Talk:Werner Hartenstein

OR
The statement that the Wehrmachtbericht mention was "equivalent to "Mentioned in Despatches" in the United Kingdom military" appears to be original research and I removed it: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition, I also removed the translation notes (into German) as unneeded on English wikipedia. Not a place to teach readers German. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The translations to and from German were specifically brought up in review processes. please revert. Secondly, I thought that the "equivalent to mentioned in dispatches" was part of the solution we all came up with, at your urging.  This is looking increasingly like a crusade.  auntieruth (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Even A-class articles are subject to normal editing processes. With that in mind, what is the purpose of having translations from English into German on en.wiki?


 * Re: the "equivalent to mentioned in dispatches" was part of the solution we all came up with, at your urging (emphasis mine) -- could you please point me to the relevant discussion? Am I perhaps being confused with another editor? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "normal editing processes" - no, this isn't normal.
 * This information is sourced. It would also be desirable if you'd stop trying to hide other deletions by inserting misleading edit summaries. Dapi89 (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please indicate which parts of the edit do you disagree with. WP:BRD is "Bold, Revert, Discuss", not "Bold, Revert, Revert, etc." What are the specific objections? That would be very helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

All of the edits
Here are the edits I performed, with edit summaries:
 * c/e per linked article (this is about the Wehrmachtbericht)
 * streamline lead -- since commands are listed, units do not appear to be needed
 * reduce intricate detail & foreign language translations, such as for "chief engineer" (not needed on en.wiki); mv some into body
 * c/e -- repetitive

The revert's edit summary was rolled back senseless deletions.

Do you disagree with some of them? All of them? If only some, which ones do you disagree with? Please discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since no meaningful objections have been offered to the edits and the editor does not engage in the discussion on this Talk page, I restored the edit: diff. I welcome feedback / responses to my questions above. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As commented in the revert, although the translation notes are editorial freedom, they have been approved and considered appropriate at various Wikipedia quality reviews. The removal of family and early life information is not debatable as it reflects the best practices for higher class articles on Wikipedia. Subsequently, the deletions reflect a decline in quality, and cannot be considered an improvement. Please make a suggestion for your changes on the talk page first before diluting quality. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging in the discussion and for the feedback. If changes to the family and early life information were off the table, would there be any objections to other edits as shown in the above diffs? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor has not been on Wikipedia for about a week. In any case I disagree with the statement The removal of family and early life information is not debatable -- everything is debatable. GA articles, in particular, are supposed to "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see WP:summary style). I will give it a few more days to see if they editor might respond. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is also an A-Class article, which is generally more detailed than GA -- quickly scanning the article, there might be places that could use a tweak or a trim (which I'd be happy to provide if the parties above consider me reasonably impartial) but overall it doesn't seem unusually long for A-Class. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting
the only information pertaining to the early life was this change:
 * Original: "Hartenstein had one older sister, Thea Irena, and a younger sister, Charlotte. He celebrated his confirmation in 1923 and graduated from a humanities-oriented secondary school in Plauen with his diploma (Abitur) in 1926".
 * In my edit: Hartenstein had two sisters. He graduated from a gymnasium (humanities-oriented secondary school) in Plauen with his diploma (Abitur) in 1926.

So it's really a very minor change; these details are not necessary, IMO (first names of nn sisters & when the subject celebrated his confirmation). Do you see it differently? Also, are there any other changes you might have concerns with in the edit? Please see: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment above was about the article in general; as far as this specific change goes, I have no issue with your suggestion. I think in an A-Class article it's quite normal to note the subject's siblings, but we don't need names unless they're wiki-notable, and I can't remember seeing mention of confirmation in similar articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I've implemented the change, including the other one discussed above, to which there have not been objections: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

December 2021 edit
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Per the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_163, such lists are undue in skippers' bios; remove excessive promotions -- key ones are integrated into prose. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)