Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Peer review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) now open

The peer review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Messines now open

The peer review for Battle of Messines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article tomorrow

FYI, Axis naval activity in Australian waters will be the 'today's featured article' on the Wikipedia main page on 27 February. I'd encourage all members of the task force to add this to their watch list so the article can be protected against the inevitable rush of vandals. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gottcha. Its on my watchlist now. Thanks for the heads up. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Will do; thanks for the heads-up! --Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) now open

The A-Class review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

VFL players who died in active service

I have just finished the final bit of the tables that contain all of the relevant information on VFL players who are known to have died as a consequence of their active service (see [1]). The list also includes the only VFL field/boundary/goal umpire known to have died in active service. Lindsay658 (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

I have just proposed the following "Did You Know" at [2]:

=== Articles created/expanded on April 30 ===

I am hoping that the fact that it includes references to two separate articles may be given some weight. Lindsay658 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Empty stubs

Whilst converting the ADF Unit box to {{Infobox Military Unit}} I came across a lot of articles that consist solely of an infobox. Any deletionist admin could delete these as empty articles. Could these be expanded a little, at least with a line and a link? Thanks Woody (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC) The articles:

I'll start working on these. It's pretty easy to find a couple of sentances worth of material on these kinds of units - though, curiously, it's harder to find much else on the internet, despite these being significant parts of the RAAF. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Brevity now open

The A-Class review for Operation Brevity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Military history of Australia during World War II now open

The peer review for Military history of Australia during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF now open

The A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 11:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ribbons

A lot of people have been busy adding ribbons to a lot of pages for some time.
A couple of days ago, someone added ribbons to Frederick Scherger, (i.e. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Scherger&action=history)
User:Ian Rose objected. I reverted his revert. He reverted again, as did I, but this time I also posted to User talk:Ian Rose#Ribbons
Now, User:David Underdown has added his 2¢, so it seems like a good idea to come here.

I reproduce what's on User talk:Ian Rose#Ribbons:

from User talk:Ian Rose#Ribbons

Hi Ian,

I'm not sure that your talk page is the best / most appropriate place to have this "discussion" but I couldn't think of a better place.
I didn't think Talk:Frederick Scherger was the best place, because the issue of discussion really has nothing to do with him. If you prefer this discussion to occur somewhere else, please advise, and I'm happy to move it to there.

  • Hi there, no objection to this starting here but I think further discussion on this subject should take place on an appropriate project page; however I'll respond to these points here, embedding with bullet points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As mentoned above, further discussion on this should take place on a project talk page, e.g. here, rather than at my talk page so I'll be removing the text from my talk and adding a link here. I notice you've made some responses at my talk that aren't here; feel free to copy them here if you like as I'm confining my responses to this thread. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One reason for having it here is that a pseudo-standard / convention / habit / whatever-you-want-to-call-it has arisen, and as far-as-I-can-tell, you are the ONLY person who has complained about it.

  • I think David's comment below is an indication that I'm not the only one with concerns, I may simply be the first to voice them...

As I said, a pseudo-standard of putting the ribbon bar, and a table explaining the ribbons, on people's pages has arisen. I mentioned some examples of this in one of my edit comments. Do you want / need more examples? If so, I can provide dozens, possibly hundreds.

  • We'll address this later in concert with the point re. FAs.
Sorry, where are/have you addressed that? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
My turn to be cryptic... Below where I mention example FAs that don't employ this 'pseudo-standard'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your first response was to revert and "say": "don't think the pretty pictures are necessary"
a) There is nothing about Wikipaedia that is "necessary" - the planet survived perfectly well for millenia without it. Never-the-less, both you and I seem to find it enjoyable.
b) You not thinking "the pretty pictures are necessary" is simply your point-of-view; there is a large number of people who have the opposite point-of-view, and they have been busy for at least several months populating pages with such sections.

  • I think you're missing the point here. What I removed with the comment "don't think the pretty pictures are necessary" was exactly that: pictures of ribbons with no explanation whatsoever. Pictures without captions/explanations don't belong on Wikipedia, and I think you'll find that's not just my opinion.
Well, I don't know about missing the point, but I did miss the point you've just mentioned. I wouldn't make the categoric and absolute statement that you have, but, in general, I agree that pictures on WP benefit from having a caption. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You then "said": "the decorations are listed in the infobox"
This statement is not completely accurate - only some of the decorations are listed there. Again, I can supply dozens, perhaps hundreds, of examples if you wish.

  • Actually, it is accurate. What's listed in the infobox are honours and decorations, the others are campaign medals.
Sorry, but no, it is NOT accurate. The DSM, for example, is most definately NOT a campaign medal. And since when was a campaign medal neither an honour nor a decoration? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
We were using Frederick Scherger as an example. He didn't have the DSM and if he did it would rightly be in the infobox as a decoration. The ones in Scherg's article I referred to are campaign or service medals, e.g. Defence Medal - you get them for being in a particlar place or unit at a particular time - not the same concept as an honour or decoration.
Oops! I used the wrong abbreviation. (Obviously, brain was not engaged at the time.
I meant Australian Defence Medal.
If you replace DSM with ADM in my sentence, what does your response become? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have confused the issue by giving the wrong information, but on the basis of 24 hours reflection, in general, I completely disagree with you here; I think you're using pedantic detail to separate things into classes, and this time, I think that you have missed "the" point. (i.e. you have missed my point.) I could go on, but I get the impression that you're not very interested in my POV, so I don't see much point in wasting my time. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored the ribbons, added the table of explanations, and (perhaps cryptically) said "go look at these pages".

Apparently, I was either too cryptic, or not sufficienly convincing. (Or perhaps both?) Again, you reverted the ribbons, this time "saying": "I note a number of military bio FAs don't bother with such sections; still, names as well as pics helps, however don't need 2 copies of the ribbons; also move section to avoid breaking flow of article"

"I note a number of military bio FAs don't bother with such sections"
a) I'm guessing "FA" means "Featured Articles"? I must admit I know nothing about "FAs" - perhaps it's time I did. Can you point me to some useful links please? Particularly links to articles which "don't bother with such sections"? (Thanks in anticipation.)

