Talk:Natalya Meklin/Archive 2

Awards
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)
 * Instead of starting drama over the ribbons, could you please actually add real content to the article? Perhaps continue translations or something instead of pettyness?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The best way to avoid "drama" or "pettiness" would be to focus on content rather than the contributor, and respond to the arguments presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I say your name? No. In general, its best to add content to articles in an orderly manner instead of just going from article to article and removing ribbons. Not naming names. I expanded the article from a stub, and I can give you a list of suggestions if you can't find any stubs to improve.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that you were replying to me and using the word "you"... anyways, if you don't care to address the content question, I'll go ahead and move the ribbons back into the article body per the rationale above. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What question is there? Stop moving ribbons and make some real edits, perhaps expanding a stub.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is of course how best to present the awards in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly better to have ribbon bars in infobox, a standard method, than the strange way you arranged them. The latest edit? Not cool. Implying there was consensus at the talkpage when there isn't. But since the only major thing you have contributed to this article is stirring up trouble and not actual content, knock it off. Moving ribbons isn't productive since there is no rule against the standard infobox ribbon bar formatting. What you've do is almost nothing more than vandalism.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against putting the ribbon bars where I had them, and as mentioned above putting them alongside the text improves accessibility - that way readers not familiar with Soviet awards don't need to rely on clicking on the image to understand what it represents. Also please see WP:NOTVAND: I've asked you already to focus on the content rather than personalizing the issue. I'll add a post at WT:MILHIST asking for additional opinions on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

- 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. ICONDECORATION is the relevant section of the Manual of Style that covers this sort of thing. Parsecboy (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "personalizing the dispute"? Nope. It's just better in general to add fact-based content instead of randomly removing ribbons simply based on one's opinions of them. What "false accusations"? It's clear from edit history that I actually expanded the article and did more than adjust the ribbons. To make my point VERY clear, adjusting ribbons only instead of translating content or adding paragraphs is unproductive, disruptive, and pointless. I have to work on all the redlinks here, but this is just getting silly. Because there is no clear policy on ribbons, this is pointless and a waste of edit time. Excuse me while I create an article on Nina Raspopova. And I suggest you read, in full, Wikipedia:Icons in military articles--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comments here are a matter of public record: you accused Nikki of "starting drama", of being "petty", of "stirring up trouble", of doing "little more than vandalism", and insinuating that Nikki makes no "real edits". I would suggest you apologize for such hostile and uncivil comments and preferably strike them.
 * Curiously, the suggested link references WP:ICONDECORATION and provides four solutions to the issue of using ribbon icons to denote medals, and none of them includes your preferred method of placing them in the infobox. On the other hand, it does include Nikki's suggestion (#2). In any event, the page is merely an essay, not a policy, guideline, or part of the MoS. Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was an accurate statements of frustration of the lack of productive edits. Most people these days (not just the user mentioned) just move ribbons, tag articles but never fix them, create stubs that could easily be expanded but leave from a corresponding language article but don't bother sending a translation request, general minor-edit-laziness, etc. It is a statement of fact that picking fights moving ribbons is inferior to hard work spending hours drafting paragraphs of translation, and it is stupid to argue otherwise. And did you not read the first suggestion, to have an actual ribbon rack?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Planespotter, ribbon racks are generally placed in separate sections in articles rather than infoboxes, as you can see from clicking on the link in the essay. You're doing great work on these biographies, which is especially needed because of late this area has had a dearth of content creating editors. Kges1901 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Comment on content, not on contributors. Full stop.
 * Yes, ribbon racks in the body of the article. Not in the infobox. Like this. Parsecboy (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It says that having a ribbon rack in both infobox and a separate section shouldn't be done because it is redundant. They as per ICONDECORATION, they are nor for decoration but have informational purposes; each ribbon links to an article with information about the award, and it is a very compact way of displaying them (takes less space than an exhausive list). The point is that because there's no consensus on the issue and that there is no clear-cut rule against having ribbon racks in the infobox as long as there is not a duplicate of the ribbon rack in the article-space, this is an unnessesay non-content area that should be left because it takes time and resources from creating content. Yes, minor edits that are heavily disputed and do not add any informational content are petty and unneeded.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is the rule of precedent. There is a way of doing this thing if not just for the sake of consistency - this should be followed. Even without the matter of convention, I observe a consensus against. My personal observation is that a text in the info box is more informative than a bunch of pretty colours. Just because a course of action is not "specifically" precluded does not mean it should be accepted. This is the arguement of the proponent. Don't do things differently "just" because it is not "specifically" precluded. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Making explicit for transparency the notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Cinderella157 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed Nikimaria moved them again after I added citations to recently declassified documents to the awardspace to increase verifiability. To say it plain and simple, moving the ribbons is a controversial edit that does not add information or significantly improve the article. I suggest that we stay away from edits that do not add actual information or content and are heavily disputed, and instead focus on adding references, translating content, and other measures that are considered improvements without dispute.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, moving the icons into the article body is an improvement to the article. Per my reading of the above, Parsecboy and Cinderella157 believe the same, although they are of course free to say if I've misinterpreted their position. I understand that that is not your preferred outcome, but to say that there is no consensus would be a stretch - after all, consensus does not require unanimity. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, plainlisting, like in Valentina Tereshkova is the preferred method. But putting the ribbon rack in the article space seems out of place and is the worst of all available options. If you don't like the ribbons, use the plainlist (most common anyway.) But please don't waste anymore of my time, I have over 300 articles to translate on my to-do list and this is a pure, unproductive waste of time. I am very worried about the state of Wikipedia with most editors more concerned about the way ribbons and award are displayed than about the high lack of coverage of certain subjects. Please don't concern yourself with ribbons, worry about content. If you need suggestions on ways to be more productive, I can provide you with hundreds of notable articles that need TEXT translated and added, not ribbons moved. In terms of how it can improve the article, the ribbon rack is merely moved in a way that does not add or subtract to the amount of information available to the reader, it is only a matter of where.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you'd prefer to spend time elsewhere, you're of course free to do so. As I've already said, I think a more useful presentation of awards, far from a trivial display concern, provides a significant service to the reader; however, the plainlist seems a reasonable compromise, assuming the other commenters concur. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, over half of articles use it, so there no reason not to, and I've never seen the way you did it before. Writing Yevdokia Rachkevich. Lets stick to methods that have at least a little precedent.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @PlanespotterA320, see Thomas Blamey, George H. Gay Jr., Marie-Pierre Kœnig, Marie-Pierre Kœnig, Simon Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat, Henri Navarre, Georgy Zhukov, Isoroku Yamamoto, Charles Upham and Giuseppe Tellera just as samples. Quoting WP:ICONDECORATION: "[icons should] serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension". A bowl of fruit salad in an infobox does not achieve this. If ribbon bars and/or ribbon icons are used, it is appropriate to do so in conjunction with text. Your most recent revert has claimed: "there was no consensus about this, that was an unproductive and useless edit" - despite three independent opinions and weight of arguement to the contrary. You have continued to revert (quoting you) "based on one's [ie your] opinions of them". It has been observed earlier that your tone and comments have been "hostile and uncivil" but yet, you continue. Per: "But please don't waste anymore of my time ... If you need suggestions on ways to be more productive ...", I suggest you consider WP:BOOMERANG and WP:KETTLE. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about anyone's tone, and I have stopped caring how people speak to me here (And you will if you ever run into Jetstreamer). My point was that the act of moving a ribbon rack does not increase the information available to an everyday reader, hence spending time moving them IS NOT PRODUCTIVE. Translating new articles and expanding stubs is being productive, anything else is simply a waste of time. Thanks to bureaucrats who spend time worrying about formatting, tagging without fixing, and writing new rules, it turns out only about 1400 Wikipedia users are writing most of the content: Everyone else, not just the people here, worry about changing small things that are not undisputed improvements (ex, expanding a stub). I suggest you read this article from business insider. IMHO, a Wikipedian's value is based on the amount of text they add, not number of tiny edits.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What's going on here? Either way, I belong to that 1400 people that do write articles. :)--Biografer (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Somebody, not naming names, who only makes minor edits and the shortest of stubs, threw a fit over the way the ribbons are displayed. They made no other contributions to the article and only cared about a bunch of ribbon bars; I turned this stub into a multi-paragraph article translated from Russian, expanding it from several thousand bytes. But some people only care about ribbons. New rule: If you don't write anything from scratch don't complain about an article's format. Like a specific format? Write a fresh article in whatever format you want, but don't whine about ribbons in one article without ADDING real content.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, if I would have been that person, I would at least write a Start article (or a few) to prove that I can have a fit about formatting. On the other hand, even if I would have, I probably would care less about formats. But when it comes to ribbons, some ribbons we don't even have here. For example, Russian Wikipedia I know, have multiple award templates for performers, but English almost have none. :( If he wants to continue this fit, why not he go and complain about it to consensus who failed to include all ribbon templates in the world?!--Biografer (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of people who care about ribbons: Leonid Brezhnev used to be a fan of putting them on himself. There was many jokes about him in my country when it came to Brezhnev and his love for ribbons. :)--Biografer (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(break #1)
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).

