This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abraham, B.S.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
On May 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Otto Becher, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Once again, this month, we have a bumper crop of featured and A-class content, and our heartfelt thanks go to editors who have worked so hard to write these. But with our growth in quality content comes increased demand for reviewers. Which is where you can help.
Reviewing is easy and rewarding. You don't need any prior experience and you don't need to write a full review. Any input is helpful so you initially can just comment on what you're comfortable with. Most reviewers start off by focusing one or two things – say, the historical context, or the text, or the references, or the layout, or the images – and as they gain experience, they broaden the scope of the review. You can easily keep up to date with which articles need review, by copying this text – {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} – to your userpage or talkpage. Thanks in anticipation, Roger Davies
JonCatalán has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his distinguished service as a coordinator of this project, his thorough article reviews, and his exemplary contributions to 14 featured articles, one featured topic, and many A-Class and good articles.
Regarding this edit, I would have done much the same. (i.e. I have no problem with the edit.) However, regarding the edit comment, "inconsistant and unnecessary", I'm not completely comfortable. Regarding "inconsistent": With what is it inconsistent? (rhetorical) - you provide no information, so the guy doesn't have any idea what he's done wrong. Regarding "unnecessary": That's just your pov. Again, you provide no information, and again, the guy has no idea what he's done wrong. All he knows is that you disapprove of his edit. It would be more helpful/informative if you indicated what was (in your opinion) "unnecessary", and/or why it was (in your opinion) "unnecessary". If you had done either of those, it would no longer just be a pov; there would be a reason.
I hope you you find this comment of mine useful. If not, well I expect you'll ignore it. In good faith, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I suppose my edit summary was a bit vague. I didn't really want to go into a large explanation, but rather leave a short summary. What I meant was that it is inconsistent with other articles, and unnecessary as it just clutters up the infobox. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think "inconsistent with other articles, and unnecessary as it just clutters up the infobox" is a very good short summary, [though given my well-known and often-expressed dislike for the use of the word "unnecessary", I think "inconsistent with other articles, and it just clutters up the infobox" is even better, (and it's shorter, too)]. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You should have moved the page instead of copied it to preserve your editorial history. In fact, if you can find your sandbox edits, I would like to see them. Then see if you can get an admin to move the historical edits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Byrce, noticed that you are currently creating article for Charles Crombie. Would you like a picture of his headstone at Sandgate War Cemetry? I am within 20 mins and can obtain one for you. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the Photographer's Barnstar. Much appreicated. If you need any other photo's from the Newcastle (Sandgate) War Cemetery, please let me know. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I would rather not do that. Just remove the PD template and state in the Permission field of the {{Information}} template that the photo is public domain in Australia but not in United States due to the URAA. Then go about adding the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. Jappalang (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a trivial spin on it, but I guess it carries on the precedent that the consensus set in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian repeated place names and it does hold encyclopedic value. I had a quick look at the article yesterday when I received this note and was going to leave a few points here that the article may require improvement in, but looking at it now most appear to be addressed already. Although, I do think the article has a rather obsecure name and the redlinked towns might want a sub out of them. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
As something of an expert when it comes to not only writing articles, but also polishing them off to a high standard, I was wondering whether you could take a look at History of the United Kingdom in World War I. A peer-review's open at the moment but I am anxious to attract a wider audience. That was assuming the topic interested you, of course, and you had the time. - Jarry1250(t, c)10:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for the last revert; I was a little hasty and thought you were re-adding the external links so did not reply correctly. Yes, every senior officer starts with the rank in the lead, but I tend to be of the mind that those below the rank of brigadier, air commodore or commodore typically not be included in the lead. It seems to be standard practice for senior officers to have their rank included, but not those of more junior ranks; this is, however, subject to discretion and there is no guideline I am aware of on the subject. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh huh. "but I tend to be of the mind that ... " - What led you to that? (To me, that seems inconsistent, and in general you are consistent, so I find it a little puzzling.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It's consistantly inconsistant. ;-) Basicly, I remain consistant with the senior officers as they are of a high rank and typically hold senior appointments within their respective services, as well have made the armed forces their life-long career. It is also consistant with what quite a number of other editors do (as I stated above). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sombody has split the article (which I think is a good idea). Do you want to cast your eye over them? Personally, I think the VCDF article needs a bit more about the split process. Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"I've been thinking this needed to be done for some time now actually." - Yes! (Me too ...)
