Jump to content

Talk:Stephen H. Wendover/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Date of birth

What are the sources supporting the various dates of birth? Harlow and Boone (1867) and McBride (1878) give July 28, 1831. Shanks (1879) gives July 23, 1831 but the rest of the text is an exact duplicate of McBride. There is a mention of family trees on Ancestry.com but what is the quality of the sourcing? I am not familiar with the website but it sounds like the material is a self published source. Road Wizard (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It is self published and that is why it only appears as a note. I could not find any documents at ancestry that had a full date that were primary documents. I was hoping for a passport application. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The New York genealogical and biographical record (Volume 73) gives July 29, 1830. It also mentions he died unmarried and that he had two siblings, Isaac Hutton Wendover and Cynthia A Wendover. I don't know if any of that is worth inclusion. Road Wizard (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
In the Civil War draft registration of July 1, 1863 he listed his age as 31. He would have been 32 in a few weeks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
July 29, 1830 is the date used in all the Ancestry family trees. So that was the source for them. Did you add that to the comment on his age? Add it and take out the ancestry comments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you think any of the sources are more reliable than the others to have a canonical date of birth to use for the age calculation in the infobox? It will have the note attached about the confusion, but one date has to be used. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I think July 28, 1831 would be the most appropriate of the 3 choices available. 1831 is supported by the majority of sources and all but one source gives 28 or 29. We can always adjust it later if alternative sources are uncovered. Road Wizard (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

The consensus so far is to include the infobox. Consensus can change over time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm against the infobox. So where is the consensus? You think, your opinion = consensus? Go shitting elsewhere. Kraxler (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Please respect the consensus. If consensus changes, I will remove the infobox myself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
What consensus? Kraxler (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Infoboxes are not an optional thing which the editors of each individual article are typically supposed to decide whether or not to include -- they're a system-wide standard which is ideally expected to be present on all politicians' articles with no exceptions. That said, due to evolving article presentation standards over time they're not actually present on all politicians' articles at this time, since for a lot of lower-visibility figures who don't get a lot of ongoing content or style maintenance the infobox may not actually have been added yet, so it's not exactly the end of the world to have this discussion -- but the consensus is established by a system-wide standard, and not by redebating it in every individual case. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:IBX: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You beat me by a minute, Nikki, I was just about to add this quote... This flatly contradicts Bearcat. I wonder on what he based his assertion, since the above quote from the pertinent guideline is easy to find. Kraxler (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Also: "These boxes are designed to be placed into main articles related to the topic area, and are usually associated with on-going WikiProjects." - May I know to what WikiProject these Infoboxes "Person" are related? Is there a "WikiProject Person"? Kraxler (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a red herring: that text is ancient, stemming back to when infoboxes were seldom-used. I've removed it. I agree that infoboxes are not mandatory, but that does not mean that their inclusion is strictly personal preference, as I've stated in the section below. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


I added it back in. Please either come up with a real reason to remove it or leave it alone. --Nouniquenames 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing references

Please do not remove references. Every fact needs to have a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. There are only 4 cases, when inline citations are required, the one I removed, is not among them. Besides, it's repeated, the same source is listed three times in the same article elsewhere. Kraxler (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources "In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." When I am adding a reference to a fact, I am challenging it, but instead of adding the "fact" tag, I am searching for the source and adding the source myself. The references should never be removed once added. You wrote: "the same source is listed three times in the same article". Using the same source for four facts is not wrong, it is standard practice and the citation template combines the multiple references into one entry for the footnotes. There is no requirement that each fact be sourced to a unique reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You can't challenge your own addings, Mr. Norton. Please ask your English teacher what "to challenge" means. Kraxler (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
People "challenge themselves" all the time. Ask anyone who ran a marathon. If it helps ease your mind, then imagine that I am adding the reference because I expect it "likely to be challenged". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Mr. Norton, so be it. I suggest you challenge yourself in different ways. Challenge yourself to check facts and sources before editing, so that it gets right at the first trial. Challenge yourself to understand the guidelines. Challenge yourself to cure your WP:Editcountitis, and try to understand the function of the "Show preview" button (it's located beside the "Save page" button). And challenge yourself to accept a compromise every now and then. I do compromise frequently, especially if I discover that I was wrong, but also sometimes when I know somevody else is wrong but the damage is not too big to matter much. Somebody said a long time ago: "Strength is not to be able to defeat your opponent; strength is to be able to contain yourself facing the absurd." Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Kraxler, why are you removing them? If you haven't a real policy-based reason to remove ciations, please leave them alone. Also, you can challenge yourself. --Nouniquenames 00:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of added material