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

b) I'm afraid I haven't been able to work out what point you're trying to make here. I'm guessing that your point is, "if they're not in FAs, then they're not useful". Well, again, I think that's just your point-of-view. You've probably worked out by now that I have a different point-of-view which is not influenced by what is, or is not, in FAs.

  • Well, no, the point is that it's not simply my POV, it may actually be the consensus of those who write and review what are held to be Wikipedia's top military bio articles.
And then again, it may not. Still sounds like POV to me. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That's why we're here, not at my talk page... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"still, names as well as pics helps" - I'm guessing that you'll not be surprised to learn that I agree with you here.

"however don't need 2 copies of the ribbons;" - Again, your POV - mine is different.

  • 2 copies of the same ribbon image in the same section is necessary? No, it's redundant, not exactly a matter of opinion.
a) Disagree. Your POV. Mine is different. Q.E.D. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
b) There are reasons for redundancy, and frequently they're better reasons than not having redundancy. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
c) Please stop using absolutes like "need". As I've said elsewhere, "need" is irrelevant in this environment. Also, "need" is subjective - I don't know about you, but I'm trying to keep this objective. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"also move section to avoid breaking flow of article" - Good idea! When I have time (and motivation), I will review other articles to make sure that this info is not breaking their flows. Thanks for the idea, most appreciated.

So, what now? I have no interest in engaging in an edit war. Obviously, we have different points of view. What, exactly, is it that you are objecting to? Why single out Fred Scherger? Do you intend to go through the dozens of other articles and revert them too?

  • I'm also not into edit wars, which is why I waited for you to voice your view after your last reversion. I hope the specific objections are fairly clear, as I think they were in my edit comments: gratuitous images, whether pictures without commentary as in my first reversion, or multiple copies of the same image as in my second/partial reversion. As to the concept as a whole, my view is very similar to David's below: they clutter up an article, mostly repeating information already present in either infobox or main body.
You have ignored my most significant question: "Why single out Fred Scherger? Do you intend to go through the dozens of other articles and revert them too?" Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Simple, Scherg's was the first article on my watchlist I'd seen which needed discussion on this subject. Yes, if the consensus is these sections are either not needed at all, or should be in a different format, the others should be changed too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to reading your reply.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I do tend to think that they clutter the article more than they help. We already have the awards section of the infobox, and in general it would seem to me to make most sense to mention the awards in the article at the relevant point, with citations. That brings me to another point, a lot of these ribbon sets seem to be generated by means bordering on original research, i.e. find a phot of the subject, and try to work out what all the ribbons he's wearing could be, rather than relying on hard cites for the awards. This discussion might be better at the Australian military history taskforce page, since so far it's largely been applied to Australians, or perhaps since it could applie dto any military figure, the general project talk page Wikipedia Talk:MILHIST. I don't know of any military featured articles that do use it Brian Horrocks certianly doesn't, and from what I've seen of the FA candidacy process, I suspect it would come under heavy fire at that point as an example of "image cruft". David Underdown (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'll ignore your POV comments here (despite an overwhelming urge to say a lot more than just: "I disagree") - as I've implied: to me, it just doesn't seem appropriate to discuss your POV or my POV here here on Ian's page.
"This discussion might be better at the Australian military history taskforce page" - Fair enough. At this stage I think that's a better place to start than Wikipedia Talk:MILHIST. Could you provide a link to the Australian military history taskforce page please? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force. David Underdown (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

continuing ...

Obviously, I disagree with Ian, and while it was just him, it was pretty simple. But now that David has expressed his opinion too, perhaps it needs wider discussion? I am aware of a number of others whose opinions I share. Given the number of pages that now have ribbons on them, I'm unimpressed by "purist" POV arguments of "image cruft". Clearly, there is a substantial body who believe that it's a good idea. Where should we go from here? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people should review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags), though obviously aimed particularly at flags, the lead reads "The overuse, misuse and abuse of flag icons, larger flag images and similar images in Wikipedia article text, lists and tables presents a number of problems. How to avoid the principal issues is summarized below, followed by more in-depth discussion of each problem." I think the ribbons could be included as "similar images", and this shows the wider community consensus against "over-using" images. It may also be worth trying to get someone like user:SandyGeorgia or User:Tony1 involved in these discussions as they are regular contributors to the featured article process, and there seems to be very little point adding these ribbon sets into articles in their early stages if they are only going to be taken out again if the article is to reach FA status. David Underdown (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But both you and Ian seem to be avoiding-like-the-plague the fact (not opinion, FACT) that there are at least dozens of articles which now have ribbons in them, at least dozens of people who are putting them in there, and at least dozens who like them in there. I can only see that it is your OPINION that you don't like them in there; I can see the FACT that MANY people have a different opinion. So you can theorise till the cows come home, but what about the facts? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hence the attempt to move the discussion to a space where it's more likely to reach a wider audience. There are still ltos of people goin round adding flags to articles, despite the broad consensus against it. Please try not to personalise this. I have no doubt that you think it a good idea, and were doing it in good faith. But if there really is a consensus against their inclusion, yes we should go back through article sand take them out. I'm interested to hear that there are "dozens" of people doing this. I've seen you doing it, and Abraham B.S. to an extent, but I'll take your word for it that there are more - though it would be useful to get them invovled in this discussion. Are they doing it because they really thought it was a good idea, or because it seemed to be the done thing on other articles they looked at (to make it clear where I'm coming from, I'm not entirely won over to the idea of infoboxes, they can produce a rather simplistic view of things, and encourage a sense of reducing people to Top Trumps. David Underdown (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hence the attempt to move the discussion to a space where it's more likely to reach a wider audience." - In case it wasn't clear, I agree and support the move. (I'm interested by your use of the word "attempt"; I would say that you have succeeded in moving the discussion here.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"There are still ltos of people goin round adding flags to articles, despite the broad consensus against it." - True. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Please try not to personalise this." - Not my intention. Very sorry if I've offended. Henceforth will be more diligent. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've seen you doing it, and Abraham B.S. to an extent" - It was a well established process before I even noticed it, let alone joined in. Ditto young Bryce. Yes, I agree that it might be useful to get them invovled. As to their motives, like you, I can only speculate; having them involved would remove the need to speculate. Guess I'll do some homework and post some messages ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"(to make it clear where I'm coming from ... " - Thanks for that. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of every campaign medal is over the top to me but the ribbons even more so. All the honours and decorations appearing in the infobox or text are linked to the appropriate article where you can not only see the ribbon but the cross or the medal itself, making inclusion of these images in the biographical articles superfluous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"The inclusion of every campaign medal ... " - You've previously stated your POV quite clearly, and I've previously stated that I have a different POV. There doesn't seem anything new to discuss here - please correct me if I've missed something. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I notice user Jez Dog 14 is also busily adding these sections to articles that don't currently have them - to avoid further work down the track if we decide to remove them, I'd suggest this should halt until consensus is reached here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. I see that you've already mentioned the discussion to him. His first military edit was 23 July, his first edit 12 June; he may not appreciate the ettiquette of holding off whilst the matter is under discussion ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By-the-way: Having initiated this inconvenience for you, I thought it only polite to advise you that I won't be around much for the next week.