Not sure I understand your point about overlap. There's overlap between all of the article pairs of commander and their command, and also with the articles about the current and past incumbents of the command positions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
See also
Replied here. What's your preference about replies? (I like to see all sides of a conversation in the one place.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Not specific preference, but I do know you like to keep things together, so if you comment here I will reply here and if I comment on your talk page feel free to reply there. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have difficulty understanding the reasons why you do some things. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
1. Template "Infobox MP" has two fields: "honorific-prefix" and "honorific-suffix". Obviously they exist for a reason. When somebody has placed data in those fields, why would you remove it?
That is not an answer to the question. The first sentence is a statement of your opinion; it does not address answering the question. The second is a statement of your interpretation, which again, sounds like your opinion and doesn't address answering the question either. Your answer provides me with no information as to why you have done what you did.
Again I ask the question: When somebody has placed data in those fields, why would you remove it?
2. When somebody has gone to the effort of formatting something to make it easier and quicker to read, why would you undo that formatting and make it harder to read?
If you are referring to the infobox, it does not really made things easier and is little benefit for the effort utilised. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
it does not really made things easier - Are you serious? Why would anybody go to the bother of doing anything for no reason at all? YOU may not think it makes things easier. But it wasn't you who did it. Obviously it makes things easier for the person who did it.
and is little benefit for the effort utilised. - In YOUR opinion, it is little benefit for the effort utilised. So what? It wasn't your effort. And it is of NO benefit if you undo it.
And again, your reply does not address answering the question.
Again I ask the question: why would you undo that formatting and make it harder to read?
3. Why remove the Honours & Awards section and say "remove section solely consisting of WP:OR". Just because you don't like something, that doesn't make it WP:OR! Also, you know very well that it is not WP:OR. Yes, it has no citations, (and it needs them), but that doesn't make it WP:OR - it just means it needs citations.
This section did and does contain solely original research. No citations exist and there is no evidence within the article to support the claims which are obvious OR has been used. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand your reply. Your reply seems to contain errors of facts with which I know you are aware, and it seems unlikely to me that you would present errors in facts, so I can only conclude that I do not understand your reply. Also, your reply does not seem to be addressing answering the question, but as I don't understand your reply, I might be mis-understanding that. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Why remove the {{Victoria Cross recipients}} template?
This deals more with the medal (which is linked to in the article) rather than recipients, and is terribly inconsistent with other articles. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
4a) "This deals more with the medal ... rather than recipients" - I am completely confused by this sentence. The template is called {{Victoria Cross recipients}}. It contains pointers to lists of recipients. It is beyond my comprehension that you could come to the conclusion that "it deals more with the medal rather than recipients". Please have another look at the contents of the template - I have added it below for your convenience. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
4b) "and is inconsistent with other articles." - Another strange statement. It is inconsistent to remove "See also" sections from only a few recipients articles, but that doesn't seem to be stopping you from doing it. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I had fully intended to remove them all what I got around to improving those pages. However, I fully intended to improve the Badcoe article now, but you do not seem interested in my doing that, but rather hinder it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have adequately addressed your anwsers and my "behaviour" is consistant with my editing throughout. It is once again starting to bug me that you are questioning my every edit. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
i) Had you "adequately addressed" my questions (I have not supplied any answers), don't you think it rather peculiar that I am continuing to ask you to "adequately address" my questions? Did it not occur to you that what you are saying in response may not have been understood? Have you not realised that part of successful communication is to make sure that the receiver understands what you are trying to say? Being a historian, you must surely know that MANY wars have broken out because the "receiver" understood something different from what the "sender" intended.
ii) "you are questioning my every edit." - That statement is a gross exaggeration, and is also false. There ONLY two situation where I ask you questions. The first is where I would like your opinion on some matter. That is not "questioning my every edit". The other is when you have reverted one of my edits and have not explained why. That, also, is not "questioning my every edit".
iii) You must have noticed that on the rare occasions that you DO provide a useful and relevant answer, I agree with you and change my behaviour to fit in with your predjudices and points of view. Have you noticed that?
iv) "It is once again starting to bug me" - I'm afraid I have no control how you choose to respond to things. How you respond to things is YOUR choice. I suggest that you choose to not let it start to "bug" you.
v) It is my understanding that civil wikipedia behaviour does NOT involve reverting good faith edits without explanation. It is my understanding that civil wikipedia behaviour involves discussing things on talk pages in a non-agressive manner. You have recently done that on my talk page. It was a very pleasant experience.
vi) It may surprise you to learn that my aim is to add information to wikipedia to make it a more useful, and a more usable, resource. I do not find your constant negative attitude towards my additions either helpful, useful or pleasant. However, I expect this is of little interest to you.