I restored the deleted material, no reason was given for the deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not restore nonsense, Mr. Norton!!!!! The only printed source says born in 1831. The other sources, are self-published and don't say where that other date comes from, and thus unreliable. Kraxler (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the material you have deleted. Calling my edits "shit" is not a valid reason. Please be polite, it costs you nothing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, whenever I see an infobox which IMO is not appropriate for the article, I will delete it. I'm not alone with my opinion, and ask you to establish consensus before adding any more infoboxes. See Talk:Richard_D'Oyly_Carte#Arguments_against_infoboxes. Kraxler (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I urge you to stop edit-warring, Mr. Norton. The infobox is irrelevant. Please read the abovementioned argument, and come to realise that you do not own Wikipedia. Other editors have something to say too. Kraxler (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That passage was about whether whole categories of people can go without infoboxes. You are unnecessarily rude in your comments, referring to my additions as "shit", please be respectful, even when you are disagreeing with people making additions to article that you created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course this article should have an infobox; WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for their removal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no guideline that says that all articles must have infoboxes. Infoboxes are redundant and not helpful, if the whole article short enough that it appears on the screen without necessity to scroll. Besides, it's useless to try to argue with Mr. Norton. I tried it before, without success. Mr. Norton is unable to understand even the most basic gudelines, and has a long history of fucking up articles on Wikipedia. His last big rant was at CBS Records (2006) which had to be protected from him. So you see, there is no possibility of discussion with Mr. Norton, he is stubborn, obnoxiuos and uncompromising to the nth degree. If any admin wants to look into this, I'm prepared to argue with him, not with Mr. Norton. Also, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is about something totally different (deletion discussions), please do not mix up your guidelines. I add infoboxes myself to articles where they are helpful for the reader. Kraxler (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you insane, Mr. Norton? The lede is a short introduction, to identify the subject. The categories are very helpful to find articles on related subjects.
You are redundant, Mr. Norton, since you mostly decorate articles, and move info around, but very, very seldom add something. To quintuplicate the same info (1) in the lede, (2) in the main body of the article, (3) in an infobox, (4) in full quotes from sources, and (5) in the edit summary, wastes a lot of space, and tramples on the guidelines. To add everything piecemeal, with the intention to inflate artificially your edit count, is dishonest, and makes you look like an imbecile. I asked the other day why you are unable or unwilling to use the "Show preview" button, and save only the fully composed article, and got no answer. Any news? Kraxler (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You can disagree with my edits but please be polite, there is no reason to call my edits "shit" and me "insane" and an "imbecile" or that I am "fucking up articles on Wikipedia". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing?

The following dialog was copied from Road Wizards talk page:

Infobox (2)

