Talk:Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group

Format

@Coldstreamer20: @Coldstreamer: in this edit you wrote in your summary: "Please don't change, we've already made the decision to keep the structures in the "spoiler format". I understand it might look better to you, but this has already been discussed" - there is no discussion regarding format, either here or in the archives. Can you you post a link to that discussion here, for any others that might be interested in it? Thanks - wolf 17:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC) (oops) - wolf 10:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild here you are for the format quick talk: (took me forever to find it for reference, but here). I thought it was on this page for some reason, but it was actually on my talk page. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Coldstreamer20: Sorry for the delay, but by "spoiler format" I take it you're referring to collapsed tables? That's not usually done as it creates a potential access problem (see MOS:COLLAPSE). Also, when you said a "decision had been made" to collapse the table, the implication was that there was a consensus to support this setup, which is why I asked for a link to the discussion. Perhaps you posted the wrong link, as all there is there is you basically saying to one person "hey, take a look at this page, what'cha think?" and them basically replying "meh, looks ok". That's hardly an involved discussion with an informed consensus. I think you should probably make the tables uncollapsed. (imho) - wolf 22:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Coldstreamer20:...? - wolf 08:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: I apparently wasn't "subscribed", so didn't receive the tags or anything, I dunno it's stupid sorry for the late reply. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Thewolfchild, for some reason I didn't get your tags. So... No. 1 you're right in the sense that the "spoiler format" I'm referring to having the structures in a collapsible table (type) format. I'm not sure why you think this is a problem, as it's used on several pages: 3rd (United Kingdom) Division, 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division, and 1st (United Kingdom) Division to name just a few. So this helps get rid of a million bullet points, and this way you can just select which one you're looking for instead of trying to find something in a super long list. No. 2 I might have used the term "consensus" wrong, and I apologise, but I meant by that that I had seen a couple pages having used it and it was seen as expectable since it was used on many pages including the ones I listed above. No. 3 you're correct, this isn't a discussion, and by no means is it final and wouldn't mind discussing it, but I was trying referring to that fact that that system has been used and is being added on several pages. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coldstreamer20: A) afaik, you don't need to be "subscribed" to anything to receive pings, but you're here now, so...

B) As per WP:MOSCOLLAPSE, it's right in bold print; "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading", so unless you think there's a compelling reason otherwise, those collapsed lists in the articles you linked above, and any others you know about, should probably have the collapsing markup removed. Apparently it causes problems for accessibility, while scrolling doesn't, even for lengthy lists. - wolf 21:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

May I request than, for the reason explained on WP:MOSCOLLAPSE, that (we) make a discussion regarding our separate opinions on this on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Discussion. The reason I'm asking is because like I said, I know that several division pages have them, and since I'm working on making "lists" to transfer information from including TA units in 1961, and noble titles, I'd like to discuss this before I actually do it now. I know that @Rickfive uses the spoilers quite often also, and he in-fact completely revamped the 43rd Division's pages and added those, so I know we see eye-to-eye there. Especially considering the orders of battles and structures can be long, the fact that they shouldn't be used (normally) doesn't really make sense to me as it just looks ridiculous that way normally. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coldstreamer20: it seems you're referring to the section of mos:collapse that reads: "If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all." I don't think you're looking to debate whether or not these lists should be completely removed (and the only other options there are: " If the information is important and the concern is article density or length, consider dividing the article into more sections, integrating unnecessarily list-formatted information into the article prose, or splitting the article." - those would all be uncollapsed.).

So other than that, I'm not sure what you would want to discuss, this isn't about in whose "opinion" the page looks prettier, it's an access issue, which means that when you collapse those lists, some people can't access them. Just because you have a like-minded friend, or if you were to somehow gain a local consensus, even at a WikiProject, that fact isn't going to change. The MOS is a guideline, and it's very clear on the issue. I'm not sure what else there is to say, I'm pretty sure that collapsing markup needs to be removed. (imo) - wolf 22:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)