I close by asking you to be less aggressive, more consultative and more informative.
Since you seem to deal with military history i was hoping you could offer your opinion on this issue.
This article was recently edited to remove the communist Chinese from the infobox, [1]. The discussion is here [2]Sherzo (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
"I have no time for your rants when they are inaccurate, rude and hypocritical"
It was intended neither to be inaccurate, nor rude, nor hypocritical.
It was intended to restore co-ordial relations between us.
I have re-read it.
I don't see anything inaccurate
I don't see anything rude
I don't see anything hypocritical
And your response was most definitely the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve.
Could I bother you to explain what has led you to make that statement? I am very confused by it. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Use of "Victoria Cross recipients" template
Two questions:
1) Have you any idea why this template exists? (I assumed that it exists for a purpose. But I'm begining to wonder.)
2) You have pointed out that there are 1,300-odd articles which do not use it. It would seem to me to be a good idea to add it to the bottom of all of those 1,300-odd articles. I gather that you do not agree? Do you mind telling me why you think it is not a good idea?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Truthfully, I believe the name of this template should be "Victoria Cross", as the first and main few articles in it are on the medals and not recipients. There are two main reasons why I do not think they should really be incorporated in the recipients article:
In the sense of an Australian VC recipient, I believe only two of the links contained in the template are really needed and the others are more interest links, I suppose. The relevant links are on the actually VC article, which is theoretically linked to in the article three times (once for the postnoms, once on first mention in lead, and once in the infobox), and the other is on the list of Australian VC recipients, which if we utilise my idea it will also be incorporated in the lead.
The links in the template do not link to individual recipients articles, but to the medals and lists of recipients. This is what I think was its intended purpose: it was intended to link among and between the lists and medal articles as a navigation tool. In theory, this template is incorporated in all of the lists and medal articles of the VC topic, so if you click on one of the necessary, included links mentioned above you will link among the related lists and medals any way.
Thank you for replying and for clarifying your point of view.
I have read, and thought about your reply, and I now have a better understanding of your motivation. Thank you.
"Truthfully, I believe ... " - I hope so. I'd be disappointed otherwise.
I believe you know we have fundamentally different points of view. (Please advise me if I'm wrong.)
At the risk of boring you, I'll summarise them by saying that I'm an "inclusionist", and you're not. (That does NOT mean I am saying you are a "deletionist"; I'm just saying that you are not an "inclusionist".)
Thus, the detail of your response does not surprise me. But at least I now know what the basis of your point of view is.
Also, again at the risk of boring you, I will re-emphasise that I think your suggestion is a good one - I'm even willing to help you implement it if you would like help implementing it.
However, my point of view is different from yours.
That doesn't mean I think you are "wrong". It just means we have different points of view. I follow your line of reasoning, but it leads me to a different set of conclusions than the set it leads you to.
I imagine that you aready know I think "Victoria Cross recipients" is a good name for the template. In my view, its major content is pointers to lists of recipients.
I believe you are familiar with my general views about use of the words "need" and "necessary". I think it's rather counter-productive of you to use them when trying to communicate with me. (Yet again at the risk of boring you, both of those words influence me negatively - a human "needs" to breathe, drink, eat, and get rid of the waste products of those activities. Nothing else is "necessary" - In my view, the words "need" and "necessary" are most often used by people who either can't, or are too lazy to, explain and justify their points of view. No child ever "needs" an ice-cream. That has not always prevented me from buying them one, but I always emphasise that I have not bought it due to "need.)
So, "In the sense of an Australian VC recipient, I believe only two of the links contained in the template are really needed and the others are more interest links, I suppose." - I'll avoid the "needed" phrase; in my view, yes, the others are more of interest. Again, I have a different set of priorities from you - I believe "interesting" and "informative" are much higher on my list of priorities than they are on your list. Again, that doesn't mean I think you are "wrong" - it just means we have different priorities.