Now that you are contributing at Stephen H. Wendover, did you have an opinion as to whether the infobox is a distraction to the reader, or is helpful to the reader? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your note about the infobox is what attracted me to the article. I am currently reserving judgement while I search for sources to expand the text. Part of the argument you mentioned was the size of the infobox relative to the article body; if there are sources to support a larger article then that part of the argument is sidestepped. Road Wizard (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, true. I love how some of the early obituaries used puffery to fill out space. When you take his obituary and cut out the fluff, there are just a few facts. I was disappointed that I could not find an image of him. I went to add a photo of William Craven, 5th Earl of Craven that the Library of Congress added to Flickr this week ... and someone had already added it to the Commons but never tied it to a biography, so I added it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you come up with a more elegant way of describing in the text the problem with his age? I added a note, but the text in the article space can be worded better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
McBride (1878) also uses July 28. I can't load the Shanks text on my computer but is the July 23 date just a typographical error or faded text? In news print a faded 8 could easily be mistaken for a 3. Road Wizard (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
That image of the Shanks (1879) text is interesting as it is identical to McBride (1878) with the exception of the date. They must have used a common source unless Shanks copied from McBride. Road Wizard (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It certainly is a full article now. It looks like we have exhausted all the full biographies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It shows that Norton and Road Wizard combined to inflate artficially the article with irrelevancies and "puffery" and "fluff" (things never mentioned even at featured articles, like senatorial election majorities) to try to make the article big enough so that they could add an infobox. I am still opposed to adding the infobox, and was seconded in my opinion by User:Nikkimaria who removed it. The Wikiproject Opera decided not to add any infoboxes to opera composers, independent of the size of the article, and they enforce their ban on infoboxes. I agree with them. Mr. Norton and Road Wizard, I suggest that you add pertinent info and sources wherever possible, but do not add any infoboxes to short bios. Kraxler (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I have not made the argument that there is a minimal article size for an infobox, that was my summary of Kraxler's position. I think all biographical articles should have them to aid in machine learning, and for the ease of the reader looking for a single fact. Infoboxes also perform calculations of age-at-death for dead people and the dynamic current-age for living people. It is just a matter of consensus based on aesthetics for this article. The puffery I was referring to is in the original sources when they use phrases like: "He was a man of extensive experience in business affairs, of wide acquaintance, clear-headed and sagacious, and enjoyed the highest reputation for integrity and uprightness" because it can apply to anyone. None of that is used in the article, so I am not sure what you are referring to. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • WikiProjects have no authority to simply opt out of site-wide norms whether they assert it or not; the WikiProject in question has nothing to do with this subject; and the personal preference of a couple of editors only matters when they have good arguments to back them up. So that leaves length, which is a good argument against an infobox on a short article (infoboxes are intended to provide at-a-glance summaries, but that is hardly necessary on articles less than a page long). On the other hand, it is presumed that this article is not intended to be less than a page long in perpetuity, and that the current references provide sufficient biographical detail on the subject to warrant its expansion (although the point about using "puffery" not typically present in our articles is important to note). For the time being the article does not suffer for the lack of an infobox: nevertheless, when it is expanded in due course the infobox should be fished out of the history and reinstated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you please clarify where I have said I want to include an infobox in this article? Also your assumption of bad faith editing on my part is a little disturbing. Road Wizard (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"...if there are sources to support a larger article then that part of the argument is sidestepped." - I don't think that sidestepping is a valid substitute for discussion. And I don't think that adding irrelevancies (see WP:COATRACK), redundancies and repetitive notes and reflinks is a good idea to increase the size of the article. I'm editing Wikipedia since 2006, and have always valued quality over quantity. Kraxler (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be reading my comments from the angle of somebody involved in an edit war. Please take a step back and consider what I have said rationally.
All I have said is that if the size of the article is a part of the dispute then resolving that issue may help to reduce the number of issues you are arguing over. You may note that I referred to size as a "part of the argument." That leaves other parts of the argument intact to discuss if you wish - though the pair of you have a rather interesting style of discussion. Maybe I should have gone with my gut reaction and slapped the pair of you with a warning for edit warring and saved myself two evenings hunting for source material?
In answer to your earlier point of fluff, the only issue you have directed at me so far is the inclusion of a majority figure for his first election. Are you honestly telling me that readers would not be interested in how well a politician performed in an election? And in answer to your accusation of trying to expand the article as much as I could with junk, please refer to my comment earlier in the talk page where I question whether it is worth adding information about his family. There is also a very large amount of material I chose not to include; for example, did you know that he introduced a bill on the proper filing of mortgage documents in relation to personal property, or how about the bill relating to recording shares in companies owned by banks? There is a lot of waffle I could have included if my sole intention was to make the article as large as possible, but as I suggested before, your assumption of bad faith editing just makes me feel a little disappointed. Road Wizard (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox keep or delete

This section could be named "Infobox add or don't add" since there is none in the article right now. It would be more neutral to name it "Infobox support or oppose". I also object to a third party adding names to a biased fake poll. So far as I know, users are supposed to add their own names after a poll or RfC is opened. This poll can be opened after we get consensus about the headers.

