Talk:Richard Haine

Citation needed
In 1965, he was a participant in the funeral for Winston Churchill. This was in the article before with a citation. Someone deleted it. And now because of the alleged copyright violation (corrected now), the prior iterations have been WP:REVDELd, making it unrecoverable. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR and a small citation problem
I should have asked. But since I am a principal contributor, I thought WP:SFN would work better for our readers. I was bold. That being said, I ran into a format problem concerning the two 2005 Thomas books. I don't know how to format them, and did a work around. Constructive solutions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was able to fix one of the Thomas books as an SFN, but the other still isn't quite right. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Found another author to distinguish them. Yippee!.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Navigation and awards
Someone has removed useful navigation and awards from this article based on their personal preference. I am looking for a consensus to put them back in the article. This is my preferred version. Her is what it looked like when an editor removed the navigation bars, and awards.
 * Support as nominator Lightburst (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have only removed the medal fest, the notable awards are still in the article so I dont see any reason to add the cruft back in. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Royal_Air_Force_pilots_of_World_War_II they normally list their medals and awards in one section. For any actors, musicians, or whatnot, even if they mention them winning an award already in some part of the article, they always keep their awards in one section as well, and if too long create another article for it.  I say keep it in there.   D r e a m Focus  19:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry you reply doesnt make much sense the "Honours and awards" section has not been removed just removed the junk from it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No he is not wrong. You removed the photo files of the awards based on your preference. Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They are talking about removing all mention of the awards which is not true, Not really my preference just standard on British and Commonwealth articles. MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to have every award listed there whether you have the photos or not.  D r e a m Focus  22:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No we dont norma;lly list the run-of-the mill awards that everybody gets like the ones you have added back, they are just not noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

As for the medals, I personally don't see what was wrong with including the photos. It didn't take up much space, and it was helpful to have a list of his awards with the pictures attached for visual representation.Naomi.piquette (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Other than it adds no value to the article as they are only being used for decoration, thats why they are not normally used on similar articles. MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't keep The medals should only be mentioned in the main text. They should not be used as decoration. WP:ICON quite possibly applies here. Dormskirk (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Navigation
 * It is normal practice not to include nav boxes in articles that are not mentioned. per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. " I cant see why this article would be an except to that guidance. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. World War II, RAF and Battle of Britain. Haine was involved, and the nave bar is not prohibited. Additionally WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is only a guideline not a policy and only says Should not must. Lightburst (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK but we need to know why you think this is an exception to what is the more usual practice. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Information: Further opinions asked for at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not an exception, it is consensus per bidirectional. Lightburst (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The RAF Squadron nav box is for linking together articles about RAF Squadrons as far as I know Haines is not a squadron or unit just an individual. The World War II navbox is for linking together general topics relating to the war not for individuals. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep I would restore them. WP:Not paper. Their presence does more good than harm. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why they are not used any where else on individuals, again why it Haine so important nobody can explain why he should be an exception. And I still cant understand how Haine can be a one-man squadron. MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't keep: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL applies here. Dormskirk (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep restore navigation. Bidirectional calls for consensus and that is what we are doing. Navigation is not prohibited and it benefits the readers. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You still not made a case for why Haine is special in this regard. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The case I have been making is that we do things by consensus on wikipedia: bidirectional guidance says this as well. WP:5P5. I favor what is best for the readers. Nothing in the previous incarnation of the article is prohibited, therefore it has been removed because you have objected to the content. We do things by consensus unless we have a policy that prohibits. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we are on the same page I really cant see why Haine is so special, you want a add high level navigation box on the second world war not designed for individuals on one indiviudal who in the big scheme of things is not that important to the whole war because you think this one article it will do some good. Still completely confused as to why you think we need a nav box to move between squadrons not individuals, I cant fathom why you would think that was a good idea. But as a challenged addition we will have to wait and see if your position is supported. Two users so far have supported the status quo and you and one other have supported your addition so we need to see if anybody else turns up and supports your change. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like 2-1 in favor of restoring navigation so far not 2-1 against. And please do not erase the other article's navigation like the Bernard Green (British Army officer) page. I understand you are an admin, but we have a consensus policy. We should allow consensus to develop and not force preferences. Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No I said four people have made comments, two for (you and 7&amp;6=thirteen) and two against (me and Dormkirk) so we will wait to see if somebody else turns up with an opinion. Also to be clear the consensus required to add the nav bars the status quo before the challenge was not to have them. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)