Hence, although you think "The relevant links ... ", (and I don't entirely disagree), from my point of view, these are not the most important considerations.
Regarding your second point - I have already answered your first point at much greater length and in much greater detail than I had originally intended. I am happy to continue at this level of detail if you wish me to, but I have the suspicion that you don't. Please advise.
My very brief answer to your second point is: "I have a different opinion."
Just as a slightly further point here, I have noticed that most articles that do contain template boxes have the link of that article included within the box. As this is just you and me discussing this and we have differing points of view on the matter, I think it might be worth bringing to the Aus Milhist talk page to see if we can get a consensus? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That would seem a natural progression; I don't think there's any new ground for the two of us to cover. (Do you?) But before you do, have a look at my talk page - a few more people have expressed their opinions. Perhaps you might want to add another 2¢ worth? It looks to me like we may be able to resolve it there fairly soon, and hence won't need to bother the larger group. On the other hand, exposing it to the larger group may bring up some new and better ideas. Your call; any way forward is fine with me. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Now, I believe I have addressed your questions on this matter.
Yes thank you, you have "addressed my questions".
(However, I wan't looking for you to "address" them; I was looking for you to answer them. Politicians "address" questions, but they don't answer them.) And in case that can be interpreted negatively (which is not my desire), I appreciate that you have gone to the effort and detail of addressing them. It is a far better situation than almost all of the alternatives. Thank you.
However, I have some this to say on a more personal issue.
Well actually, you don't have to say anything. That really is a matter of choice ...
But if you wish/choose to ...
I do know that you can really annoy the hell out of me, but I also know I do the same to you. For better or worse (more likely the latter), it seems our relationship is quite bitter. I do understand and know this. I also know I can be very hasty and do use my own POV when editing sometimes. However, you must realise that you do to sometimes. However, I would appreciate it if you did not go badmouth me on other editor's talk pages. I do not to it to you, and this comes off as a little childish in my opinion. Please do not take this as an insult; I just want to clear the air a little.
Yes, that would be an improvement.
However, I would prefer it if you ceased making libelous statements about me. To use your words: "I do not do it to you". What do you expect me to respond? "If you cease making libelous statements about me, I'll cease badmouthing you on other editor's talk pages"? Now thatdoes sound "more than a little childish" to me!
I'm not altogether sure what you're asking for. Are you are asking (demanding?) me to take some responsibility for the difficulties in our interaction? Well, if you read what I wrote on the "hotline" page, you'll see that I already have done that. Repeating myself: I'm not altogether sure what you're asking for.
And, yes, I did see your posts at the Hotline, but I did not reply to your comments there as I do realise you needed to vent some steam and get what you feel off your chest—just like I do and did—but also because you were not allowed to comment to my rants there when I posted my thoughts, so I thought it would be unfair for me to do so.
Uh huh. So why did you feel it necessary to say anything? Why could you not leave "well enough" alone?
I didn't say anything until it turned into what it seemed like a bit of a witch hunt against me with only one side's view represented, which I felt unjust. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Pontification follows - ignore at your peril:
Look mate, (sadly) I've been there and done that. It wasn't very much fun. You can avoid the issue if you wish, but from my own personal experience, I suggest that you don't. "One" is only young once, and I've discovered that "Youth is wasted on the young". As I've said to you before, "You can be 'right', or you can enjoy life."
From my own experience, I know you have no idea what I'm talking about. I know that if, when I was your age, somebody had told me these things, I would have categorised those people as "full of @!#^".
However, it would be really sad ... (Am I wasting your time?)
(P.S. I appreciate the fact that your response also seemed to be "In Good Faith".)