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)


 * Soviet awards in general are a bit different, please do take some time to read about the Soviet medals system. We do not typically list jubilee medals in articles about Soviet WWII aviators, same goes for campaign medals. And the listing with ribbon bars next to them is not typical for aviator articles either (I've only seen it in articles about generals and marshals). It is standard to list the awards awarded for a particular action or merit (such as Hero of the Soviet Union and Order of the Red Banner) while jubilee medals, which are awarded for being alive every 10 years after the war, are not listed individually. This has gotten a bit tedious, and I am under the impression that most people here have not written very many Soviet biographies nor are familiar with Soviet awards. Please consider writing an article from this list (I will be happy to help) instead of arguing over formatting and resulting in an unusual style for the given subject. I have no idea why everyone here wants this article to be an exception to standard practice, and it's worth noting that Wikipedia:Manual of Style has made it clear that making a huge deal over optional styles is not productive. Please read a bit about jubilee medals, you will understand why it is strongly discouraged to list all of them. Therefore, I will be reverting the edits so that it is formatted like a standard Soviet aviator biography. Besides, the exception in formatting here is bound to generate a lot of problems.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 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)
 * See categories like Category:Soviet World War II pilots, Category:Soviet World War II flying aces, etc. I've never seen your formatting before. And do ask about jubilee medals. You need to realize that listing jubilee medals does not count as adding useful information. There is practically an unwritten rule that you shouldn't list jubilee medals for pilots. If you go look at Russian Wikipedia, articles NEVER individually list jubilee medals for pilots. If you are not actively familiar with Soviet medals, please don't try to dictate policy on it. It is utterly ridiculous to list individual jubilee medals awarded, they are awarded for being alive every 10 years. There was a vote at warheroes.ru as to whether or not jubilee medals should be listed, and the decision was to not list them except for extreme circumstances (ex, if awarded to a civilian outside of written criteria, etc). 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. Hence, I request that you stop this and read a few dozen Soviet pilot biographies at ru.wikipedia, original sources, and print books. Jubilee medals are not awarded for accomplishments, they are given to all WWII veterans every ten years, and are not worth writing out on Wikipedia, since they are not written out in biographies in any normal circumstance. As for "You are needlessly removing information", if you knew about jubilee medals, you would know that listing them is not information. It's something that anyone actually needs to know for a biography, it just says they were alive in ten year increments...which can be seen by the death date. Yes, most Soviet pilot bios are not written like this. On English Wikipedia. And Ukrainian Wikipedia. And Russian Wikipedia. And Chuvash Wikipedia. And Chechen Wikipedia. And Uzbek Wikipedia. And every single Soviet pilot article in any language except ones written by writers who don't understand the Soviet medals system. Full award lists are only standard for Marshals and other high-ranking people who receive many foreign and domestic awards without normal criteria. Please do give weight to those wo are more familiar with Soviet awards, and I hope you take into consideration the precedent of not listing jubilee medals. 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. Jubilee medal lists do NOT belong in aviator articles, that is as clear as day. And I'm sure that any editor familiar with Soviet soldier biographies agrees, as seen by general formatting. If we set a precendent with this formatting, EVERY article would have to change, and it would be awful! Don't set rules about things you do not understand. Length of an article does not mean it is quality always, if you fill an article with patently unimportant information (like jubilee medals), you are not truely improving it.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:12, 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)
 * 1. "I've never seen your formatting before" refers to in Soviet Aviator biographies! Please stop with this unsusual formatting. It's not used in any other biography of categories listed, and jubilee medals are not supposed to be listed. 2. "And Ukrainian Wikipedia. And Russian Wikipedia. And Chuvash Wikipedia. And Chechen Wikipedia. And Uzbek Wikipedia." refers to the fact that this is practice everywhere, including English Wikipedia. No Soviet aviator article has this formatting, English or anywhere else. I don't understand why this discussion should even be on the talkpage for just one Soviet aviator - by default, standard formatting should be used. If you like your (yes, your) formatting, because formatting for marshals is different for pilots, bring it up with Manual of Style. I brought up warheroes.ru and the print books about to make it clear that the only place a jubilee medals are ever listed is on certain special cases on Wikipedia articles, NOT willy-nilly to add bytes to a biography. STOP. You have still not done any research about this topic. There was a consensus to NOT have a ribbon rack in the infobox, but that does NOT mean you can assume that YOUR unprecedented formatting is consensus-approved. Stop trying to make things what they are not, ribbon icons do not belong next to words - it creates weird halos on computer screens to have ribbon icons spaced like that, which is plain UGLY! For the 500th time, nobody, absolutely nobody familiar with the topic, lists the jubilee medals on the biography for a bomber pilot. I will NOT discuss this further until you familarize youself with Soviet awards and aviation. For gods sake, realize that medals awarded for being alive every 10 years are not merit awards! Not worth listing. Listing unessesary jubilee medals does not count as actually writing a biography, you knew the edits would be controversial, don't even pretend that is the same as REAL editing (ie, translating)!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the previous tone. I would like to note that in the past instead of reverting I modified a previous version to a ribbon-bar-less version, and Nikkimaria considered it an acceptable compromise. Per the consensus around WP:Icondecoration, if there is a debate as to how best to display ribbons, I think it is best that NO ribbons be present at all. Besides, it's better for mobile phone users anyway. Please do not add any more ribbon bars to the article - this was a debate about which way was the best to display them that has gotten out of hand. No ribbon bars is clearly the most popular option if you look at all the aviator articles in the category Category:Heroes of the Soviet Union. As for jubilee medals...I have felt a strong consensus against listing them all in an article, and am bringing in fellow Wikipedians with experience in writing Soviet biographies to this.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(break #2)

