen Mullin, while teaching languages in Belfast, Ireland" It is unrelated to anything going before or coming after. Is it even chronological?
 * 5 "He died in Prahran, Victoria in 1900. He died in Prahran, Victoria on 3 June 1900." Why this repetition? If nothing else it shows really sloppy editing.

If you're ever ready to discuss the article without the heaping side order of scorn and derision, let me know. — Paul A (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)