So, where do we go from here? To me it seems like there are two point's of view that are opposite, and neither party is particularly interested in moving away from their own POV. Personally, I don't see much future in the discussion. More relevant, I don't see a speedy resolution. Can either of you see a path that could lead to a so-called "win-win" solution? Or is this most likely to be one of those WP debates where the reasonable people get bored and depart, and the "debate" is "won" by the most stubborn and/or single minded? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that Bryce, though not having directly participated here has now 'remov[ed] unneccessary "Honours and Awards' section" from the Harry Murray article he has recently been working on diff. On the other hand, on Bryce's talk page PalawanOz (talk · contribs) has expressed his support for the inclusion. I've now left a note at Bryce's talkpage, pointing to this discussion, which should bring both here. Yes there are differing points of view, though as I have tried to point out it can be argued that wider consensus is generally against the use of icons. It's also arguable whether campaign medals really constitute honours or awards, generally qualification is merely by being in a defined place for a certain period of time. I've already alluded to the added difficulty of accurately determining which campaign medals any individual is actually entitled to, in the case of decorations, they will have been gazetted, either in the London Gazette (for older "Imperial" decorations) and/or the Commonwealth Gazette (and Australia specific decorations would only appear in that) - and of course for Aussies we also have "It's an Honour" (Coronation and Jubilee medals fall in to similar categories). However, for campaign medals, whilst the qualification criteria are published, individual qualification will normally only be recorded in a service history or similar. British campaign medal records for WWI are available from The National Archives, and from what I've seen the National Archives of Australia is actually better at making these records freely available - but as primary sources these are arguably not truly reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense of the term, and if no records can be found, then as I've said, the practice of identifying ribbons by looking at photos really is bordering on original research. One other category of award, long-service awards are sometimes gazetted, e.g. the British Efficiency Decoration, but I'm not sure they all are, if not then similar difficulties as for campaign medals arise. If these are to be treated as awards, then there's no particular reason not to include them in the infobox I suppose - we already include foreign decorations where known, but it might make the boxes very lengthy. David Underdown (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm. Interesting reply. I ask, "Can you see a path to a win-win solution?"
You reply: "I'm right, and the 'wider consensus' agrees with me", which adds nothing new to what you've already said.
I don't find that response very useful.
OK, if you want to play it that way, go ahead.
However, I'm starting to get bored; if the conversation continues like this, I'm not going to hang around. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I think we stil need some wider input, since this discussion doesn't seme to have attracted many additional voices - you never do seem to have addressed the issue of sourcing the additional ribbons, which is why I was trying to reiterate that point, and show that much of my opposition is based on fundamental Wikipedia policies, rather than just because I don't like it (they do look quite nice). To the end of trying to get additional people to look at this, I've flagged this discussion on the main milhist talk page. David Underdown (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Original Research"

"you never do seem to have addressed the issue of sourcing the additional ribbons"
"Never" is an awfully long time! I'm not really sure what you want from me here, but, in short, I don't agree with your opinion on this one, either. I don't see how getting your data from a picture is any different from getting your data from text, and I certainly don't see how/why getting your data from a picture is "original research", whereas getting your data from text isn't. Research is about what you do with the data, and what new information / knowledge you synthesise from it, and what you add that people wouldn't be able to determine directly from the data themselves. I hardly think that identifying data qualifies as "research". If you have a convincing argument that I'm wrong, may I use it in my next discussions with my employer when negotiating my next employment contract? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
A piece of text saying "Joe Bloggs was awarded the Australian Defence Medal" (or whatever) is unambiguous, there is no debate about which medal was awarded. Provided the source itself is reliable, no-one can interpret that differently. In identifying a medal ribbon from a photo, there is a reasonable amount of interpretation involved, you cannot be absoultely certian that the even the colours of the ribbon are "right", since there is considerable variation between display devices. You might think it's one thing, but someone else could plausibly come up with an alternative. If we present one editor's opinion as hard fact then it does indeed seem to me that we are veering into original research (generally we are supposed to source opinion to a reliable source, and make it clear that it's an opinion). It would appear that I'm not the only one with misgivings about using this approach to generate a complete medal set anyway - see Bryce's latest comments. David Underdown (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, such a piece of text may be unambiguous, but simultaneously it may also be wrong, it may have been taken out of context, and it may be misinterpreted. I would have to disagree with your statement that "there is no debate about which medal was awarded". I'd also disagree with your next statement that "Provided the source itself is reliable, no-one can interpret that differently"; many wars have started due to different interpretations of information from reliable sources. I'm dying to give you an example, (whether you want it or not!), so here goes:

Tell the navy to "secure" a building, and they'll turn the lights off and lock the doors.
Tell the army, and they'll occupy the building and make sure that only people with the right pass can get in and out.
Tell the marines, and they'll storm the building, neutralise any occupants, establish perimeter defences, and call in air support.
Tell the airforce, and they'll negotiate a three year lease with an option to purchase.