 * - A great deal of what you've posted here is conjecture. You go on and on (and on) about what you think should and shouldn't be in the article. You also claim unknown and unspoken of standards that you can't possibly use to support your reverts. You've mentioned, ad nauseum other websites, books and even wikis in other languages, but you have not cited a single English Wikipedia policy or guideline. You may not like it, but consensus supports the version I re-added. A version of format, written by another editor, and is found on other pages here so, again, this format that you keep railing against, is. not. mine. This has become a content dispute. I recommend that you leave the content alone, and seek dispute resolution. And be careful of who you ping or notify, you don't want to run afoul of WP:CANVAS. This constant reverting and these lengthy insulting but otherwise baseless talk page posts are doing nothing to help your position. - wolf  03:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's NOT conjecture! I linked to categories where not one single article was formatted the way you did. It is also not conjecture that the ribbons next to words makes it harder to read in the mobile view...you can check yourself. As for edit waring, it takes two to tangle, and you have been the one insisting on having icons at all lately. Right now, I am saying that the version with 0 icons is best. Standards of entire categories are not unknown, you can check any of the following articles where awards are listed or in prose without icons at all, and no mention of specific jubilee medals if awarded (please do not mess them up): Polina Gelman, Yevdokiya Nosal, Yevgeniya Rudneva, Vera Belik, Olga Sanfirova, Raisa Aronova, Rufina Gasheva, Larisa Litvinova, Yevdokiya Nikulina, Zoya Parfenova, Yevdokia Pasko, Nadezhda Popova, Nina Raspopova, Irina Sebrova, Mariya Smirnova, Maguba Syrtlanova, Yevgeniya Zhigulenko, Mariya Dolina, Vladimir Sergeyevich Mikhaylov, Zuleykha Seyidmammadova, Pyotr Bazanov, Dmitri Glinka, Amet-khan Sultan, Hazi Aslanov, Ziya Bunyadov, Yevgeniy Savitskiy, Antonina Zubkova, Glafira Kashirina, Khiuaz Dospanova, Danutė Stanelienė, Matrena Necheporchukova, Nadezhda Zhurkina, Nina Lobkovskaya, Abukhadzhi Idrisov, Vasilij Kvachantiradze, Asaf Abdrakhmanov, Alexander Altunin, Yekaterina Zelenko, Irina Levchenko, Valeriya Gnarovskaya, Vera Kashcheyeva, Kseniya Konstantinova, Lyudmila Kravets, Zinaida Mareseva, Fedora Pushina, Mariya Shcherbachenko, Mariya Shkarletova, Zinaida Tusnolobova-Marchenko, Yelena Kolesova...need I go on? It's not "unknown" to not have icons next to text, its default to not have them, and in fact, it's quite unusual to have them present.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really care to be the recipient of any more of your insults, nor your hostile, combative attitude. Icons are not the issue here. Numerous (as in tens of thousands) of articles use icons of all types, sizes and colours, without issue. So stop trying to create a problem where there isn't one. If you feel there is a problem with icons and smartphones, that is an issue you need to address elsewhere (start at the help desk if you don't know). The content here was re-added per consensus. Just becasue you (yes... you) don't like it does not mean you get to arbitrarily remove it. This is a content dispute. If you wish to dispute this content, then you need to go through the dispute resolution process. (How many times do I need to tell you this?!) In the meantime, your repeated removal of this content is tendentious and I strongly encourage you to self-revert it back in until the dispute resolution process is completed. If it turns out that the content is to be removed, then it will be removed. But not until then. If it turns out that the content is to remain, then you'll just have to live with it. Now, stop-edit warring, drop the stick, stop posting giant walls of irrelevant rant, and. go. to. DR. Thank you - wolf  15:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(break #3)
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)
 * Here's my take; there is disagreement about how to present ribbon bars, be it in a ribbon rack in the infobox, or next to text. Because of the degree of the dispute, and interference with viewing text in mobile view, I strongly assert that in this case we drop the ribbon bars all together - not in the infobox, not anywhere else. Escpecially considering reverting edits often ends up removing important content that establishes notability, fixes minor factual innaccuracies, etc.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's my take; 'no' (now that you've 'finally' stopped harassing me and edit-warring on my own freakin' talk page). I wasn't in any "rush to revert", considering I last edited this page over three weeks ago. I thought I watchlisted this page, (my mistake), that's why I hadn't immediately noticed that you had again reverted the awards section. You did this against consensus. You still have not cited a single English Wikipedia policy or guideline to support your revert. And please stop saying you're doing this for the sake of mobile users, it does not legitimize your edits and I do all my editing on a mobile device, so I'm calling "BS" on that. When I left this talk page, I advised you to seek dispute resolution as this is a content dispute. Just because you you don't like a particular version, does not mean you can edit-war your way into forcing your preferred version. My edit is supported by consensus, right here on this talk page. Yours is supported by nothing but your own opinion. You need to abide by consensus, or seek wp:dr, and either way stop your disruptive editing. - wolf  01:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW "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)
 * The ribbons always shift text on my phone and has to be scrolled past to see the text instead of appearing in the next row of text to fit the screen like it should, I don't know about you. I have repeatedly cited WP:ICONDECORATION. The way you format the ribbons is very distracting, which is strongly discouraged per WP:ICONDECORATION, and if you read through the talkpage, you would notice that I previously removed all ribbon icons, and User:Nikkimaria thought it was acceptable. You are the only person I've ever met that thinks a plain, ribbon-free page is a problem. As for a DR, no, an edit war is NOT a reason to delete the entire page! I have repeately cited that policy - but you are misinterpreting this talkpage to claim you have consensus. Don't you think it's a better idea to have no ribbons at all when the formatting of ribbons is disputed? Wolf insists on having ribbons next to text, but seems best to have no ribbons or icons in the article at all at this point.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You will have quote just exactly what it says in WP:ICONDECORATION about awards ribbons being "strongly discouraged" on military bio articles (because I can't seem to find anything about that, and meanwhile Wikipedia has numerous bio articles that have them). I added content, you keep removing it. That is called a content dispute. That is why I suggested you seek dispute resolution, because you have no valid reason to remove said content. I have no idea why you think that has something to do with "page deletion"... it doesn't (have you even read WP:DR?). Also, maybe you can explain why we have hundreds, if not thousands of military bio's with award ribbons, none of which seem to be problematic for the project in any way, yet you act as if adding the ribbons here is the end of world? Look, obviously you don't like it, but that is not a reason to disrupt the page. - wolf  02:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following this new iteration of the discussion - is there a possibility for a mobile-compatible format that would be mutually agreeable? For example, what about using proper table formatting rather than a list with icons? Failing that, a plain list is acceptable IMO, but open to other opinions on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the reply. I don't see that it has at all been established that a problem exists, either with the list I had added or with the version seen here for example. I work on solely on my smartphone, and have no problem whatsoever with either of these versions. I see them just fine. I also see an editor who is clearly running afoul of WP:OWN and rigidly trying to control the content of an article he feels falls under 'his domain'. He presents various unsupported and empty reasons for his actions and nothing in the way of P&G or consensus. As I said earlier, I was drawn here by a post at Milhist. I saw a debate between this editor and several others, your self included, with some appalling behaviour. But I also saw a consensus among the participants, and with that sought to bring this military bio in line with the many, many, many others we have here. But I keep getting reverted, I'm not willing to go 4RR over this, so was I going to leave it until tomorrow to decide what to do next. Again thanks for the post. Cheers - wolf  04:52, 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, , and. Hopefully we can collectively come up with a solution. - wolf  05:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wolf, what I said was correct. You swore at me, I linked to your careless edit that removed important information and punctuation. And I do intend to truely expand the article (ie, add paragaphs, unlike you), but your fussing over formatting always gets in the way.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is really a tempest in a teapot and should be calmed down., Soviet award ribbons never include devices like US ribbons (additional ribbons for the same award are worn), so it is misleading to superimpose numbers over the Order of the Red Banner ribbon. Kges1901 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kges1901. People who didn't write a single sentence in this article are trying to dictate formatting. Civilty has died anyway...After notifying a certain someone on their talkpage that I did infact write on the article talkpage after being accused of not writing on the talkpage, I was told to get the f*** of their talkpage. I would like to make my current position abundantly clear: DUE TO WELL-KNOWN DISPUTES ABOUT HOW TO DISPLAY RIBBONS, KEEP THEM OUT OF THIS ARTICLE!!! No RIBBONS AT ALL!!! RIBBONS CAN GET THE HELL OFF THIS PAGE!!! I have never seen a policy against having a plain bulleted list, which is clearly the best option here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, every comment or question I pose is met with either hostility, or evasive, circular non-answers. Any attempt to add common, standard content, is instantly removed. This is why I've notified the other prior participants of this discussion. We can't have just one editor dictate content, regardless of consensus, policy & guidelines, established standards, and so on (and certainly not with the behaviour being displayed here. I mean, just look at this last comment above). As for the numeral devices; that's what was indicated in the awards's article. That's the only reason I added them. - wolf  15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You bring up American biographies and Marshals, but for articles relevant to Natalya Meklin, the formatting of ribbons in a list is not remotely common, standard content; not a single biography on a member of the "Night Witches", the 586th Fighter Aviation Regiment, or the 125th Guards Bomber Regiment (ie, the three women's aviation regiments founded by Marina Raskova for the war), nor ANY of the 94 biographies about female Heroes of the Soviet Union has ribbons in line with text. So instead of comparing apples to oranges like pilots to marshalls or Soviet pilots to American ones (after all, Soviet and American award systems are very different), let's abide by the precedents in articles of the most similar nature - other Soviet World War two pilots who received similar awards. When doing so, it makes sense to not have ribbons with text in Meklin's article - her article should not be an exception in formatting from every other member of her regiment and aviation group. It's now clear that plain, ribbon-free articles are the way to go given the amount of dispute over displaying them.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:04, 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.
 * 1) I believe that there was a consensus on the question posed earlier. It was to use ribbon icons in the main body but not in the infobox.
 * 2) There are a number of ways to implement and format such text in the article body. As suggests, a formatted table may be better than a simple vertical list, which is effectively an unformatted table.
 * 3) I note the comment by, that for Soviet honours, multiple medals are issued for multiple awards of the same honour. I would consider this very important if the intent of using icons is to "reproduce" what is sometimes referred to as a ribbon rack. I would observe though, that this is not the same as a list or tabulation of the honours and awards. If a list or table did use multiple identical icons for multiple awards of the same honour, it is likely necessary to specifically indicate this is for a subsequent award/s of the same honour and not an error. Most native English speaking readers will be American, British or from the Commonwealth (past or present), where a "bar" or other device is used.
 * 4) As with Nikki, I have not followed this closely to date and have tried to get across the recent events and comments. I have been left with an impression of "pointy" behaviour.

