Talk:Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this article deserves a B-Class rating.Dapi89 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To the Ip that keeps "editing" this page

• Military Career from Career - this does not need to be changed, he only had ONE career, and that was in the military.
• Cannon note - does not need to be included, it is a QUOTE and a figure of speech - don't patronise me over the definition of "cannon".
• Language - this is a BRITISH related subject and should have BRITISH spelling, not American.
• Curry was serving in a unit under British Command, mention of his Canadian Air Force links is irrelevant. The information said he was American? Dapi89 (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

I tagged the article because it uses citations from works by Karl Alman and Franz Kurowski (same author). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. Information pertaining where he was born and early life. The tag is ridiculous. Dapi89 (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added the tag. Much more than place of birth and early life is being cited to Kurowski/Alman. Please see the diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: I would appreciate an explanation as to why the tag has been removed: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I restored the tags as Franz Kurowski & Karl Alman are not reliable sources. Please do not remove maintenance tags w/o addressing the issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Claims table

I removed the table as excessive intricate detail. Such information would be appropriate in a full-length book on the subject, but not in an encyclopedia entry. Preserving here by providing this link. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see these as "excessive intricate detail". Such information is included in FA articles on UK and US fighter pilots routinely. See [Albert Ball], for example, and I can offer several other such examples. In addition, there is a template (or was) for such information to be included to standardize it across wikipedia. Please refrain from POV editing! I would appreciate it if you would revert this to its original condition. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: auntieruth (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Other stuff exists is not a sufficient rationale, in my mind. Perhaps these should be removed from other articles as well. I’ve done the same in an article of a Russian WW2 ace, and the page is better for it, IMO: diff.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Having these tables is akin to listing every goal a footballer scored in their career. What is the purpose of the table, anyway? The information can be summed up as: “… was credited with X victories during the war”, which is concise and encyclopedic. Per BRD, you are of course free to revert the edit, and we could discuss at a different venue, but I'd like to understand your perspective.

Separately, please refrain to ascribing POV to editors you disagree with. Please focus on content, not contributors. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not you consider the tabled information in the British, Aussie and American fighter pilot articles is extraneous is irrelevant. Some readers prefer to get information like that in tables rather than text. Furthermore, vis a vis POV, because such information tables are there, your edits here appear to be based in bias, not in inclusiveness. Also, given your propensity to trim German Ace articles for excessive detail, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. I suggest you try trimming the ones for the British, Aussie, and US pilots for excessive detail, and see how far that goes. If it is permissable there, then I'd be more accepting of it here, although I cannot speak for others. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: auntieruth (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that the table is excessive detail. His notability derives from his status as an ace. This is an appropriate level of detail for an ace, as it enumerates what he shot down and when. Entirely encyclopaedic and in line with general consensus on other fighter pilot biographies. I've restored the table. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have considered Wikipedia:Too much detail and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I agree with Peacemaker. As you indicate, WP should summarise information. To counter, a table is a summary of information. You attempt an arguement of Reductio ad absurdum: "Having these tables is akin to listing every goal a footballer scored in their career." I observe however, the following list articles: List of international goals scored by Diego Maradona and List of international cricket centuries by Don Bradman. I would conclude that this tabulated summary of aerial victory claims is appropriate. However, I would also observe that it might better exist as a separate offspring list article (much like an order of battle article). I would suggest this is a reasonable basis for consensus. K.e.coffman, if you wish to remove the table, create the article for the list. And don't then put it up for deletion! Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not there's POV in the attempt to remove the table, there does appear to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT -- as I pointed out in this discussion, the "other stuff" that exists includes Featured Articles that have gone through a good deal of community review and retained their claims tables. Tks Cinderella for the compromise suggestion of a list article, but it wouldn't be my first choice -- if there were consensus to reduce the table in some way (and I don't think we have any such consensus at the moment) then I think making it collapsible and keeping it here would be preferable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed option

The collapsed option sounds like a workable compromise; thanks for suggesting it. I'd like to give it a try; would there be any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

My observation would be that, if a collapsed table were used, it may need some additional/modified text in the in the sections preamble to the table to support the modified presentation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I assume that this existing sentence would serve as the intro to the table: "Stahlschmidt was credited with 59 aerial victories in over 400 combat missions.[37]", as currently appears here: Hans-Arnold_Stahlschmidt#Aerial_victory_claims. The collapsed table would then follow. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Since the table is "now collapsed" - "These are summarised in the following table"? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

By "collapsed" I meant an area that you have to click on to 'open' the content, such as the treatment of "Ancestors of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg" [show], in Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg#Family_and_personal_life. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That was my understanding and that it might be appropriate to add the additional statement since it is now collapsed. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why collapsing the table is even necessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I have only suggested alternatives to avoid the "disruption" that these "debates" cause. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)