I'm not ignoring what you're saying, but on the other hand I'm not planning to use any of it when negotiating my next employment contract. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary beakpoint to facilitate editing

Wow - a lot of discussion to absorb! Perhaps I could just state my point of view - I like 'em (the ribbon bars and explanatory table), as I believe they add significantly to an article. I have done a lot of work on Honours and Awards, and also in the creation of ribbon bars, and as a result I perhaps have a different perspective. My original purpose (in creating articles and images on medals) was because on Anzac Day a year or two ago I saw people wearing ribbons that I wasn't familiar with - I came to Wikipedia to identify them, and found no articles that could help. So I started creating them. For me, a ribbon bar is much more than 'eye-candy' - it many cases it neatly summarises a person's career. It can also lead you down some interesting paths in their life - see for example Keith Payne - trying to track down what his second and third last ribbons were revealed a lot about a little-known part of military history (little known to me anyway). The 'Awards' section of the Military Person Infobox is stated as being for "any notable awards or decorations the person received." I don't think that Dhofar Campaign Medal (to use the Keith Payne example) could qualify as particularly 'notable', but all the same, it is quite interesting! The full list of a person's campaign medals are unlikely to appear in the Inforbox, and they are also somewhat unlikely to appear in the article text (unless it is indeed a very extensive bio). For me, showing the ribbon bar helps answer a lot of questions (eg, what is the second last ribbon/medal that Peter Cosgrove gets around with?) and reveals interesting facts about a person's career (eg, that Ken Gillespie spent a bit of time in Namibia). I believe that having this section at the end of an article does not interrupt the flow of words (a common complaint about the 'flag icons'), and if it is deemed obtrusive, we could always reduce the image size slightly (current semi-default is 100x30px for the ribbon bar, and 100x20px for the explanatory table) - bringing it down to 80px (and 60px for the table) would perhaps assist. In summary - I believe these sections add significantly to articles, are more than simply eye-candy, and should be retained. PalawanOz (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I completely agree with PalawanOz. I recall many times as a child marvelling at the ribbons on the chests of the Corps of Commissionaires at the races, particularly the green one that they seemed especially proud of (which turned out to be the Pacific Star.) More recently, I found myself drawn to the rows of ribbons on Edmund Herring in William Dargie's portrait. There is a good reason why his Archibald Prize-winning portrait places them at the very centre of the painting, where they immediately become the focus of the viewer's eye. So Dargie's portrait is like my article in paint. Later editors added the ribbon bars and links to my article, so equally curious readers will know what they are looking at.
So I too believe these sections add significantly to articles, are more than simply eye-candy, and should be retained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It has occurred to me that I haven't stated what my POV is with regard to the inclusion of an "awards" section - I've only stated (at great length?) why I don't agree with its removal.
Fortunately for me, PalawanOz and Hawkeye7 have caputured most of my POV, and expressed it in a far more eloquent manner than I believe I can. So, at the risk of sounding lazy, I'll start off by saying: "I completely agree with both of them."
I'm not sure I can add much more. (Do I hear cries of "Thank God for that!!!"?)
By analogy, I'll draw on the result of debates on the Cecil Rhodes page: This information may not be essential, but it adds background, context and depth to the metaphorical "mental picture" that the article is "drawing". As such, it provides a much richer "picture" of the nature and character of the person than the reader would obtain without it being there.
As "they" say: "A picture is worth a thousand words". It is not merely unnecessary or redundant data, and it most certainly is not just "decoration". Pdfpdf (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it is time I added my two cents, especially since my name has come up. Yes, I have been known to add ribbons to articles on occasion, and yes, I did remove the "Honours and Awards" section from Harry Murray, I also removed the same section on another page I was working on as well (Ernest Albert Corey). The reason I appear to be contradicting myself is because I have changed my views. I still love medals and ribbons, I still have a great interest in honours and awards, but I believe in most cases adding ribbon bars and tables to articles does disrupt the page. In many cases the Honours and Awards section takes up more space then what the bio section does, focusing more on medals then the actual person (which was the case on the Corey article before I re-wrote and expanded it), and I think that it is wrong; the article should be about the person not their medals. I briefly scanned what has been written above, and I agree with what Mr Rose has stated that, basically, the honours have been covered in the article, which I have done with Harry Murray, and it's just re-adding them, visually, with campaign medals. I know that Murray had other medals then his VC, CMG, DSO & Bar, DCM, Croix de Guerre and campaign medals, he also held the George VI Coronation Medal and Elizabeth II Coronations Medal; but so did every other VC recipient alive at the time. With Corey I added a link to a photo of his medals, which I believe to be more appropriate. The only articles I have added ribbons too recently (and when I say recently, I mean approximately two-three months), and that I can recall, was on Thomas Blamey and Francis Hassett. The reason I did on these two is because Hawkeye7 had added a list of campaign medals to each article and the listing was not complete. I figured I could either complete the list or remove them, but if I was to remove the section there was a possibility that someone would have a shot at me for doing so, as was the case when I removed them from Harry Murray. That is leading to what annoys me the most about the ribbons, besides the fact that it disrupts the page, but also in many cases the listing is either incomplete or incorrect (which is the case in the newly added Honours and Awards section on Arthur Roden Cutler). In the end, what I am now trying to say is that I do not support the addition of ribbons to articles in most cases anymore, as it can disrupt the page, or in many cases the list is incomplete, incorrect or covers more then the bio section. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the campaign ribbons when I added the photograph but you had already created a ribbons section to Francis Hassett back in June last year. I just added more ribbons. As with many articles, various editors have each added a bit and it looks very nice now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That reminds me, I want to thank you for adding that photograph, it greatly improved the article visually. Yes, I did originally add the section when I created the article to highlight his honours. I think we may have done the same thing on Blamey's article, but, as I stated above, I now have different views, and in most cases I do not think they should be added to articles. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another arbitary break for ease of editing