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 and honors

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 text on the Order of the Red Banner articles was sloppily translated; I have edited it for accuracy. The numerical devices were attached only to the medals, not to the ribbons. As a result, adding numerical devices to ribbons is inaccurate. Kges1901 (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - Yes, well... that is what it said at time, so that is what I went by. I had AGF in that version, just as you are now asking me to AGF in yours. - wolf  17:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem with that; the information on the article was somewhat incomplete. I do not hold it against you that you read the article text. Kges1901 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(break #4)
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)
 * Planespotter raises an interesting point about ribbon wear. It would seem that in most portraits, Soviet military personnel decided to wear medals instead of ribbons, perhaps due to the greater recognition of the medal as opposed to ribbons. As a result, photographs of ribbon wear are pretty rare, though World War II-era photographs such as this and this show that ribbons were at least sometimes worn. As a result, if a ribbon rack is to be incorporated, it may be more accurate to use images of the medals instead of the ribbons. This would make sense because ribbon racks are supposed to correspond with what is on the wearer's chest for the purpose of identification, so it would seem more helpful to the reader to use images of the medals that are actually worn on her chest. As you are aware,, for US and Commonwealth personnel, the reverse is true: ribbon racks are almost always worn; I have actually never come upon an image of US & Commonwealth personnel wearing the actual medals. Kges1901 (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - You've made several points here; I'll try to address them in order. First, regardless if Soviet Generals/Admirals from WWII chose to wear full medals instead of ribbon racks, that shouldn't really make a difference here. There's various reasons many of them may of chose to have done that, but we do know that they had ribbon racks for their uniforms in that era. Just look at Kornei Andrusenko, Vasily Gordov and Mikhail Tikhonov as examples. Even in some of the bios from that era, there are ribbon racks in the infobox, such as Akhsarbek Abaev, Kadi Abakarov and Viktor Zholudev (those might have to be changed btw). Ribbon racks continue right to this day (eg: Aleksandr Dvornikov, Andrey Serdyukov, Sergey Surovikin, Vladimir Zarudnitsky, etc.) and that is because they present a professional, condensed presentation of the wearer's awards. The same holds true for Wikipedia articles. I think having a (list? table? gallery?) of the full medals for bio articles will take up a great deal of space (too much in some cases) and it defeats the entire purpose of the award ribbon. I just don't think that is a good idea.