I reiterate; There is no consensus on the infobox. Do not add it until this discussion is finished, and only if the result was consensus supporting it, Mr. Norton. And do not claim consensus where there is none! Kraxler (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"... until this discussion is finished" The discussion is never finished. Consensus can change from day to day, and week to week, and year to year. We can only go by where consensus stands at any given point in time. Consensus has been in favor of the box ever since there was a third opinion. Should the consensus shift toward deletion, I will accept it and gladly remove the box myself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is pure aesthetics, so you do not need to cite policy. I have added the people that have replied above. If that user has changed their mind or I have have misinterpreted your opinion, please remove yourself or switch categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have asked an admin to look into the question. I suggest you let it go for the time being, Mr. Norton, until the admin can voice an opinion. Kraxler (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Despite what you said on my talk page, this is not a formal vote. Nor is this a matter of "pure aesthetics"; infobox have a number of practical purposes, not least that they aid the reader to find key facts; and that they emit metadata which is machine-readable. The infobox you've displayed in this section is incomplete (Nationality? Occupation?) You've also overlooked Chris' (Thumperward')s comment, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The machine learning is very important. Google now uses Wikipedia to give you an answer directly instead of linking you to Wikipedia. Siri was also using Wikipedia and repeated errors in Wikipedia. Watson also relied on Wikipedia for the bulk of its answers. Yes, having formatted data is very important for machines and humans. I have to search text over and over to see if a person was married or had children in articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"Google now uses Wikipedia to give you an answer directly instead of linking you to Wikipedia." Since when? Everytime I google I get links to articles on Wikipedia, like always. Kraxler (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
What RAN means is that Google is occasionally able to give you additional snippets of information about the usual search results for certain queries (just like it does for queries like this), and it derives that in Wikipedia's case from metadata such as is included in infoboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Are you sure that this applies also to persons/bios, since almost all info in them is textual, not numerical? In my experience, google search always led me to bios with or without infoboxes based on the text. Besides, Mr. Norton now claims that the infobox is "pure aesthetics". Kraxler (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes: infoboxes contain microformats that contextualise data for machine use. I don't believe that infoboxes are purely aesthetic in effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The section to which I was replying has been moved or removed, leaving my comment without context. This is against talk page guidelines and 'I object to this most strongly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Did I delete something by mistake? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment added; text removed; text restored in wrong place. Road Wizard (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox keep or delete

Kraxler, please stop removing this section of the talk page, you already have recorded that you disagree with a !vote. And you have already discounted the other people's choices where they have left their opinions. You keep removing the infobox because you believe there is no consensus, then you delete the evidence. There is never an excuse to tamper with someone else's talk page comments unless it is a threat, abusive, or a copyright violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Stephen Henry Wendover
Born(1831-07-23)July 23, 1831 [1]
Stuyvesant, New York
DiedMarch 16, 1889(1889-03-16) (aged 57) [1]
Stuyvesant, New York
Cause of deathBright's disease
Resting placeMountain Home Cemetery
Kalamazoo, Michigan
SpouseNone
Parent(s)John Thompson Wendover
Cynthia A. Vanslyck
RelativesIsaac Hutton Wendover (1833-1855), brother

This is pure aesthetics, so you do not need to cite policy, but please do anyway. I have added the people that have replied above. If that user has changed their mind or I have have misinterpreted your opinion, please remove yourself or switch categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep

  • Andy Mabbett They wrote: "Of course this article should have an infobox; WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for their removal."
  • Bearcat. They wrote: "Infoboxes are not an optional thing which the editors of each individual article are typically supposed to decide whether or not to include -- they're a system-wide standard which is ideally expected to be present on all politicians' articles with no exceptions. That said, due to evolving article presentation standards over time they're not actually present on all politicians' articles at this time, since for a lot of lower-visibility figures who don't get a lot of ongoing content or style maintenance the infobox may not actually have been added yet, so it's not exactly the end of the world to have this discussion -- but the consensus is established by a system-wide standard, and not by redebating it in every individual case"
  • Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Infoboxes calculate the age at death, and for living people dynamically calculate their current age. It aids machine learning by formatting data consistently across articles. Watson, SIRI, and Google all use the infobox data. A current search by Google now presents the lede from Wikipedia and selected infobox fields as the answer to the search rather than giving a link to Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Carrite - I'm not a big fan of infoboxes when they replace graphics or when they are used outside the realm of biography, but they are an improvement over a raw page layout such as this one. I would suggest cutting some of the trivia from the box as it appears here, such as a null field for spouse, as well as entries for relatives and parents. Carrite (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Where do people put that a person never married, once we know it? Where does that fact fit into a chronology? How about mentioning after his death, or just before his death that he never married? What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
  2. Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
  3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
  4. Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
  5. Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
  6. Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
  7. Conclusion: Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles.

Per WP:IBX: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article".


In response:

Point 1: That "anyone can edit" could be argued as resulting in the same negative consequence. This is not a reason not to include.