One possible solution occurred to me late yesterday, logically it seems to me that campaign medals belong with the things listed with the battles= parameter of the infobox. Similarly, any long service type medals would seem to logically belong with serviceyears= (an exception to this might be things like the Efficiency Decoration, which does confer postnoms - TD, confusingly - so might logically belong in awards= section). What the best way to do this might be I'm not entirely sure, maybe just a footnote, or perhps an asterisk or something after the battle (or whatever) name, linked to the relevant campaign medal, with a brief explanation of the meaning of the asterisk at the end of the infobox section. David Underdown (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but quite clearly I'm missing something here. Thanks for thinking about the situation, but your proposal sound incredibly convoluted and complex. I'm a firm believer in the KISS principle. Adding an "Awards" section containing a ribbon bar as worn on "special occasions", followed by a description of what the ribbons represent, seems very "simple" to me.
I know you've explained at length why you disagree. Do you think you could summarise concisely and objectively, in bullet point format, why such a solution is a bad idea? Because quite simply, after filtering out the POV and subjective opinions, I'm not really sure what your objective argument is.
The only potentially objective argument I've identified is that "it disrupts the page", and even that's subjective, and anyway, I'm sure it can be addressed to everyone's satisfaction if they are in the mood to be satisfied ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Difficult to adequately verify that we are providing complete and accurate information.
  • Further duplication of information - the article will already have post-noms for significant decorations in the lead, a list of decorations in the infobox (and both of these should essentially be summarising what's in the article). Equally we shouldn't really be representiing information that isn't included in the main article text.
  • The general presumption against overusing icons (one thing that hasn't really been touched on so far is the WP:Accessibility issues that this raises)
For starters. David Underdown (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Most appreciated. (As is the humour of your closing "for starters" ;-)
OK, I need to think about those. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
One other thing occurs to me, just because someone is pictured wearing a medal ribbon doesn't necessarily mean that they are really entitled to do so. There was a big scandal in the States recently because someone from one of the large Veterans' Associations there relaised that some public figure was wearing ribbons to which he wasn't entitled. I'll try and dig out some refs. Of course you be damned silly to do that if you were a serving member of the forces, but it does highlight the issue. Typo fixed above, I just can't spell Accessibility. David Underdown (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, but similar things can happen in print. I still must be missing something, because I still can't see any fundamental difference between pictures and text as a means of communication - to me, the differences just seem to be in the mechanism, not in the intent. Well, it's bedtime here; Goodnight, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes it can, for example our article on Henry Thynne, 6th Marquess of Bath, (which I really must get round to doing something with), following the ODNB states that he received both the Silver Star and Bronze Star Medal from the US during WWII, normally I'd regard the ODNb as a reliable source, but I've been unable to track down any official confimration of the Silver Star. Bronze Star yes, I can find the Gazette entry authorising wear of a foreign decoratin, and the original recommendation in The National Archives. Problem is the Gazette search can sometimes be a bit hit and miss, particularly as there isn't always a consistent approach to the use of courtesy titles (Thynne used the title Viscount Weymouth during the period of his war service), so should it stay in the article or not? But at least with a written source it is there in black and white, I may not be able to confirm the ODNB is wrong, but I can at least attribute the Silver Star to that source. Witha picture the problem is that it's us that's making the ID (and I've yet to see a case where the picture tha's been used to make the ID has been clearly attributed - that might make some difference to my opinion). Even then we're essentially taking the editor's word for the identification of the ribbon pictured in the photo with a specific award, and I think you'd have to admit it's not always possible to be 100% sure your ID is right. David Underdown (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't want it to be thought that the identification of ribbons is invariably visual. None of the ones I have done have used that method. I usually lift them from the personnel file. Campaign ribbons don't usually get gazetted. The gazette is frustrating, especially when you know which issue the citation you want is in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit break

It seems like everyone took a breather for a few days - or perhaps it is just taking that long to work out the discussion, and come up with a possible consensus. To address some specific points:

  • Page disruption. I tend to disagree that the H&A section 'disrupts the page', as in the majority of pages it is at the end, following the bio itself. I guess this is a difficult point to agree on, as it comes down to a personal sense of style. To me - it's a visually pleasing conclusion to an article.
  • Comparison to flag icons. I don't think that it is appropriate to equate the ribbon images to the debate on flag icons, as much of the points of contention at WP:MOSFLAG relate to flag/nationality specific issues. In terms of Style issues, the main point addressed is to avoid overuse of the icons, and to avoid/not use them in the general text of the article. And of course, the over-riding opening statement "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article".
  • Accessibility issues. I think I may have a solution to this one - Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images states that image mark-ups (or 'alt text') can be achieved by the syntax shown under, to achieve the result shown in my Sandbox:
[[Image:Vallabhabhorn Order ribbon.png|100px|The Vallabhabhorn Order]]
Therefore, adding the alt-text to ribbon images will meet the accessibility guidelines.
  • Original research. I would agree with Pdfpdf that identifying ribbons from a picture has just as much validity as identifying from a piece of text. OK, in terms of 'quality of source', perhaps it should rate at an 8/10 (9/10 for an official issued photo perhaps), with a text citation (from the London Gazette or Australian Government website) rating 10/10 - but all the same, much more valid than a random website. There is normally enough variation between ribbon designs to rule out mistakes, particularly when taken in context of the time/experience of the person involved (we are unlikely to mid-identify the Abyssinian War Medal of 1869 with the Australian DSC of 1991) - and a common ribbon design between medals usually explains some linkage between their award (see for example the China War Medal). The photo used for identification should be quoted as the source for the information. The chance of someone wearing ribbons they are not entitled to is fairly remote I would think - particularly in the case of the bios we are writing about here on Wiki... not 'zero chance', but fairly remote. Perhaps the added publicity generated could actually see some of those type of impostors out-ed for the charlatans they are! (sorry - POV coming into my blurb)
  • Duplication of information. Some information will be repeated, yes - but in my mind this will be to provide an accurate summary, and as mentioned before, to aid in the identification of particular awards. Knowing that Ken Gillespie has a DSC is obvious from his post-nominal - knowing at a quick glance that it is an Australian DSC as opposed to an Imperial DSC is only obvious from his ribbon bar!
  • Infobox summary. As I stated earlier, the section in the Infobox re awards is designed for 'any notable awards or decorations the person received' - which taking the Gillespie example, is really only for 3 of his 9 ribbons. It also misses the fact that he was previously a Member of the Order of Australia, a not insignificant award (but superseded by his AO).