I can understand what you are saying, and I appreciate the effort you have gone to. However, and I say this in complete good faith and civility, I do find some of your points slightly hypocritical as I believe you do engage in some of these things yourself. That said, I will keep your comments in mind and be more careful in my editing. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. As a courtesy for your information: I have started taking "wiki-free-days", and may not respond as quickly as you might expect. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
So can you tell me why you've delete the ribbons and award links from the honours and awards section ? And where in the article now do you convey the information there previously that he won those three other awards ?-Sticks6614:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The addition of ribbons on Beatham's awards in the article is just, in my opinion, a section of list cruft. The three medals you are refering to were service medals awarded to everyone who served during the First World War. Also, the section was unreferenced and could be viewed to consist of WP:OR. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Bryce, you're kidding yourself with the WP:OR rationale. Notwithstanding the missing in-line citation there were ample sources cited in the Refs section including this one which you would know as an experienced military ed details the medals. In any case as you would also know, the way to deal with a concern re lack of citations is to add a tag, rather than delete the assertion. I am however interested in your opinion regarding service medals being list cruft. Is this a generally agreed principle in the MilitHistory Project ? And if so can you steer me to the relevant discussion ? Cheers -Sticks6612:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed the ribbon icons in the infobox for Samuel Burston, citing the fact that they are "inconsistent with other articles." While it's true that at the moment those infoboxes without the ribbons outnumber those with them, that's because the process of adding them to all the infoboxes is still underway. They'll never become truly consistent if the newest additions get overturned. Just letting you know. --Grahamdubya (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Abraham. I noticed you reassessed these three articles as "Start" class, because they're all based on only one source. The problem is, these are fairly obscure ships, as none of them were ever built (and in most cases, weren't even laid down) and they're not big ships like BBs and BCs. I will add that Gröner's book is based entirely on what Kreigsmarine documents survived the war, and is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to technical data for the ships covered in the book. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1922-1946 mentions very little on the M class (on page 232), and the specifications are less complete than those in Gröner's book. Entries for the other two are not viewable in Google Books (if they're even there), and nothing else in Google books refers to these ships in any useful detail.
From a purely process-wonkery point of view, there's nothing in either the B-class criteria that requires more than one source, and nothing in the Sources guideline to which the B-class criteria is linked. As for the K1 class, yes, it's pretty short, but there just isn't more information to be added, and there are no length requirements for any assessment rating (as long as it's not a stub, of course). These articles are about as comprehensive as they can be, given the nature of the topics. I ask you to reconsider your assessments, please. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I was unaware of that unspecified requirement. Maybe it would be worthwhile to actually state that in the B-class requirements, so we can avoid problems like this in the future? That, and the next time the B-class assessment drive rolls around, there will probably be quite a few editors assessing them incorrectly if they too aren't aware. I've added some weaponry statistics from Navweaps when I could identify the correct model of gun. Thanks for explaining your reasoning to me. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. The way I see it, the less drama I have to deal here with the better, so I don't need to make any myself, you know? That, and "you'll catch more flies with honey and with vinegar" and all that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Abraham, you failed each of these for B because of referencing and citation issues. But both are fully cited with at least one cite per paragraph. What gives? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
With end of year exams beckoning for many members, this has been a quiet month on the talk pages for Milhist. (If you are facing exams yourself, we all wish you the very best of luck!) During this quieter period, some of our most active reviewers are busy revising so it would be really appreciated if you can help with peer reviews or A-Class reviews. You can easily track articles needing review, by copying {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your userpage.
This month sees our first newsletter editorial. The idea is to provide regular tips and hints to help editors get up to speed with our large (and sometimes complicated) project. This month's piece, by EyeSerene, explains the workings of the project's main template, which is at the core of the project's tagging and assessing activities. Roger Daviestalk20:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In a welcome addition to a long under-represented area, this month saw the creation of the Pakistani military history task force, which hits the ground running with 11 participants.
Welcome to a new occasional feature of The Bugle, where over coming issues we'll be exploring some of the roles, tasks, and technical functions that go into creating what archivist and researcher Simon Fowler has described as the best general resource for military history on the internet.† As a project we can rightly be proud of that accolade, and we gratefully acknowledge the debt we owe to those dedicated editors from across Wikipedia that have helped to make the Military history WikiProject what it is today.
Many editors' first inkling of milhist's existence is when they spot our project banner on an article talk page. The banner can be easily added to appropriate articles by any editor, by typing {{WPMILHIST}} at (or near) the top of the talk page on a new line, and saving the page with an appropriate edit summary. This short form of the template will add the article to our project, and also flag the article as needing assessment and assignment to a task force by automatically adding it to the unassessed articles and articles with no associated task force categories.
