Talk:Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer

Tone
The tone of this article is largely conversational, with such expressions as "of course" and the like. This seems a less than encyclopedic approach—more of a book review, which Wikipedia is not. Can it be made more encyclopedic? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the DYK hook is brilliant. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

US English?
This seems like a US topic per WP:ENGVAR and should therefore be using US English throughout, unless there's a special reason not to. Is there? --John (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A dubious argument directed at a Cheyenne speaker who hardly speaks any English of any variety.  Spinning Spark  17:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and spent a good deal of his life at war with the US. An argument also not helped by Marquis' own spelling of words such as whisky instead of whiskey.  Spinning  Spark  15:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Biography or autobiography?
Mitch, this is enough of an edge case, I think, that WP:IAR and WP:BURO apply. The real issue that needs resolving is whether or not we should consider this book a true autobiography. Decide that first then we probably won't need a hidden comment at all. The book is written as an autobiography, but Marquis actually wrote the book, and in a language other than the one in which the material was delivered at that. See the "Publishing history" section of the article. There is also the issue that this is not entirely a military autobiography, there is a great deal of material on other aspects of the subject's life so I am not convinced that category:Military autobiographies is good enough by itself. If one of them has to go, personally, I would prefer it to be that one. SpinningSpark 13:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should determine whether the book is an autobiography (military or otherwise) at all, but until we do, I don't see any reason why we should not follow SUBCAT. As I said, if it is in Category:Military autobiographies (or Category:Autobiographies) it is also in Category:Biographies (books) automatically so there's no need to list Category:Biographies (books) explicitly. If we're going to have a hidden comment anyway, it can just as easily explain why we don't list Category:Biographies (books) (ie per SUBCAT) as why we do. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. You're looking at it from the point of view of Wikipedia process whereas we should be looking at it from the point of view of helpfulness to the reader.  A reader who believes that they are looking for a biography, and not an autobiography, are not going to find it if you categorise as autobiography.  Decide first what the criterion for classifying as an autobiography is, and then the categorisation will become clear.  If you don't want to be a part of that clarification, fine, but then leave it alone until someone does. SpinningSpark 14:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox book template
, can you explain your reason for reverting the Infobox book template beyond the edit summary claiming the information was "but this one is utterly inaccurate and has to go." I looked up all that data from current sources and as far as I can tell it is completely accurate. You appear to have possibly used the Twinkle Bot to revert my changes without actually reviewing them. Your feedback is appreciated. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The publication history you give is quite wrong and he cover picture does not come from the first Bison edition of the book as your infobox claims. More than that, if I thought infoboxes were beneficial, I would have put one in myself when I wrote the article. SpinningSpark 21:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Twice you have said it is wrong, but you have not said what is wrong (beside point 2 noted below).
 * 2. The caption says "second edition cover" which matches the image. That is not wrong. I simply used the image you already had in trying to keep the original feel. If that image is good enough for the article without the infobox, why is it no good with the infobox?
 * 3. Your last comment seems to cross over the WP:OWN line. May I recommend you review that article.
 * I appreciate you have contributed considerable work in getting this article to GA status. I truly commend and respect you for taking the time to make that happen. I have moved a few articles to that status as well, so I can appreciate the feeling of ownership in making it that good. I'm open to understanding your opinion on infoboxes to consider backing off my position in this article if you would be so kind as to share it. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I know perfectly well what WP:OWN is. Please stop being so condescending by advising me to read the guideline, I've been here long enough to see plenty of OWNership. I've also been here long enough to see that shitty argument frequently used against content creators who are just trying to keep crap out of the article.
 * I'm happy to help you clear up the publishing history and expand that section with correct information if you want. I'm not so happy helping you to insert a corrected infobox when I am not in favour of such.  Suffice it say that the 2003 edition is not the second edition, nor is the image the cover of it.  If you have a source that says otherwise please share.
 * Infoboxes are neither prescribed nor proscribed by WP:INFOBOXUSE and MOS:STYLEVAR should apply here. I don't like them because they so often simplify into black and white information that is more complex.  This most often comes up in controversial parameters like nationality and religion.  The cause of endless edit wars at articles like Nikola Tesla and Mihajlo Pupin.  Admittedly, you wisely didn't put either of those in the infobox.  However, the question of authorship is at least arguable.  The true situation is explained well in the text.  It is not so easy to summarise accurately in an infobox.
 * If you had put in an accurate, well-researched infobox I probably would have just swallowed it and not reverted, even though I don't like it. But now it has been forced to a discussion, I'm putting it on the table that I'm against an infobox in this article in any form. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and no condescension was intended. I appreciate your willingness to share your opinion on the infobox for this article. As we both know, book articles have inconsistent usage of infoboxes and I certainly have no driving need to force one here. Given your assertion that the more complex publication information would not be adequately presented in the standard infobox (and is already in the article), I am happy to accept your proposal to leave it out. Thanks and happy editing. <span style="font-family:veranda,sans-serif;background:lightblue;color:Blue">&sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)