I see a number of positives from the inclusion of the Honours and Awards visual summary that significantly add to an article's quality:

  • It provides a quick summary of someone's career, and may lead to more in-depth knowledge not immediately obvious from the bio (particularly for the 99% of non-FA pages) - eg Keith Payne (Oman medals)
  • It allows for identification of awards not obvious from first inspection, particularly 'foreign' awards - eg Peter Cosgrove (CNZM) or Angus Houston (DUBC)
  • It permits a listing of campaign bars that again may not be completely spelt out in the article text - eg Michael Slater (soldier) (TIMOR-LESTE clasp)
  • It provides a framework that may assist in the building of an article

A way ahead. Perhaps, anyway... Obviously, my POV is that I would like to see the Honours and Awards visual summary retained. I have prepared a few options on a Sandbox page here. To summarise (reference that page):

  • Option 1 is pretty close to what exists on most pages now. Obviously, with no defined 'standard' to work from, a number of variations exist. This option uses a standard ribbon size of 100px for the ribbon bar, and 80px for the summary table. These sizes came about from previous discussions (with Pdfpdf I think) re readability.
  • Option 2 provides a similar format to Option 1, but with reduced image sizes (80px and 60px respectively). This is what I had initially used as a 'standard' prior to the readability discussion.
  • Option 3 does away with the ribbon bar, but retains the summary table. I do think that this misses out on some of the positives (particularly the identification of mystery ribbons), and would see this as my least preferred option.

My personal preference is to retain Option 1, but to codify the 'standard' to be used - perhaps via the WP:MILBIO page, or WP:MILMOS. I am happy to have a hack at writing the Style Guide to be followed, if consensus can be reached here on an Option to use. If you feel appropriately motivated, then feel free to add an Option 4 (etc) to my Sandbox page for discussion. OK - a lot of words - if you read this far, then congrats! A plea though - if you have comments, could you set them out in separate paras below - the practice of interspersing comments in my para's tends to make my head spin after a few 'replies-to-replies'. PalawanOz (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the disruption issue is the duplication of the ribbons within these sections, once in the ribbon block, and then in the description, so that would lead me to option 3 I suppose as this reduces the duplication at least, though it does still add a significant overhead to the article. I stil lfirmly believe that the best way to include information is in the body of the article, if they were eligilbe for a campaign medal, mention it at an appropriate point and link, then if someone wants to look at the ribbon they can (and if you've done enough work to find out which ribbons are valid, is that it that much harder to add a brief sentence to the article saying that they also served in Oman, or whatever?). I'm not convinced about the disambiguation point. The postnom should always be linked to the relevant award in any case, all you have to do is hold your mouse over the link, and you'll see the name, the ribbon would be meaningless to me without looking it up (and in the example you give, the fact that an army officer has the DSC is also a bit of a giveaway, the British DSC being a naval award).

Well, I have been asked by PalawanOz to add any further comments that I may have on this issue. As I have stated above, I do not particularly like the ribbons being added to articles, but if they are to be added then I vote to have the table removed; it is with the table that I have quite a few problems. The table just re-adds the ribbons, just with the medal names. If the ribbons are to be added, I believe that they should be in a form like that on Hughie Edwards; that which CORRECTLY displays the ribbons and lists the medal names. Truthfully, if I do come across a page and the ribbons are incorrect I will delete the section; that is another major problem I have come across. The vast majority of these sections are incorrect or incomplete, and if I do find one that is as such I will delete the section. As I have stated, I am not particularly a fan of these sections, but I am willing to relent somewhat if they are done correctly and not haphazardly. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with that layout is that it is not necessarily immediately obvious that you start at the top left, and then work your way down each row in turn (could be addressed with a note).
On the accessibilty issues, it's just occured to me that the syntax PalawanOz describes above will add alt text, but is also what is normally used for adding a caption to an image - which would completely destroy the layout in this instance. David Underdown (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The syntax will only add a caption if the 'thumb' or 'frame' option is used. Otherwise, it functions just as 'alt-text'. PalawanOz (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Provocative edit

This edit, accompanied by the comment Per peer review of Hughie Edwards & discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force#Ribbons, rm superfluous awards section is totally inappropriate and even taken in the best light, very cheeky!

In response to it, I have commented: a) "superfluous" is your POV, it is NOT concensus. b) "discussion at ... #Ribbons" did NOT reach ANY conclusion, much less concensus. c) What "peer review of Hughie Edwards"? Reference please.