 * As for US general/flag officers, yes there are times when they wear their full medals (and though not often, I'm surprised you've "never" seen it. Just look at Peter Pace, James Stockdale or John D. Bulkeley for examples. I hope you consider these counter-points carefully. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here. I was just trying to add content as per consensus, our guidelines, and standard practices. This is s military bio on the English Wikipedia, I don't see why it should be treated any differently than any other, especially over the protestations of a single editor, all seemingly based on WP:IDLI, WP:IDHT and WP:OWN, who is fully prepared to force his preferred version by edit-warring. We should not be encouraging, or even ignoring that. - wolf  17:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have piqued my curiosity about the ribbon racks. Interestingly, the Soviets did not have ribbons (physically unattached to decorations) until 1943, when ribbons were approved for the existing decorations. (link to Russian text of original decree on that issue) Perhaps that explains the preponderance of medals instead of ribbons in portraits. As a result, I concede that a ribbon rack is not inappropriate for this article or for articles about subjects still serving after 1943 (it would be anachronistic for those that died before that date, though because before 1943 the amount of Soviet military awards to individuals was much lower, it should not create excessive display problems). I am aware that the ribbon racks existed as I added the above images to the Russian and Soviet articles you mentioned, and admitted that in my previous post after break #4, though you might have missed it.
 * As for the Americans, I honestly was not aware of examples of medal wear other than for the Medal of Honor, perhaps because most of American military biographies use images with ribbon racks, so that is enlightening. I am aware that there is a consensus for ribbon racks in American military biographies (though not in Commonwealth). Can you direct me to any guidelines that explicitly mention ribbon racks as I was unable to find anything specific in WP:MOS/ICONDECORATION? I will note that icons are allowed for the purpose of visual identification, which ribbon racks would seem to help with. Kges1901 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , WRT Britain and the Commonwealth, I can certainly speak for Australia and believe the same to be at last generally, if not pretty much universally true. Ribbons are worn on general duties dress (eg pollies). Medals are worn on ceremonial dress as can be seen here, here and here. Unlike ribbons, medals are worn in a single row. How military personnel appear in photographs will depend on the order of dress being worn at the time - see here. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But there is no reason that a ribbon icons of any style or formatting are needed at all. Istead of argueing over which way they should be presented and where, just leave them out alltogether, don't RUIN this article with icons, and write some content on a stub instead. The ordinary user does not need it, and while a few random Soviets may have portraits with ribbons, most of the night witches don't, and members of her regiment do not have them in their article texts at all. Her article should not be different from the rest of the members of the regiment. As for Zhukov, yes he was a marshal and wore ribbon bars, but Meklin was not a marshal, and not seen wearing ribbons. (Again, apples and oranges here. Zhukov received MANY more awards than Meklin, something that is the source of anecdote jokes)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Soviets wearing ribbons that are not marshals: ? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As you probably noticed...those are much later photos from when ribbons became more common, and none of those photos are of Meklin. But if you enter "Natalya Meklin" into google images like a user would to see photos of her, you do not see her wearing them, rendering the icons pointless and of no use to the user. This is about Meklin and the night witches, not a few Soviets veterans who are exceptions to common practice when Meklin was alive. (PS: she was NOT a cosmonaut). There are a few photographs of "Night Witches" wearing ribbon bars, but all of them are very recent (ie, the photos were taken when Meklin is deceased, and none of them are Meklin). It is utterly pointless and unneeded to insist on adding ribbons to the article on a particular person who never wore them.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:18, 28 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 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, ,  and  This WP:OWNership behaviour is now out of control and affecting multiple pages. - wolf  19:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm...they were from articles I created (or wrote nearly entirely from single-sentence stubs, meaning I added such ribbon formats in the first place). People are allowed to revert their own edits! The icons were in the infobox which is discouraged, so I removed them. That is by no definition a mass-deletion spree, I was not going against any sort of consensus; consensus is to NOT have that icons in infoboxes like that, I was NOT overriding it, so I removed them PER THE CONSENSUS ON THIS PAGE. (I created those articles a long time ago) I beleive YOUR behavior is VERY inappropriate, and you need to drop the accusatory tone. Your behavior is why I hardly ever write articles anymore. There is no official rule that if icons are displayed in a discouraged way they have to be reformatted in a different way, it is perfectly within the rules to switch to a plainlist format. Now drop the accusatory tone and stop driving people away. I have just recruited someone to Wikipedia, and I hope you do not dare get in their way over something so petty like you have here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't call me "he" again, got it? Did you not get it from the flowers, WiR, and bright pink editor-of-the-week flower? I honestly think you're just trying to be extra rude at this point.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And my comments are not remotely unsubstantiated. I linked to a google search, and many of my other comments are common knowledge. Meklin's infobox portrait shows medals not ribbons, and photo of her I could find has no ribbons, so having them in the article to correspond for identification is pointless. Need super-substantiation? Here. Enjoy. No ribbons No ribbons No ribbons No ribbons No ribbons No ribbons No ribbons No ribbons No ribbons no ribbons No ribbons no ribbons no ribbons no ribbons no ribbons No ribbons No ribbons in this whole album! Now please stop bugging your fellow Wikipedians over tedious formatting issues in articles you do not contribute to (since you don't google often or spend hours reading about)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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)