:Point 2: There is no lead picture here.

Point 3: There is no reason given here not to include. If you want rid of them entirely, this is not the venue.
Point 4: Please see point 3 above
Point 5: Do we know that infoboxes help or hurt readers? No. Again, not a reason to remove in isolation, and the wrong venue to advocate wholesale removal across the site.
Point 6: This is your opinion, and it is apparently not completely in agreement with consensus.

Local consensus does not seem strongly against the inclusion of an infobox. --Nouniquenames 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop this

Straw polls are lame. This isn't a poll. RAN, you're damaging the argument to use an infobox by actions like this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a straw poll. This is objectively measuring consensus based on compiling comments already left here on the talk page. Straw polls are lame, but edit warring over where consensus stands at any given time is lamer. What is your suggestion on how to measure whether consensus is achieved? The alternative is to have Kraxler keep repeating that he has consensus for deletion. I am simply compiling people's opinions into two categories so they are easier to read and compare. Do you have an objection based on a Wikipedia rule? There is no way to give weight to arguments since this is pure aesthetics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Please start at the beginning, Mr. Norton. I proposed several options for the headers on a possible straw poll. After consensus on the headers, we will take the next step. "..edit warring over where consensus stands at any given time is lamer."' I agree, so stop it, Mr. Norton. If there is no consensus, then there is no consensus, a known outcome of discussions at Wikipedia. To claim consensus where there is none, is not only unhelpful, but shows to any admin who takes a look at this page that you are acting in bad faith. Kraxler (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Never, never, never remove another person's talk page additions, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. You can only remove copyright violations and threats. Once again you are confusing consensus with unanimity. To have consensus we do not have to have everyone agree, more people have to agree to one outcome. Consensus is a !vote based on a discussion of Wikipedia rules. This is a question of aesthetics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is dynamic and can change at any time. When I restored your deletion of the infobox the consensus was to keep, even though you discounted the third-opinion. You have deleted it an additional 4 times even though the balance of consensus is still in favor of keeping it. That consensus may shift toward deletion in the future, and I will respect that, and even delete the box myself. Please respect the consensus as it stands now. You keep saying that you object, so we do not have consensus. That is not consensus, that is unanimity, and they are not synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not a majority vote. It derives from discussion, which in this case is still going on. Especially Chris Cunningham has raised new points which could have led to a technical analysis of the infobox (in a general way) and its appropriate format. Good bye for now. Kraxler (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an ultimate or final consensus, it changes as time changes, it is dynamic. We can wait an infinite amount of time. The consensus was to keep the infobox ever since we had a third opinion. I even included Nikkimaria as a delete !vote based on her deletion of the infobox, even though she did not leave a comment on the talk page as to why she deleted it and her edit summary consisted of "rm". As it stands now consensus is for an infobox and it is based on the discussion I have summarized, and a discussion you have deleted multiple times. As I have said many times already, do not confuse unanimity with consensus. They are not synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox redux

