Talk:Roland Michener

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Ontario / Politics Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

WP:ICONDECORATION[edit]

If there is no pressing reason to depart from it, I think we should follow the advice in WP:ICONDECORATION. Is there? --John (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated my reasons why I think the images are useful and I can't speak for others who've re-inserted them or updated them on other governor general biography pages.

If you want a consensus to remove them all, do you not think you should start this in a more public forum? WP:CANBOARD, maybe? Or start an RfC to draw attention? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a separate consensus to remove decorative images, as we already have WP:ICONDECORATION which covers it. What we would need to keep them is a special reason to keep them. In the absence of that, they can be removed. --John (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When they've been there for over six years and multiple editors keep undoing your removal of them or updating them (i.e. not deleting them) and the only two editors who commented at your discussion started at Template talk:Infobox officeholder didn't object to their presence, then, yes, you do need to seek a consensus to remove them. WP:ICONDECORATION is not a policy; it is a part of the Manual of Style, which says at the top of each of its pages that we are to "[u]se common sense in applying it [and] it will have occasional exceptions." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an actual reason why you think this should be an exception to the MoS, which is a project-wide consensus? --John (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided you the answer to that question some time ago. But, this isn't just about what I think; there are others involved in this. Which is why I suggest you take this to a more public forum if you really want to push for a change to the status-quo on all these pages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. You made some dubious claims about "weak consensus" but you didn't provide an actual reason why you think the widespread, long-standing community consensus as expressed in the Manual of Style (Icons) should be disregarded in this case. The onus is definitely on you if you wish to do so. --John (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to repeat myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

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. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts

WP:ICON is a guideline not a policy and as the banner states should be applied using common sense. In this case the editors are using common sense and this article is a valid exception so the icon should stay. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --John (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Roland Michener. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]