 * I did not threaten you, and I have every right to stop writing for Wikipedia if you ruin it. You cannot make people edit Wikipedia, it's a volunteer project. How about you drop the stick since you're the one who hasn't written a sentence here. Second, the only super-clear consensus here is against having icons in the infobox: there is NO clear consensus here against having a list. Third, yes I originally added the ribbon icons because I wanted the articles to be as similar to the Russian-Wikipedia versions as possible. But I respect the consensus against ribbon racks in infoboxes, so I removed them. Why not just move them to the awards section? Because the width of the ribbon rack is not the same as the width of the width of the text section. Plus, it is quite a stretch to call ribbon icons "content". They are not sentences, they are not text. They are not biographical information (please learn more about the soviet jubilee awards system; medals awarded solely for being alive every ten years are not worth noting in a biography in any way). Fourth, you haven't exactly been an angel here, and that's an understatement. Given your lack of knowledge and experience in the subject, you should probably be the one to drop the stick. And I do know I have at least one person on my side, Nikkimaria who said "the plainlist seems a reasonable compromise". By the way, after a previous argument over where to put the icons, instead of arguing forever about half a dozen different icon presentation methods, the simplest solution was chosen. Someone else found the plainlist fine, so if anyone needs to drop the stick, it's you.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And English Wikipedia or not...ribbons do not help with identifying people in photographs if said person never wore them. How are you not able to connect the dots? If the person didn't wear them, in photographs, there is no obvious benefit to having them. You keep dodging this one, but you fail to make it remotely clear how such item would be of clear usefulness to users.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One: show me where an editor has been "driven away from WP" because of my comments on this talk page, or strike your baseless accusation. Two: your comment that "I dare not get in way of your recruit" certainly comes across an a threat. Three: if you want to leave WP, that is your choice. Four: there is no absolutely no relationship between the lack of ribbons in the handful of images you listed, and the addition of ribbons to the awards section of this article, (iow; no "dots to connect"). Now, stop beating this dead horse already, and take your issues to DR. - wolf  21:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear to you...if you bite the newbie, I will ping every admin on my speed-dial. I have been relecutant to not bother other people in this until recently, but if you bite a newbie, things will be different. (Connect the dots: that's not a threat of harm, that's a warning that admins will be involved ASAP. When I was knew, I didn't know about the no-biting-the-newbies rule. This newbie won't be unaware) If anyone is beating a dead horse it's you: you are the only one that is this angered by a plainlist, which is an acceptable list method. Stop telling me to drop this, because I will not let an article I am proud of be ruined. Addition of ribbons to the awards section to the article? 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...but that is pointless with Meklin.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, stop telling me to get a deletion request. If that were to happen, she would be the only female Hero of the Soviet Union without an article, and it's just plain rude to tell people to delete their hard work because you want American formatting. Now drop the stick, stop beating the dead horse, and go draft an article in your sandbox.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:48, 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. , 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)
 * Whether it makes any difference or not now, following Planespotter's comment at 21:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC), I posted the following (and my intended final) reply, but did not realize it was edit conflicted by Planespotter's next reply at 21:48, 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"
 * Um, sweetie, can you point to a guideline that states that? No, because that is not the "whole" point of them. Look no further than naval ship articles that have ribbons, and even ribbon racks, to visually demonstrate the awards earned by the ship. Or the ribbons and medal icons in bios without images of the subject.
 * These replies are just becoming more and more ludicrous. Total denial of all the supportive guidelines cited. Total denial of consensus. Refusal to seek dispute resolution because you don't agree with the consensus. Continually reverting of content, first added by Nikkimaria, then myself. Refusal to follow BRD after being reverted. These constant, endless, circular arguments, with no basis in policy. And now these bizarre threats and comments that have nothing to even do with content. I'm done. I'll wait to see if any other pinged participants reply, then I'll take this back to MILHIST, . (approx 21:50, 29 October 2018) - wolf  02:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolving?
and, 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.
 * 1) There has been a request for other editors to comment resulting in a consensus to use ribbon icons in the main body but not in the infobox.
 * 2) The issue has shifted slightly to a question of not using ribbon icons at all.
 * 3) An initial reason for not using at all was incompatibility with mobile platforms, but there appears to be a satisfactory resolution to this.
 * 4) An arguement that soviet WW2 vets only ever wore medals and not ribbons can be shown to be incorrect.
 * 5) The utility of "ribbon racks" in articles is that the colouring aids in identifying awards worn in a photo regardless of whether the full medal or ribbons only are worn. This utility is reduced but not totally removed where a colour image is not used in the article.
 * 6) There is something to be said for consistency of usage between groups of similar articles. This is not mandated by guideline. At the category level of the Night Witches, this might favour not using ribbon icons but at levels higher up the category tree, this may be the converse.
 * 7) I have searched google images for a small number of the Night Witches and have not found images where the subjects are wearing ribbon bars. What I have observed is that the images available appear to be "staged" publicity/propaganda photos in which the wearing of medals (as opposed to ribbon bars) was consistent with the purpose of the photographs. I doubt that these pilots went flying encumbered with their medals even though there are photos showing them kitted up complete with medals.
 * 8) WP:DR links to "Dispute resolution". It is an appropriate step to resolve this dispute. This appears to have been misunderstood by Planespotter.
 * 9) has protected the article as a consequence of this dispute.
 * 10) This dispute is unlikely to go away without further third-party intervention. Tony has already made an initial review sufficient to conclude protection was warranted. As such, it might be appropriate and expeditious for Tony to make a close of this discussion.
 * 11) I suggest that a close might apply to other Night Witch articles.
 * 12) Tony, if you are adverse to my suggestion, would you recommend to the protagonists a course that should be followed, including who should initiate it. I think the step of indicating who should initiate is desirable to start the ball rolling. Leaving it open might lead to a resolution remaining stalled.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I’ve used admin tools, I don’t want to be the one judging consensus in a content dispute. The best thing here, if there is consensus for a change to the text, is for someone to make an edit request. If all the parties feel that going back to a slow burning edit war want reoccur and another admin is convinced, they are free to remove protection without consulting me.If there isn’t any consensus still, I’d suggest using another forum of dispute resolution. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A few Soviet WWII vets here and there wear ribbons in photos...but a vast majority of photos show medals, not ribbons, especially photos of the Night Witches. And I can't find photos of Meklin wearing ribbons, and I have seen well over 100 photos featuring her. As for the night witches and their sister regiments, many of their group photos show them wearing full flight jackets, with no awards of any kind visible at all. While her photo is grayscale, her awards are listed with wikilinks so any user who wants to know about her awards can click the link (and see high-quality photo of the award in the award article infobox) without making all users bombarded by the column of icons. The bullet list with icons next to text is absolutely disgusting, intolerable, and unprecedented in all English Wikipedia articles about members of the Night Witches and their two sister regiments. The formatting for Meklin's article should not be the one exception to her regiment. This was closed a long time ago when Nikimaria accepted removing the icons from the infobox altogheter with bulleted (icon-free) lists instead, but now someone wants to bring the list with icons back despite the fact that there were no objections to it, and brought the iconed list back every time I tried to make a minor edit to the article, effectively freezing the article from any improvment since I don't want the article ruined by the icons next to text. When the article is unprotected, I intend to add content (information) about Meklin's media appearances and publicity, since she was on the cover of Smena magazine in 1943, and featured in Komsomolskaya Pravda and Ogonyok magazine, and in a 1960's documentary...and other information (like that she had a son and was photographed by famous photographers like Yevgeny Khaldei). Since no other article on a "Night Witch", member of a sister regiment, or a female Hero of the Soviet Union, has the formatting desired by wolf, it is clearly best not to adopt such undesirable formatting - standardization and maintaning precedent are desirable and help maintain order on the wiki.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, I'm finished replying here, unless any other participants do. It's easy to, at a glance, see a lengthy back-and-forth between two editors and assume to equally belligerant parties in a dispute. A more thorough reading will show that is not the case. When TonyBallioni locked the page, he should've directed all involved to wp:dr as this is essentially a content dispute. That might've saved alot of grief, because despite the number of times I suggested it, PSA320 still has no clue what it is, and clearly didn't even bother to look it up (or even click the link provided). That is what they need to do if they want to form a new consensus. Otherwise, we should be going with the already established consensus. Other than that, my comments have come no where close to the level of "hostility" of PSA320. There is also the issues of OWN that clearly need to be addressed. I still don't see any point in directly replying to PSA320 any further. If any other participants reply, I may reply to them. Otherwise, if this fails to get resolved, I'll take it back to MILHIST where I first became aware of this. - wolf  03:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, 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 and. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that you would like this "dispute" resolved, as would I. I hope you have taken note from my last two posts, that due to the futility of trying to have any kind of reasonable dialogue with PSA320, I have effectively disengaged from any further one-on-one discussion. I will still respond to other editors. I maintain that the content added first by, then myself, then removed for the (nth?) time by PSA320, just prior to TB locking the page, was done improperly and against consensus. It should be re-added, and if PSA320 really wants it removed that badly, they should seek a new consensus to do so. It is my hope that some of the respondents here will elucidate to PSA320 the meaning of consensus, the purpose of BRD and 3RR, and the importance of the (English) Wikipedia's policies & guidelines and common standards vs the standards of other websites which are irrelevant. And finally the meaning of WP:DR, WP:OWN, WP:IDLI, WP:IDHT and WP:STICK. If we get some additional contributors that can resolve this... great! Otherwise, as I said, this issue should be raised (again) at MILHIST, as this editor's manner in controlling content on this article will very likely affect other military history articles as well, (and perhaps already has, but who knows?). Thank you C157 for your efforts this far. - wolf  07:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wolf - For the nth time, you do not have consensus on your side - Nikkimaria and Cinderella are both ok with the plainlist. (I feel like I'm talking to a wall though) I and other editors are not pleased with the icons in the main body, and it has been clear that you are the only opposition to the plainlist option. Please stop distorting the meaning of consensus, and stop insisting that having icons in the body of the article is the only acceptable option. Please read the very top of the talk-page. Since you are the only opposition to the plainlist, and it is supported by consensus, I will make sure it stays.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * From my understanding after reading the whole discussion, what I think is proposing is to make Natalya Meklin article no different then the rest of the articles. That is by removing Awards and honors section and putting all of it into an infobox. Correct me if this is not the case.--Biografer (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to just leave the highest award (or awards) in the infobox, and have no icons of ribbons in the bulleted list of awards in the "Awards and honors" section - just like every single other of the articles about her colleages and members of her sister regiments. So there would be an awards and honors section, but there would be no ribbon icons.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In short, that is incorrect . Please see my summary at the start of this subsection. Also, it is generally not good form to edit TP posts by other editors (even if well intended). Please see Editing others' comments. In particular, copy editing text with negatives such as "don't" risks changing the meaning. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