I have restored the infobox to conform to the consensus here on the talkpage. Consensus is not a !vote, but the count is still three cogent arguments for keeping, and Kraxler's well thought out argument for deleting. I have counted Nikki as a delete !vote, since she keeps deleting the box, even though her argument is neutrally worded. The consensus has been to keep ever since a third opinion was added. Should consensus shift, I will remove the box myself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit unclear on what consensus means, and "compromise" too for that matter. A suggestion that there is no reason for removal when the status quo is no box is not consensus. A mistake about what policy says is not consensus. A malformed and biased straw poll where most of the individuals involved have been inserted by an involved party is not consensus. Despite all of that, there is probably consensus that an infobox should be included; now we ought to discuss what should actually be included (which is a point of disagreement above), before you insert your preferred version into the article - which is neither consensus nor compromise. Furthermore, adding original research to an article is not a form of compromise, and lacks any strong justification on your part. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to get into the argument about the infobox, but is there any particular reason for removing the access dates from the citations? They are very useful for retrieving archived records when the links break. Road Wizard (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
They're great for websites, but are superfluous for books (even online copies thereof), because those have a much more defined and less mutable publication date. I don't think I removed any from non-books, did I? I suppose they're arguably unnecessary for newspapers too, but I generally leave those. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Anything with a URL should have an access date. This is not the forum to determine what parameters citation templates should include, that is done at the talk page of the citation template. That way they can be removed globally if consensus is for their removal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The purpose of accessdate is to allow recovery of the source if the link should become dead. However, when you're citing a book, the link is not the source, but a convenience link to a copy of the source. The original source remains accessible even if the link becomes dead. Furthermore, you cannot archive either an already archived source, or a GBooks link. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not mistaken. If there was no reason to have access dates for book links, they would not appear in the citation template. As I have said repeatedly: If you think they do not belong in the template, argue at the template page. That way they can be removed globally.
  • @Richard, you came back to the article and again added the infobox (full) back in. I don't see that you achieved any consensus for doing so. I should have blocked you then based on my warning at ANEW. Nikkimaria has now reverted most of what you've done, and although I'm not happy that the two of you are again battling, the revert was an understandable reaction to your edits. No more. I'll act faster next time (if I'm here). Stop editing the article. Richard, if you think you've actually achieved a consensus, then let some other editor implement it, not you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
No. You provided a diff. I used logic and assumed you did not object to the entire change. If you prefer, I can look at it from a pedantic standpoint.
The image inclusion need not be referenced unless you have some reason to challenge it. (See When a source may not be needed and BLUE.) The parameters for the image should not be cited.
Resting place references include the last two lines of the second paragraph of the obituary on file [1] and the description of the image at [2].
The unfilled blanks in the info box do not need cited.
The title is also referenced at [3]
The term is supported by [4], as are predecessor and successor
The parent claim is supported in part by [5].
Now I life interferes, so I haven't the time to finish finding sources that the sky is blue (cunningly hidden in the article). Please at least look before you revert an edit as unsupported. I have used only sources already in the article thus far and not found anything unsupportable. --Nouniquenames 05:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I think your logic needs a bit of adjusting. The diff I provided was a revert of an edit of mine (which was itself a partial revert of a previous edit); it does, then, seem logical that I object to the entire change. I did not, however, say that the entire change was uncited: that is your own (il)logical leap. I gave three reasons why the edit is problematic: it restores a version of the infobox that does not have consensus and has been objected to on talk; it restores original research; and it restores malformatting. The points you provide fall under one of these categories, but not the one you're arguing against. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is malformed, what is considered cruft and what is considered original research, please tie a specific fact to a specific objection so it can be addressed. You keep removing material without allowing us to address your concerns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You keep adding material without attempting to address concerns. Look at the diff: material that you added to the infobox falls under the infobox objection, prose under OR, and ref formatting under formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Once again you have been asked what is malformed, what is considered cruft and what is considered original research and you have just pointed us to what you deleted. We cannot address your concerns unless you take the time to write them out so they can be discussed. You are just showing us what changes you made and justifying them as cruft, original research, and malformed data. Each, if correctly characterized, needs to be addressed differently, so I will ask a third time: "What exactly is malformed, what is considered cruft and what is considered original research." Tie each change you made to a specific complaint so they can be addressed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have duplicated the bank directorship in the infobox and as a succession box, so we can all decide which one is best for the article. What do people think? Which one should stay and which one should go? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You do understand that the note is an attempt to explain conflicting information and is not in the article. I will remove Kraxler's comments that you are objecting to. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
As to your removal of "accessdate=2012-11-12 |quote= |publisher= |location=". I do not see any utility to removing them, empty parameters are not displayed, but if someone wants to fill them in later, they have to remember the parameter name. I see no reason for removing the access-date for any citation. If a dead link is found in the future that date is important in finding the reference in the Wayback Machine. That is why it was added to the citation template originally. If you object to access dates, the best forum is the talk page of the template page so they can be removed globally. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've addressed this above: books do not need access dates because they are static sources; even if you're providing a convenience link to the book, if that link goes dead the book still exists. Parameters that are unused clutter the text and increase pagesize without any associated benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You haven't addressed it, you rationalized your deletion but did not base it in Wikipedia policy. Again, argue for the removal globally based on your logic, instead of removing them ad hoc article by article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:CITE describes what information should be included for book sources; accessdate is not included. Just because a template happens to allow a particular functionality does not mean it should be employed globally. Citation style is determined article by article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:CITE talks about paper books. We are citing an electronic book that also happens to be in paper. "Citation style is determined article by article." True, but if you want to impose your style for this article, getting consensus would be nice. When you were arguing against us making changes like adding an infobox, you said the status quo must stay until consensus is determined. Now you are arguing the status quo must be deleted until consensus is determined. So which is it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No, you're citing a paper book and providing a convenience link