User talk:Hhfjbaker/Archives/2023/08 (August)
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hhfjbaker. 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. |
Battle of Franklin ces
I was looking through the Battle of Franklin (1864) just now and noticed that you'd changed all of the abbreviations of rank to an all-caps no-period alternative abbreviation with the edit summary Converted ranks to abbreviations
. Could you give a bit more detail regarding your reasoning here? As I see it, phrases like Maj. Gen. are in themselves already abbreviations; this then is a question of style. There's no guidance in MOS:MILTERMS or in WP:MILHIST regarding this, but I generally see the older abbreviation across articles and I find it easier on the eye. All-caps breaks up the reading process, especially as this aren't initialisms and can't be pronounced as single words as abbreviations proper can. Iseult Δx parlez moi 18:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- I used the NATO rank abbreviations to save space and a little more precision as when used more than once for the same individual, it let one call a Brigadier General a BGEN rather than General and preclude confusion. I have also edited several articles to use the 24-hour clock to avoid confusion as well. Boo Boo (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- What confusion is there if a Brig. Gen. is called that consistently and if 1 p.m. is specified with the p.m. and used in contemporary sourcing? Iseult Δx parlez moi 20:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- 24-hour notation is always more precise. Is there somehwere in the MOS that says one should always use the time in contemporry sourcing? Does it not seem similar to noting dates as Old Style versus New Style calendar when using dates in 1500s-1700s? If you point me to where this is addressed, I'll yield. I thinnk it furthers Wikipedia's mission to be more precise and accurate. Let me know if you feel I am way off here, please. Boo Boo (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- There's no explicit guideline here, but I'll link MOS:TIME with my notes.
- First, I don't think that 24-hour notation is implicitly more precise than 12-hour notation. They're different ways of representing or measuring a concept, much like Fahrenheit and Celsius. That said, MOS:TIME, when referring to the 24-hour clock both in the guideline itself and the given example, uses not military time but the civilian 24-hour clock (with the colon). I think then that we should privilege the 12-hour clock over the 24-hour clock with regards to common practice in the U.S., where this engagement occured. Further clarification (e.g. in re U.S. operations abroad) ought to be referred to WP:MILHIST.
- I'm also happy to toss the question of abbreviations of titles to MILHIST. Iseult Δx parlez moi 20:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, sounds like a good idea. Thanks. Boo Boo (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for my absence; work has been busy. I'll get around to the abbreviations of rank pseudo-RfC in the next few weeks. As for the time question, could you clarify your position on the matter after my argument? Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd be happy to get a community consensus n using abbreviations for ranks. I think the uppercase is better, obviously, but if the consensus is against it, I'll compy. My argument is this style is shorter and more precise, but yes, I'll abide by the consensus. Thanks!Boo Boo (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I saw about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I'd like to point out that applying NATO rank jargon abbreviations is bad in itself and applying it to a time period before the standard even existed is outright misleading. It's not helpful in any way.
- Same goes with 24 hour time. This should follow whatever's relevant for the article and what the sources use. As with applying 21st century abbreviations to 19th century history, it conveys a false impression of exactness.
- Mind you, I'm from a 24-hour country myself. It's not that I'm not used to it, it's just that I know that both are used depending on context. Peter Isotalo 15:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd be happy to get a community consensus n using abbreviations for ranks. I think the uppercase is better, obviously, but if the consensus is against it, I'll compy. My argument is this style is shorter and more precise, but yes, I'll abide by the consensus. Thanks!Boo Boo (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for my absence; work has been busy. I'll get around to the abbreviations of rank pseudo-RfC in the next few weeks. As for the time question, could you clarify your position on the matter after my argument? Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, sounds like a good idea. Thanks. Boo Boo (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- 24-hour notation is always more precise. Is there somehwere in the MOS that says one should always use the time in contemporry sourcing? Does it not seem similar to noting dates as Old Style versus New Style calendar when using dates in 1500s-1700s? If you point me to where this is addressed, I'll yield. I thinnk it furthers Wikipedia's mission to be more precise and accurate. Let me know if you feel I am way off here, please. Boo Boo (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)