As indicated, I have posted a request for closure atAdministrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I have also notified this request at MilHist TP. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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)


 * My request for close has been written neutrally, as it should be. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Comment: The current version of the article (30 October 2018) is my preferred treatment of awards: highest award per war / era in the infobox; an expanded list in the "Awards" section, all as text links without images or ribbon bars. This is the approach I would advocate for across all military bios. The images are pretty obscure to the general reader and do not add to the article; see: WP:ICONDECORATION. The present layout is clear, concise & suitable for mobile readers. This is also the setup in German WWII bios and has existed in this form without any disputes or objections -- since always (?). See for example: Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. And yes, skip the jubilee medals. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree 100%.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (A line from Casablanca comes to mind...) Anyway, ICONDECORATION has been cited here numerous times, but does not give any definitive guidance for this particular circumstance. To be clear, there was a prior version that was supported by consensus, and is a standard format for countless military bios here. A single editor changed that format (repeatedly) based solely on personal preference. This was after pushing to have ribbon racks in the infobox, btw. There were other editors that had taken part in this discussion, they've since moved on and now it is clear why. When you have a single editor exhibiting extraordinary degrees of OWNership over an article, (a series of articles apparently), will not even acknowledge any counter POV, policy or guideline, and continues with exhausting, circular, battleground arguments, refuses DR, and even now, after clear disengagement, is still resorting to personal attacks, there is clearly no point in pursuing further discussion. I see a recent comment here about "WWII German military bios", but still no updated consensus. A previously involved editor is seeking to have this discussion (mercifully) closed. Hopefully it will be, soon, and then we'll see what happenes next. -  wolf  02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, it appears you're the one who disagrees with the current consensus for a plainlist.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman's view above is hardly the consensus position across the project on the presentation of military awards in articles. FAs have arrangements that vary from those with ribbon racks to those with tables and plain lists in a dedicated section to mentioning only the most significant ones as part of the narrative. All are valid ways of approaching the issue. There is no overall consensus on the presentation of awards in articles, every attempt to do so has failed. Instead the position is determined by consensus on individual articles. 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. As I suggested elsewhere, the appropriate way to get a community position on this article is to open a neutrally-worded RfC. I suggest doing this before too many more KB of data gets used up with interminable discussion of what is really a minor matter of style. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Some featured articles on high-ranking generals have them, of course. But this article will probably not become a featured article, and not a single article on a Soviet WWII female aviator has the formatting wanted by wolf. While many articles have such formatting, that type of formatting is non-existant in the article's on Meklin's colleagues. It makes no sense to format Meklin's article in a way that is different from the rest of her close colleages and members of her regiment just because people who saw this particular article thought it would look better one way or another. In my opinion, trying to create consensus for every individual article is downright tedious - better to determine by members of a regiment or a narrow category. And please keep in mind the fact that the Soviet jubilee medal system makes is difficult to have a correct exhausive list of all awards...for various reasons, some people did not receive all jubilee medals. There are documents available on several official websites to confirm if someone was awarded the major awards (like the gold star, orders, bravery medals, and certain campaign medals). However, it can often be difficult to find confirmation for the awarding of certain jubilee medals (escpecially city ones), if the person was not incredibly high profile. For someone like Marshal Zhukov, we know about all of his awards because they are on display in a museum (and there's a photo of the display on commons) But considering there is significantly less information on Meklin or any other low to mid level officer of the Soviet Air Forces in WWII, who's later life (which is relevant to the status of thier jubilee medals) is rarely not well known about, it is best to simply have the plainlist with the major awards. Yes, it should be a plainlist, without icons, because all articles on female WWII Soviet pilots are formatted the same way, and it should not list jubilee medals (which are usually just calculated or guessed). Please keep in mind that we are not dealing with a very well-documented person here, compared to most military biographies. Until I edited the article it was a very bare stub. While the presentation with icons in a list may be used for other military biographies, it is not even remotely common in biographies for topics related to Meklin (Female Heroes of the Soviet Union, Soviet bomber pilots, Soviet WWII navigators, memebers of any of the three regiments founded by Marina Raskova). Declaring this one article to be an exception to standard practice for all similar articles (remember not to compare apples to oranges like Zhukov to Meklin, but apples to apples like Soviet WWII bomber pilots to Soviet WWII bomber pilots). As for "ownership" of the article - I am well aware I don't own the content. I just want to keep the formatting for Soviet WWII bomber pilots and Night Witches standard in some degree of conformity. I happen to be the only person who has written a single paragraph in the article, and I even intend to expand it more (Yes, add more paragraphs) instead of throwing up a bunch of icons into it. But whenever I leave the article for weeks, then start adding little by little, somebody (not naming names) comes back thinking its more important to re-add icons and remove added biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanespotterA320 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And as for coffman's opionion in relation to this one article, it is supported by Nikkimaria, who thought the plainlist was a good solution, and Cinderella said "There is something to be said for consistency of usage between groups of similar articles". Kges said "There's no problem with you switching ribbons to plainlists, though, and wolf seems to have reacted hastily there" on their talkpage. User:Biographer made a Brezhnev joke about having ribbon bar icons (for those of you not familiar here with Brezhnev jokes...he was made fun of/is still a meme for having so many awards. This photo is still the subject of mockery. Can't beleive I have to explain this here on a Soviet biography.) In conclusion, it is very clear that Night Witch biographies should all be formatted the same way with a plainlist, and not try to format just Meklin's article differently "just because" some other less relevant articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Process to resolve the above debate
In response to the request for closure of the above debate at WP:ANRFC, 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.
 * Ugh, it looks like that tool doesn't actually count what I want it to count. So, just go ahead and limit yourself to 250 words by whatever reasonable counting method you want to use.  If you make a good faith effort to stay under 250, I won't quibble. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