to an online copy, which does not override the original - see Wikipedia:CITE#Convenience_links. The status quo for this article is no infobox and no accessdates - the original version included a convenience link to a book, but no accessdate, and no infobox. You added both as part of your disputed series of edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No, the status quo is whatever it happens to be when somebody claims it. I'm claiming it now, so it includes a picture. The reality is that neither my argument here for a picture based on "status quo," nor yours against with the same reason for the opposite point a line above mine actually carries weight. Wikipedia is an ever-changing thing, and all articles exist in a state of flux. Some change faster than others, but the inexorable march of progress is so entwined that to argue from the past in an attempt to stall it is destined to be futile. (And, yes, with that I have just nullified my own argument.) Is a book defined only by its primary method of circulation, or is it the contents that matter? Iff the first, then you are correct to remove accessdate. Note the reverse, if the book is defined by the contents, then you are incorrect to remove the parameter. --Nouniquenames 05:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Good to see you making an effort to cut down on ibox cruft. Now all that's left to be removed are the parents (per Carrite above) and the resting place. Also, we should cut down on the huge quotes in the footnotes - those sources are for the most part readily available online, so quotes aren't needed for verifiability purposes, and other than for the age issue they're not very useful and clutter the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no objective definition of cruft. The word cruft is used when someone dislikes something aesthetically but can't come up with a guideline to justify their personal distaste. If you think those parameters are of no use, the best forum would be the talk page of the template, so we can remove them globally. Carrite and you thinking the parents parameter in the infobox should be removed does not make consensus. There are 4 other people that had no objection to them. The quotations are there because you specifically have been calling for the removal of information as unsourced and original research. While the sources are available now online there is no guarantee they will be there in a year, or 10 years or 100 years. If you find them "clutter" do not read them. They do not have to be read anymore than the categories need to be read. I find every article I never read nothing more than clutter, because they are of no use to me personally. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
So, over two people's objections to having access dates removed in references, you removed them anyway ... again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I am still not sure what you are claiming is OR, you have been asked three times and still have not answered. When asked you showed your 10 changes you made, but never specified which one was cruft, and which was OR and which was malformatted. Wikipedia states: "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
"leading to believe that it was based on hearsay" is not basic arithmetic, it's pure OR. Fortunately, you have finally removed it. However, you have restored the tombstone to the infobox in contravention of WP:IMAGE LEAD: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic". A tombstone is not a good visual representation of a person and does not "provide a visual association for the topic". As to your suggestion that 2 vs 1 is not consensus...the others involved in the discussion did not support those parameters, they supported any infobox, without commenting on what it should contain. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
"leading to believe that it was based on hearsay" had indeed been added by me, originally, and it seemed to me at the time rather straightforward. Having been challenged as OR, it must certainly be removed. After this was taken to ANI, I abandoned this discussion, and refrained from further editing. I prefer to keep out of it. However, I support all of Nikkimaria's contributions to this discussion. Good work. Kraxler (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You are confusing rules for notes with rules for article space when discussing the note on his age. Notes are there to provide opinions on which conflicting reference has more weight. Thank you for citing the entire WP:IMAGE LEAD as to why you moved the tombstone image. However: A tombstone is not a good visual representation of a person and does not "provide a visual association for the topic". Once again you are arguing and moving based on your personal aesthetics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Notes are in article space and are not a place to provide personal opinions, and a stone is not an image of a person. "Visual association" allows the reader to picture the person/place/thing being discussed; a tombstone does not provide that ability. What policy other than personal aesthetics are you trying to employ to present an atypical interpretation of English? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • On a procedural note, I find it exasperating that the two of you (Richard and Nikkimaria) are still battling in the article, after all my warnings. On a substantive note, I'm pleased that at least the two of you are talking here at the same time as you are battling. My strong preference would be stop editing the article and just talk. I'm not going to block either of you at the moment, but you are both put on notice that I may block either or both of you if you continue this way. Although I rarely get involved in content issues when I'm acting administratively, I feel compelled to say that putting an image of the gravestone in the image box is nothing short of preposterous, and I will have no further comment on that point, so don't attempt to engage me on it, Richard.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Either express your opinion, or act as an impartial administrator, you cannot do both.
If I block you, it will be because of edit-warring, not because of the content. You won't wikilawyer your way out of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Take his reverts on this article and subtract three (unless I have also reverted, then 3 minus the number of reverts I have done). Assume he is acting on my behalf for up to three reverts (so that I am not brought over 3rr) and that I will take the hit. It's unorthodox, but IAR and all. I cannot be here all the time to fix the article when it is butchered, and he seems more capable than I in fixing such issues. --Nouniquenames 05:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
To the extent I understand what you're saying, the answer is no. Thank you for reverting your edits back to before I commented just above.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have understood. I withdraw the comment, it wasn't the best, and I apologise for any insult. --Nouniquenames 06:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless anyone has any further objections, the parents (per Carrite above) and the resting place should be removed from the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd object to that. The father, at least, is supported in a scanned obituary that has been used as a reference for the article, and I don't see a reason not to include him. --Nouniquenames 23:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Sourced, sure. Important/notable enough for the infobox, which is meant to be a precis of key info, and which given the length of the article must necessarily be rather short? No. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the non-notable idea. Perhaps others will weigh in, though. If there is local consensus for removal, I'll certainly not oppose it. --Nouniquenames 05:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
(My opinion on this was especially required by Nouniquenames, so here it is.) Exclude parents (per Carrite above; and per Nikkimaria [non-notable]). I'm in doubt about the resting place. The infobox at Martin Van Buren omits the resting place; the one at Abraham Lincoln mentions it. What would be determining for or against? Kraxler (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned to Nikkimaria that the resting place, if we keep it, may need to be pared back to just city and state. I personally haven't found a reliable source for more than that, especially in light of previous question of the tombstone's reliability. (It may be sourced better than that; I just didn't see it with a quick glance.) I haven't a particularly strong opinion on keep or remove beyond that.
Also, per apparent consensus here, I have removed the parents from the infobox. Thanks, Kraxler, for giving us an additional opinion here to help ensure a definitive consensus. --Nouniquenames 13:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Tombstone

