Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-09 Zero Mostel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Request details
Two editors have failed to agree on certain format changes to the article Zero Mostel that were made by user:emerson7. While some changes have been resolved between the editors, several issues still remain that are being disputed.
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
user:emerson7 and user:Ron g 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What's going on?
The issues that cannot be agreed on:
emerson7 has made the following changes:
1. emerson7 has removed a pic that he believes should not be in the article as it is not free. Ron g believes this pic should be there as it has a valid rationale and is a good likeness of the subject (the other pic in the article shows the subject in character and on a rare performance and so bares little resemblance to his public persona).
2. An image that contains text has been decreased in size by emerson7, quoting a policy regarding images. The size decrease prevents users from reading the text in this image. Ron g believes this should not be treated as an image as it contains text only and should be read as part of the article. The only reason it was added as an image in the first place is to disable editing to this text (official HUAC minutes).
3. A "Professional Relationships" section which used to appear below the main article and which pertains to the subject's relationship with other actors has been inserted in the main body of the article by emerson7. Ron g maintains that it interferes with the flow of the article and belongs at its bottom (in the same way that "Legacy" sections appear at the bottom of biographies, not in the main body of these biographies).
4. emerson7 has removed the mention of the subject's children from the infobox.
The full history of this argument is in Talk:Zero Mostel under "Emerson7 changes".
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
Ron g: I believe that Emerson7 used the argument of policy to push changes that diminish the article, and to which there is no consensus (the article has been in existance for years and no one else over the years has suggested/made these same changes). I believe that emerson7's interpretation of the policy is loose, and that this policy does not apply to the changes he has made. Ron g (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