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:
 * Talk:Natalya Meklin/Awards Summary/PlanespotterA320

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:, , , , , and

Position of PlanespotterA320
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Position of Cinderella157
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)

Reevaluation required
- 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)
 * I think you should leave this page since you continue to hold a very hostile and rude attitude after months despite not having made a single paragraph of biographical contributions here. If I were an admin I would block you for a week - take a deep breath and a wikibreak, and drop the stick. Frankly, I don't think we need any reevaluation here, since you are the only one who keeps objecting here, despite several other editing supporting the current formatting.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

and : has responded to my request to close the discussion per Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. 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)
 * This edit linked to both of the user pages, which should have resulted in a ping, in exactly the same way mentioning them in a would have.  Did the two of you not get those alerts?  In any case, I'm still willing to help you out by acting as an impartial outsider.  What I'm not willing to do is read through and digest the 100 kb of text above.  I honestly think any argument can be condensed down to 250 words.  You just need to think about the main points you're trying to make and skip everything else.  If you don't want my assistance, I'm fine with that too.  Let me know what you want to do.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I really have little desire to argue further with such an unpleasant personality who insists on formatting this article 100% differently than every single other article of the same type (being female Soviet World War II pilots), and discarding the opinions of many other users, yet hasn't written a single biographical paragraph. And as for coffman's opionion in relation to this one article, it is supported by Nikkimaria, who thought the plainlist was a good solution, and Cinderella said "There is something to be said for consistency of usage between groups of similar articles". Kges said "There's no problem with you switching ribbons to plainlists, though, and wolf seems to have reacted hastily there" on their talkpage. User:Biographer made a Brezhnev joke about having ribbon bar icons (for those of you not familiar here with Brezhnev jokes...he was made fun of/is still a meme for having so many awards. In conclusion, it is very clear all that Night Witch biographies, including this one, should be formatted with a plainlist like right now. We should not format Meklin's article different from all of her close colleagues in order to be standardized with a few less comparable articles (like Marshals of the Soviet Union). There is not one single guideline, policy, or rule, that can possibly be interpreted as to be against having a plainlist like right now, but many people see the formatting wolf insists on as going against WP:Icondecoration, which clearly states "Icons should not be used in the article body" --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to RoySmith (whom I don't know) and Cinderella157 (I do know, and don't have any problem with), this page speaks for itself. You have an editor flagrantly flouting numerous policies and guidelines, with just about as clear-cut an example of page ownership you'll find on this project. I, like several others, tried to reason with this editor, pointing out how we edit by consensus, and instead of edit-warring, to follow the dispute resolution process, as this is essentially a content dispute. But instead, this editor just drowns everyone out with the same non-stop, circular, battle-ground arguments, some that don't even make sense and others that show that she does not know, or does not care to know, any of the rules that apply here. It seems the only reason she gets away with it is because this is such an obscure corner of the project, there isn't enough people who even know about this page and those who do aren't invested enough to care. And the sheer volume of her contributions to this talk page only work in her favour, for should any admin somehow get involved, they have no interest in reading through the page, as demonstrated by RoySmith here. We shouldn't have to re-litigate this all over again. Everything an admin needs to know to take action is on this page. Just because a disruptive editor has bloated the page beyond reason, should not work to their benefit. That's about all I have to say. If some others speak up or an admin wants to actually do some admin'ing, then great. But if no one else cares, why should I? I can at least say I tried. - wolf  01:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And you consistently resort to personal attacks and appeals to emothion instead of trying to make this page better. This multi-paragraph article used to be a stub, but I expanded it. And the consensus indicated from WP:Icondecoration, which clearly states "Icons should not be used in the article body" as well as the other users comments I listed, all support my position - but you merely ignore those facts and resort to name-calling, slander, and making a mess instead of any true positive contributions. I strongly suggest you withdraw from this discussion, calm down, take a few deep breaths, and go expand a stub instead of going against the strong consensus for a plainlist here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:31, 13 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)
 * , I did make a post of my position. You may wish to consider the option I indicate? Equally, I respect your decision to take big steps in the opposite direction and thank you for your contribution. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest everyone drop the stick and remember WP:Icondecoration, states "Icons should not be used in the article body". Plainlists are fine, there is no reason whatsoever to argue against having a plainlist when people aren't even sure which way is the best way to display icons. I suggest you talk to wolf about their extremely disruptive behavior. This has been extremely unproductive and hostile, so please don't try to drag it on.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:56, 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.


 * , will you be resubmitting this to ANRFC? - wolf  07:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ATM, I an considering matters, including alternatives. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet again, Wolf ironically makes a personal attack - and in which he inadvertently admits that a plainlist is an acceptable option, quote "FAs have arrangements that vary from those with ribbon racks to those with tables and plain lists in a dedicated section to mentioning only the most significant ones as part of the narrative" As for "ownership" - I'm not the one insisting tooth and nail on having some undecided form of icon listing as opposed to a "leave it alone" plainlist! And considering the known issues with having tables and ribbons racks for Soveit biographies (due to the presence of jubilee medals), it is clear that the plainlist is the best option here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As I don't care to be misquoted, I will point out that the above quote; "FAs have arrangements that vary from those with ribbon racks to those with tables" was written by Peacemaker67, not me. FYI - wolf  19:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not quoting you at all, I was writing out the expanded version of the quote from another user that you used, to provide more context. Peacemaker67 said those very words, yet you only used what you felt could be used in a personal attack. In fact, you have not been talking about formatting here for a long time - just attacking and attacking me. From now on, stay on topic, and stop attacking me. It's clear that you don't like me, you don't have to, but please use some logic, and stop pretending that everyone who disagrees with you is either out to get you or does not exist. You have claimed repeatedly to have consensus on your side, yet you are the only person who does not find the plainlist acceptable. Many people, including Peacemaker, coffman, Kges, biographer, Nikkimaria, and myself, all find the plainlist acceptable - And yet you claim that there is a consensus against it. (I think you misunderstood the initial comments against having the ribbons in the infobox. There is consensus against having ribbons in the infobox, which I eventually agreed to. The compromise solution agreed upon by everyone except you was to have the plainlist) So please stop dragging this on and complaining about me. Perhaps you should consider taking a break from Wikipedia for a little while, maybe even apologize to some of the Wikipedians you've picked fights with (like Bones Jones?)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * PsA320; Look, I don't even read your posts anymore, including this looonng one you wrote just above, and especially after all that nonsense you posted at ANI. (btw - you can only pull that so many times before it bites you in the ass, so watch it) I'm not interested in anything you have to say so, don't ping me anymore, got it? So we're clear; Do. Not. Ping. Me. Again. - wolf  04:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You were just warned about civility, and then you talk like that? Stop making this discussion about me or you, and go read a little about the Soviet medals system. Then please stop opposing the plainlist. Please take your cursing down a peg AND stop being so rude to all other editors.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a horrid misue of a warhero's talk page as a soapbox to whine about "PsA320".--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)