Talk:Richard Dannatt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Richard Dannatt is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 23, 2016.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 11, 2011 WikiProject A-class review Approved
August 4, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.

IFOR[edit]

Richard Dannatt was the commander of 4th (UK) Armd Bde under IFOR, within 3 (UK) Division commanded by Mike Jackson (although they were not there on 20 December and at that point he was effectively still COMD BRITFOR). When Jackson arrived he took over. He did not command the British element of IFOR in 1995/96 (except initially for a short time), Jackson did. The lead is incorrect. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Honours and Medals Section[edit]

Hello,

I Thought it would be good to give a thing to give a specific decsription of the Honours Received by General Dannatt. specifically all the campaign medals. people do not always no what all the medals are/mean. and it does not in my opinion hurt the article to have it included.

Also the Reasoning used for removing it in the first place I believe is flawed at best. The Reason given by

User:Ian Rose - "reached Featured Article status without ribbon farm, no call for it now" is silly and stupid , just because an article has reached featured article status does not mean you should stop improving it.

Thanks Michael Drew (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, gee, thanks for your polite and mature response to a fellow editor's comments. Indeed, the fact that an article has reached FA doesn't mean it's beyond improvement, but you might consider that on it's way to reaching FA, the page has been reviewed by many other editors who haven't felt that rows of pretty pictures and a list of medals either uncited, or else already covered in the text, would improve it. There have been several discussions at the MilHist talk page about medal farms, and arbitrarily adding them to Commonwealth military bios has never had consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ian, there might be plenty of military bios with these ribbon farms, but they are mostly US ones, and there isn't consensus for adding it to this one. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Ian. I don't see how the ribbons improve the article other than (possibly) make it more colourful. Dormskirk (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jock Stirrup, Baron Stirrup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

TFAR[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Richard Dannatt --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Awful references section unworthy of an FA?[edit]

The references section contains this:

Dannatt, p. 125.

Dannatt, p. 130.

Dannatt, p. 212.

Dannatt, p. 217.

Dannatt, p. 220.

Dannatt, p. 229.

Dannatt, p. 233.

Dannatt, p. 247.

Dannatt, p. 279.

Dannatt, p. 281.

Dannatt, p. 289.

Dannatt, p. 36.

Dannatt, p. 394.

Dannatt, p. 51.

Dannatt, p. 71.

Dannatt, p. 73.

Dannatt, p. 75.

Dannatt, p. 82.

Dannatt, p. 86.

Dannatt, p. 98.

Dannatt, pp. 106–108.

Dannatt, pp. 108–109.

Dannatt, pp. 118–119.

Dannatt, pp. 132–133.

Dannatt, pp. 136–137.

Dannatt, pp. 148–149.

Dannatt, pp. 175–176.

Dannatt, pp. 188–189.

Dannatt, pp. 191–193.

Dannatt, pp. 194–196.

Dannatt, pp. 198–199.

Dannatt, pp. 204–205.

Dannatt, pp. 223–225.

Dannatt, pp. 226–227.

Dannatt, pp. 236–239.

Dannatt, pp. 250–251.

Dannatt, pp. 272–273.

Dannatt, pp. 274–277.

Dannatt, pp. 286–287.

Dannatt, pp. 384–385.

Dannatt, pp. 67–68.

Dannatt, pp. 83–84.

Dannatt, pp. 92–93.

Please see WP:READER. "It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia". WP:CITESHORT makes WP better for editors and worse for readers. Try it: on a portable device, tap a reference in the article and up pops "Dannatt, p. xz" --Cornellier (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I support the use of short form references as they save a huge amount of unnecessary repetition. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
How is the above anything other than "a huge amount of unnecessary repetition"? What was "saved" by the use of WP:CITESHORT assuming that's what's meant by "short form references" --Cornellier (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:WHYCITE says that "editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article". Assuming you accept that statement then the only alternative format to short form citations would be long form citations which would appear as follows which would be very repetitive. Best wishes.Dormskirk (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Dannatt, General Sir Richard (2010). Leading from the Front. London: Bantam Press. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-593-06636-2. 
Dannatt, General Sir Richard (2010). Leading from the Front. London: Bantam Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-593-06636-2. 
Dannatt, General Sir Richard (2010). Leading from the Front. London: Bantam Press. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-593-06636-2. 
etc
If the goal is to 'save a huge amount of unnecessary repetition' try this:
Dannatt, General Sir Richard (2010). Leading from the Front. London: Bantam Press. p. 36, 51, 71-75, 67–68, 83–98, 125-137, 148–149, 175–176, 188-233, 247, 279-289, 223–239, 250–251, 272–287, 384–394. ISBN 978-0-593-06636-2. 
This suggestion would not comply with the requirement for in-line citations (see WP:IC). An inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. Note "Many Wikipedia articles contain inline citations: they are required for Featured Articles, Good Articles, and A-Class Articles." So each piece of information needs to be supported by a specific inline citation giving the precise page number. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Well I'll be dipped. Thanks for the info. Not picking nits but I don't see where it says on WP:IC and WP:FA? that it has to have the precise page number and not a range. However WP:IBID states "when an article cites many ... pages from the same source, to avoid the redundancy of many big, nearly identical full citations, ... use WP:CITESHORT, WP:NAMEDREFS, or WP:PAREN." Looks like if an article's going to cite the same book 43 times there's no way to make it pretty. --Cornellier (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Richard Dannatt. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)