  • Question 1: Is the name "Wendover" written somewhere on the stone?
  • Question 2: Does this stone look like having stood in the rain for 123 years?
  • Question 3: Why states the entry at Find a Grave "Date of birth: unknown" when the year is in plain sight? Kraxler (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Answer 1: Is the name "Wendover" written somewhere on the stone? If you looked at both photos, you would see a main stone that says Wendover, and individual stones minus the family name, that indicate each family member. His father is also buried there.
  • Answer 2: Does this stone look like having stood in the rain for 123 years? I do not know, I do not engage in original research. I do not know how much it rains in Michigan or how much granite is degraded by water. While limestone tombstones dissolve slowly in slightly acidic rain, I am not aware of granite dissolving when it gets wet.
  • Answer 3: Why states the entry at Find a Grave "Date of birth: unknown" when the year is in plain sight? The entry for Findagrave was added on October 20, 2008 probably based on his obituary. The two photos were added when I requested someone to take a photo of the tombstone for me on November 12, 2012. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Re 3: The original entry at Find a Grave states plot and grave number, certainly not from any obituary. Kraxler (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Kraxler, you do bring up a good point in Q2 above. I would not expect a normal stone such as that to look as it does unless it had been replaced. Many of the old stones where I live are actually not granite and did not weather well. The best-preserved are the ones that fell over forward, sheltering the text from the elements. That said, at least one local graveyard partnered with a memorial company to replace some of the old markers in poor condition. I cannot attest to such a possibility at the graveyard in question. It shows no sign of previous damage leading to tipping that I can see, but that is pure OR on my part. --Nouniquenames 05:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
We have a tombstone with the year of birth and death reported by other reliable sources. He is buried in the city he was reported to be buried in, based on his obituary. He is buried next to his father as reported by the reliable sources used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Nouniquenames in this edit: wrong on both counts. The image was not removed, simply moved to a different position in the article, because per WP:IMAGE LEAD it is not appropriate for the lead. There is also consensus against the image's use here "ever since a third opinion was added" (per RAN). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. My apologies. I did not see the image lower on the page at that point. --Nouniquenames 06:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is approaching the 75K size where it is suggested that archiving be implemented. I'd like to tag the page for automatic archival by a bot. If no one objects, I'll probably try to implement that in about a week. --Nouniquenames 18:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done 01:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference age was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_H._Wendover/Archive_1&oldid=1079349257"