"We are not amused". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The peer review is the one higlighted in the very next section of this talk page... David Underdown (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you David. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Hughie Edwards, that's hardly concensus either. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(And I do wish editors wouldn't use the words "need" and/or "necessary" - they convey no information beyond "I don't like it". In particular, they don't tell you why the editor doesn't like it, nor do they tell you what it is that they don't like. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC))
(P.S. Thank you Ian for using "superfluous" rather than "unnecessary" - at least "superfluous" conveys some information. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC))
I don't have a lot of time to write more right now - but I do agree with Pdfpdf here. There has been no consensus reached on this page, and the 'peer review' is hardly a wide-reaching discussion that should be used as a reference for editing other articles! My POV - I like the ribbons sections, for all the reasons listed previously. As a basis for discussion, I would refer people to this page: User:PalawanOz/Ribbons. I still think that Option 1 is ok, but would also see great benefit to an article by the inclusion of Option 3. I think the discussion that ensued re Neville Howse's page is a great example of how the ribbon list can enhance an article! PalawanOz (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well Pdf, I'm glad you like "superfluous" more than "unnecessary", yet it appears more explanation is required for why it was so. The section was superfluous because it did not add to what was already in the article in the way of cited material. All the cited decorations had already been mentioned - and cited - in the body of the article. The campaign/service medals - which do not add to Scherger's notability, because like all such medals they were awarded for being where he was ordered to be at a particular time - were uncited. I haven't seen a convincing argument as to how the ribbon pictures add to the reader's understanding when they'd need to follow the link to the medal's article to know what the medal is about, which will also show them not simply the ribbon but also the medal itself. Lastly, re. "consensus", you might note that I never used that as the argument for removing the section. My argument in this case was that this is a B-class article which requires cited material, not original research or mere pretty pictures. However, since you bring up the suggestion of consensus, where is the consensus for the section being added to this article in the first place, since it was well-established long before the section was added? If we agree there is no consensus regarding this subject - that may be the one place we agree! - then the consensus argument would also support removing the section until or unless you have consensus to put it in. The argument can't be used one way and not another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Thanks for the reply. Is there any point in me saying anything more? (You sound like you have made up your mind; it sounds to me like there is nothing I could say which would cause you to change your opinion.) I have asked people to make suggestions on how we might move to common ground on this matter. PalawanOz seems to be the only person attempting to do so. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
(Oh, by-the-way, I think "like" is overstating it somewhat - 'dislike "superfluous" less' would be closer ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

I think at some point above I stated my reason for liking the ribbon section - I'll re-state here. The original purpose for my developing an interest in the ribbons came from seeing a pic of Peter Cosgrove in the paper - I saw his ribbons, and had no idea what some of them were. I went to the all-knowing source of everything (Wikipedia), and there was no help for me there in his article. Coupled with a desire at the time to have a better understanding of some of the older campaign medals (we were coming up to Anzac Day), I developed a lot of ribbon images to use on the Australian Honours Order of Precedence page as a reference point. So to my POV, the purpose of the ribbon section in a bio article is to fit the need of a person like me - someone who sees a pic of someone, thinks "what does the red/white/green ribbon signify", and gives an answer. As a result, I do not see the article as superfluous or unnecessary at all - it fits the need exactly! Indeed, I can't see how a text based description could fit the need better. I would like to see Option Three as a minimum on those articles that have the section displayed. PalawanOz (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid neither of you fellas has addressed the issue of where you have 'consensus' to try to force the inclusion of this section in the Scherger article, where it never existed until just recently, since you've agreed there's no consensus on this issue. Nor have you explained why you persist in keeping such a section in this article, but not in others where it's been removed for similar reasons. Note that, despite my opposition to these sections, I've not initiated a campaign to remove them from articles where they're long-established.
As well as concerns of OR, lack of citation, and repetition/redundancy of information, we've also mentioned issues of listcruft and image cruft; a related argument being that the size of these sections gives undue weight to less important elements of the subject's biography, namely the campaign/service medals that you get for showing up (the decorations are important, but they're already given due weight in the infobox and main body). However, leaving all of this aside for now, despite Pdf's suggestion that I seek no compromise here, I've spent quite a bit of time prior to this considering options such as PalawanOz's, or possibly putting the campaign/service medals in the infobox. Unfortunately none of PalawanOz's options really address the issues I and others have raised above. Further, when I looked at putting the list into the infobox, which is the logical place for such lists, I couldn't see a simple way of doing it without a) increasing the length of the inbox considerably and b) merging them with the more significant decorations.
I've now come up with something that addresses the last two issues, which I submit for everyone's consideration at User:Ian Rose/Drafts. It doesn't include the ribbon images Pdf and PalawanOz are keen on (in theory they could be added - I still can't see the point when following the link gives you the ribbon and much more, but I've been through that many times before) but all the info is there for seeing what service medals were awarded without creating a contentious new section in the main body of the article. Regardless of whether we decide we can all live with this (hey, magic happens) I'd say we should put this before the wider MILHIST community as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Views on Ian's proposal

Seems a reasonable compromis to me, however in it's current implementation there are possible WP:Accessibility problems, on the browser I'm currently using, I'm forced to have javascript disabled for security reasons, and I'm not too sure how screen readers cope with it. A lot of templates which have show hide functionality simply degrade to showing in full if JS is not available, I think we ough tto play around a bit more until we find a version that enalbes that behaviour. David Underdown (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so you don't think your proposal has fallen into a black hole, I'm experimenting with it and other similar options. I'll be back when I have something that I think is likely to be acceptable.
In the meantime, David's observations cause me some concern and confusion because I'm unsure of the implications. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't actually explain very well in the end. With javascript disabled, all one sees is a line "Campaign/service medals" with no way to expand it. Obvously the full text can be seen if you go into edit mode, but that's not really helpful. I think we really need ot find a way for this to expand by default if javascript is not enabled, as many navigation templates do, and as for nested project tags on talkpages. David Underdown (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional information?

When looking at Image:Victory medal (UK) ribbon.png, I noticed Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta, in particular Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta#Orders and decorations, which uses Template:Decoration. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Hughie Edwards now open

The peer review for Hughie Edwards is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You, Navy :P

The Royal Australian Navy has just gone and updated its website (now at http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Main_Page), and broken every single external link we have linking to one of their subpages in the process.

