Talk:Guy Gibson

message: :See also  /Archive 1#Welter's Claim
There are two obvious examples of OR in this article as of 19:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that Peter Hinchliffe, the cited source, is simply mistaken, as authors often are, because Kurt Welter (in any case a notorious overclaimer) didn't actually claim a Mosquito shot down that night but the night before. It may be appropriate for the article to include the false claim and the correction, as it currently does, or maybe the whole thing should be passed over in silence. Surely everyone knows by now that the Mosquito's fuel-tank switches, being right behind the pilot's seat, have to be operated by the navigator, and Jim Warwick had no Mosquito experience and was only co-opted on the day, and if you were flying on the outer tanks, as you normally would out to Ruhr range, and the navigator fluffed the switch-over to the inner tanks for the return trip, your engines would cut from fuel starvation and you'd get backfire flames from the exhausts, as seen by witnesses on the ground, and illuminated cockpit lights, as also seen by witnesses on the ground, because the navigator was desperately trying to work the unfamiliar fuel switches in a panic situation. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two unrelated [[WP:OR|OR]] issues 

message: The current entry lists "They were appalled when they were sent on a daylight Mohling raid to the Krupps in Essen"
Not sure what Mohling is supposed to be my first thought was it might be morning, but I don't know enough about the topic to be sure about an accurate change. Glorantha (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note. That strange word was in the article for almost a decade. Clearly it was intended to be "bombing" rather than "Mohling", and so I've made it. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic entry 

message: Honorific suffixes are a standard part of the infobox for any person. Template:Infobox military person gives no different or additional guidance. Why are these being removed as "clutter"? Surely these are essential details of Gibson's life. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Honorific suffixes are not a standard part of the infobox for any person. In fact, if you look at similar articles to Gibson's—especially those rated Featured, A-Class or Good—you will notice that the parameter is very rarely used. This is because it repeats information already better represented in the infobox, duplicates the post-nominals located just to the left in the lead, and tends to clutter the infobox. The honorific suffixes are also not essential details per se – the honours and achievements of the individual are. Which is why Gibson's awards are well covered already in the infobox, in the lead, and in great detail in the body of the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Template:Infobox military person and Template:Infobox person list |honorific_suffix as a standard parameter. Just like |name and |birth_date. Why are these listed if they are not to be used? The person's name is also "located just to the left in the lead" - is that also "clutter"? The infobox is meant to be a summary of the person's essential details. I'd argue that honorific suffixes are essential details. Where in Wikipedia policy does it say honorifics are to be omitted for the sake of clutter?? I'm sorry, but I'm really not convinced by your argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

text: You seem to be arguing that honorifics given to military personnel are in some way less important than those given to non-military personnel. That seems a bit odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of a template parameter does not make its use mandatory, nor does it indicate support for or mass adoption of the parameter. It only indicates that someone has added the mark-up to the template documentation. It is extremely rare, for instance, to find |placeofburial_coordinates in use. The name and birth details parameters are also not exactly comparable – the name field omits Gibson's middle name and neither parameter covers or duplicates information recorded elsewhere in the infobox. Honorific suffixes does, however, duplicate data already and better covered. Again, if you look at similar articles, it is rare to find the parameter in use since it unnecessarily duplicates the exact same data, and clutters the infobox for no functional or aesthetic purpose. Functionality and common and consistent practice are the guiding principles here. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never come across such a niche restriction as this before. Obviously, not all template parameters are mandatory. That isn't my point at all. My point is that honorary suffixes are generally seen as useful in infoboxes. I have no idea why these should be devalued for military personnel. Again, if you can show me any Wikipedia policy that says this I'd be very grateful. Your direction that "common and consistent practice are the guiding principles here" just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. I'd be happy to see what other editors think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorific suffixes