As with many templates in use on Wikipedia, additional parameters can be specified. Possibly the most useful to include is the class parameter, because this will help out any editors who come along later to assess the article. To add the class parameter, edit the template markup to look like {{WPMILHIST|class=}}... and if you wish, have a read through the assessment guidance on milhists's quality scale and assign a rating from Stub- to B-Class yourself. A banner template with, for example, a Stub-Class article rating will look like {{WPMILHIST|class=stub}}. Because B-Class is assessed against a checklist it has some additional parameters, so when adding the project banner to an article talk-page, even if you don't intend to assess the article yourself it can be a real help to subsequent editors to include these too. This version of the template can be entered as {{WPMILHIST|class=|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=}}. For detailed guidance on exactly what the five B-Class criteria are, see the B-class checklist.
Finally, when adding the milhist banner it's useful to assign the article to one (or more) of our task forces. This will help to bring it to the attention of those editors most likely to be interested in, and knowledgeable about, the subject. As with assessment, task force assignment is accomplished by adding a parameter to the template—in this case, simply the name of the task force followed by =yes (or =y). For example, to assign a Start-Class article to the Second World War and Canadian task forces, the template should read {{WPMILHIST|class=start|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=|WWII=yes|Canadian=yes}}.
For a full list of all the banner template parameters and more detailed usage instructions, see Template:WPMILHIST; if you are unsure as to whether or not an article belongs with milhist or what task force(s) might be appropriate, or if you have any other questions, you are welcome to ask at our main project talk page. Happy templating! EyeSerenetalk
†Simon Fowler, Guide to Military History on the Internet, UK:Pen & Sword 2007, ISBN9781844156061, p. 7
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
MMM-yyyy doesn't sort usefully. What's your preference on addressing that? Is there a "standard"? (You have heaps of options to choose from!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't htink I could give any more helpful examples than those already in the template documentation, follow the link, try it out using preview. I've never actually used it myself, but it looks pretty straightforward. David Underdown (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I re-read my posting and thought "WTF was I on about??" Answer: I have modified the above to make it less cryptic, and moved it below. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)
Lol, don't worry; I knew what you were on about. With great difficulty is the answer, although sometimes you cannot help yourself and tidy the article some. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW: The following Oz VC articles do NOT have Info boxes:
Thank you for reviewing my request to upgrade the WikiProject Military History assessment of the Desertion article from Start-class to B-class. Upon further review of the article, I concluded that you were correct in your assessment that the article is still Start-class, and that the WikiProject Law assessment of the article as B-class, provided by User:EECavazos, which prompted my request for WikiProject Military History re-assessment, was overrated. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You are most welcome. Hopefully the points I raised were helpful to you, and you reach B-Class with the article soon. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Donaldson
Regarding this edit, why add all the [citation needed]? You, in particular, are far more capable than most of resolving them; What's your purpose in adding the tags? Wouldn't it be equal or less effort for you to just supply the references? Signed: Puzzled from Adelaide. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. Still waiting for your responses on my #Oz VC recipients questions.)
No, the tags were put in place to indicate that these points require referencing (exactly their purpose, and my motive). I am no more capable than anyone else in finding these citations. Abraham (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Becher
I've been through the article. The only points I thought could do with a little expansion are the last two in the article - his post as chairman of the Council of the Institute of Marine Sciences (which is rather stuck on as an afterthought and is uncited), and his cremation (it would be nice to know where, if possible). All the best, EyeSerenetalk09:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I did wonder if those two were referenced by the same cite. It's no big deal anyway, and it's been a pleasure as always. Hope the FAC goes well, EyeSerenetalk11:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Review awards
Hi Bryce!
Do you have enough available time to do a new list of active reviewers by say 29/30 June please? (In time for the next edition of The Bugle.)It would be good to fire off a second volley of gongs soon, especially as things go very quiet about now :) Roger Daviestalk03:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Abraham, B.S.. You have new messages at Nick-D's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Being the coordinator of the South East Asian military task force, I know that you have to cover articles having to do with the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was part of the Cold War, so I thought you could show support for a Cold War task force. -JayLeno175 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination. Please add a DYK diff like the other noms. It can either be a diff where you nominated the article or one where you participated in DYK discussion about the nomination. This will help make it easier for reviewers. Also, we are trying to have each nominator review a nomination to keep the backlog down. If you get a chance, please review a nomination that you are not involved in.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abraham, B.S.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.jpg){kind=link}
