User talk:Huberthoff

Flagicons

Please stop your recent pattern of edits on infoboxes. They are not very helpful and border on disruption. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing your concerns to me directly. I will refer you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. Huberthoff (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's disturbing that a good portion of your edits seem to be aimed at those infoboxes with military service. We don't need to mention that you have disrupted many of the articles of United States presidents, do we? — Myk Streja ^[who?] 13:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field. – directly from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. With the notable exceptions of military conflict and international sporting events infoboxes. Huberthoff (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Directly from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Historical considerations "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags, as they were used at the time being written about, including naval ensigns, provided that the flags are (as usual) accompanied at first occurrence by their country (or more narrow) names—our readers are not expected to be military historians." In most cases, you have removed flags from military service histories. — Myk Streja ^[who?] 14:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undertood, however I don't believe "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags" gives justification to use an icon in every single instance there is a country, unit, rank, or service branch, which is the way it's been used. Thats why in British military persons infoboxes, these "

British Army

United Kingdom" are never used. Huberthoff (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just weighing in here, but Huberthoff's interpretation is correct. WP:INFOBOXFLAG was adopted some years ago based on community-wide consultation, and stipulates that "flag icons should not be used in infoboxes... they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many". Among the few exceptions—such as the "historical" Myk_Streja refers to—are military campaign or unit histories, not biographical articles. Again drawing from WP:INFOBOXFLAG: "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. WP:DONTBITE may be worth consideration here. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the only real newcomer in the room, I guess that refers to me. :/ I'm not going to fight you guys over this, it's really kind of sweating the little stuff. I disagree but I'll back down. I just find it disrespectful to the subjects of the articles that have been edited. It's not like there was a flag on every line. Okay, okay, I'll shut up now. — Myk Streja ^(who?) 15:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Huberthoff only created their account yesterday, so is the newest editor in the 'room'. Though WP:DONTBITE does certainly apply to you as well, Myk_Streja. :) However, I disagree that the lack of flags and icons in infoboxes shows disrespect to the subject of an article—I would think that extraneous detail (such as the flags and icons) that obscures content would be a greater issue. Nonetheless, this is purely an intellectual debate, as policy is clear on the issue. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two days? And he's tearing around taking out infoboxes like that? That's showing way too much experience for a newbie. How's he finding them so fast? (I shouldn't assume he, could be a she, but I'm an old dog.) He's clocking only a minute between edits. Just saying... — Myk Streja ^(who?) 15:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a point... Never mind, I shouldn't go off on a rant. :( — Myk Streja ^(who?) 15:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the flagicons in infoboxes are not fotting to MOS?--Joobo (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is in a military conflict infobox like Battle of Waterloo. Huberthoff (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeball --Moxy (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?

@Huberthoff, Myk Streja, TheGracefulSlick, and Abraham, B.S.:

Huberthoff, evidently you've been rather busy these past couple of days with your newly created account, and seem to be on this mission to remove flags and insignia from numerous articles. Along with the Ulysses S. Grant article, you've removed them from these articles also: George Washington, Winfield Scott, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Robert E. Lee, Henry Dearborn. -- Primarily articles about prominent Americans. You've also removed flags from a couple articles about Canadians, but the subjects are relative nobodies and seem to have been removed so no one can accuse you of going after only articles about Americans. I'm trying to assume good faith here but can't help but notice that you seem to have this preoccupation with American flags, as your own flags are the main theme on your user page.

The link you referred to is a guideline, not a policy, and while abiding by guidelines is generally a good idea, every guideline stipulates, at the top of the page:

"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply..." This guideline doesn't say anything about military insignia, often used in the military section of info boxes.

Why are you so set against flags and insignias appearing in infoboxes of American military people? Simply because of this guideline? I will try to assume good faith here, still, pending a reasonable explanation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: You have no idea how happy I am to see someone with gravitas weigh in on this issue. I was told, couched in kind language and quotes from the Manual of Style, that the consensus was that there were to be no flags in infoboxes, period. I disagreed because they were related to military service. What truly bakes my bisquit is the speed of these edits; it's like he has a bot helping him. I didn't agree with Abraham, B.S., but I didn't feel I had the necessary authority to stand up to him. — Myk Streja ^(who?) 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Myk Streja: When it comes to consensus, no user has authority over another. As I said, Huberhoff cites a guideline, but common sense and exceptions apply. We need to start returning these items to where they were before Huberthoff set out on this apparent mission with his/her newly created account, which is being used primarily for this purpose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline related to this is at WP:MILMOS#FLAGS......after that has be seen I suggest that this should be talked about at the WP:military history talk page. Just need to ask what is the norm....what is done for FA articles. The military history wikiproject is huge and they should have a definitive conclusion for this ongoing debate.--Moxy (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:

Done -- Yes, it clearly says In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited., and this would apply to infoboxes. As I pointed out, guidelines are a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply..." Articles about famous military people present us with such exceptions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't particularly like flags in infoboxes but, also personally, I've always thought that military-related articles were one reasonable exception to that, since the relationship of the subject matter to the country isn't incidental but fundamental. In any case, no one should be going around making changes in multiple articles simply because of MOS, which (as pointed out above, and which has been confirmed by a number of ArbCom cases) is a guideline and not a policy, and therefore is not mandatory. Huberthoff needs to stop making these kinds of edits and go get a consensus to make these changes at a well-attended and neutrally advertised consensus discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I realized that Huberthoff was making these edits, I thought they were not very helpful. Note that he/she made these changes to some FA articles which caused me to doubt the usefulness of removing the flag icons. I was told that I may be biting a newcomer so I just dropped the issue. It would be nice, however, if Huberthoff provides a reason as to why he/she is set on making these edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]