I thought people would appreciate the heads up. If I find a common change that we can program into an automated or semi-automated updating process, I'll let you all know. -- saberwyn 03:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Negative on that, they've renamed and reorganised lot of pages as well. Looks like we're doing this the hard way. Is there any way we can generate a list of articles that link to navy.gov.au? -- saberwyn 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
special:Linksearch is what you want, list here 622 links to fix (some are duplicates so at least we'll only need to work out the new target once). David Underdown (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
An update on the situation: I've started changing the links over to the new targets. There's about 450 old links remaining, some of which are source pages for images and should remain, while a handful on talkpages and archives are not really worth the effort to update.
The RAN web team has in the past day or two established URL redirects to the new content, although the've done this in the broadest terms: a ship page redirects to the list of current ships, a base page to the list of current bases, all Sea Power Centre content to the History top-page, etc. These links need to be fixed, and I'm in the process
I'm having problems finding targets for some of the links, mainly those to general history articles (as opposed to specific ship history articles) or to subpages of a ship or base. I'm tagging these {{deadlink}} as I find them
And... its done! (Sorta...) I've updated every single possible link I can find. The ones I couldn't find on the new RAN website have been tagged deadlink... a list of these articles can be found at User:Saberwyn/The Grand RAN. -- saberwyn 00:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Template box for AIF

Working on the article for the 11th Battalion 1st AIF, it becomes apparent that we need some sort of template box for the 1st AIF. However, I'm not sure how to create one or what structure such a box would have (i.e. group by type [infantry, light horse, artillery, etc], brigade or division). Maybe it's worth creating a separate box for each Australian division... Any thoughts? Lawrencema (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a {{Command structure}} that could be used if you're trying to do something simple; but I suspect you're looking for a more complex navigation box here? Kirill (prof) 02:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm looking for something a little bit more sophisticated. Something like Template:1stMarDiv. Maybe have the division's brigades where the Marine regiments are (i.e. replace 1st Marines with 1st brigade) and have the brigade's battalions and batteries where the Marine battalions are.Lawrencema (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Joseph Maxwell now open

The peer review for Joseph Maxwell is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 11:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Blair Anderson Wark now open

The peer review for Blair Anderson Wark is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Guadalcanal Campaign now open

The A-Class review for Guadalcanal Campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Francis Hassett now open

The peer review for Francis Hassett is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Australian military history

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Admiralty Islands campaign now open

The A-Class review for Admiralty Islands campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. Now that the article has passed its A-Class review with the Military history WikiProject, would it be possible to upgrade it to A-class within WikiProject Australia as well? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also: I'm curious about how the assessment box on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force page works. I would have thought that it automatically calculates the numbers of articles in each category, but this doesn't seem to be the case. It says there are 3 A-class; there are 8; 18 GA but there are 19; 99 B-class but there are 129. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is automatic, but due to delays in how category caches are updated, it may take several cycles of the bot run to fully catch up with recent changes. Kirill (prof) 01:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Joseph Maxwell now open

The A-Class review for Joseph Maxwell is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Cam (Chat) 20:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Stanley Goble now open

The A-Class review for Stanley Goble is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Clarence Smith Jeffries now open

The A-Class review for Clarence Smith Jeffries is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Edmund Herring now open

The A-Class review for Edmund Herring is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input would be appreciated! Thanks! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Allegiance

Could someone clear this up, I am coming across more and more articles on Australian Officers where the allegiance is listed as Australia or the Commonwealth of Australia . Do Australian forces not swear allegiance to the Crown ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Last I looked, the oath was:
Hawkeye7 (talk)

Realistically, Australia is only a part of the British Empire in name. The Australian Defence Force is governed by the Australian Government, and the British Government has no sway or control on how the Australian Armed Forces are run or operated. With this in mind, an Australian soldier, sailor or airman's legiance lies with the Commonwealth of Australia. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The description of the allegiance field in the infobox reads "the country or other power the person served". Regardless of the oath to the monarch (who in any case is also sovereign of Australia, if you want to be pedantic), the country served for those in the RAAF, RAN or Australian Army is pretty clearly Australia... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The standard for British Forces has also generally been simply United Kingdom, (or appropriate predecessor state), rather than saying British Crown, which I think you (Jim) may have used for some of your articles. Although the oath refers to the Monarch, control of the Army is effectively in the hands of Parliament. David Underdown (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Section 68 of the Constitution says: "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative." The custom is that the GG acts on the advice of her ministers (NOT the Parliament). There was a fight between former Prime Minister John Howard and former GG Michael Jeffrey about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all , clear as mud now Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I had rather sidetracked things into the British situation, and was thinking of the fact that Parliament has to pass funds for the Armed Forces every year. Of course, even in the UK use of prerogative powers means that day-to-day Parliament doesn't have much say, and the executive can to a large extent do what it likes - witness the discussions about the lack of Parliamentary debate in the run up to the Iraq War. The amin point is that allegaince has conventionally been written in Wikipedia as being to the "country", rather than to the Crown. David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Combet launches Top Brass" - Minister of Defence press release 058/08 - FYI?

Boring stuff and waffle:

Interesting stuff:

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a useful resource. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Bruce Kingsbury now open

The peer review for Bruce Kingsbury is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Tribal class destroyer (1936) now open

The peer review for Tribal class destroyer (1936) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Attack on Sydney Harbour will be today's fetured article

Hi, Attack on Sydney Harbour will appear on Wikipedia's main page as the featured article in about 30 minutes. It would be great if interested editors could watchlist this article and counter the inevitable vandalism. Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hostile acts on Australian territory

Reflecting on discussion at Talk:Bombing of Darwin (February 1942)#Requested move and looking at the related article structures it seems to me that it would be good to have an overview article on all hostile acts that have taken place in Australian territory since federation, more than a list or disambig but just an introductory paragraph on each linking to the more detailed articles.

Questions:

1. What do others think of the suggestion? I don't want to put work into creating it if it's just going to be merged into existing articless. That is, some of that sort of thing is inevitable in any wiki, but I'd like to avoid it if I can.

2. What should it be called?

3. (related) What exactly should its scope be?

Comments please. Andrewa (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Category:Military attacks against Australia? - I think that it might be the best way of grouping these articles. Given that there are few common threads linking the various attacks on Australia (even the Japanese raids on northern Australia and submarine attacks on the east coast were basically unrelated), I don't think that an article would be particularly useful. On the other hand, creating such an article (Military attacks on Australia perhaps?) would do no harm. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cerberus class battleship?

Something that's been niggling at me for a while is that the breastwork monitor HMVS Cerberus is apparently a battleship. This view is promoted by the article Cerberus class battleship (which describes the class as consisting of this ship, a ship of near-identical design, and a ship of similar design), the {{Cerberus class battleship}} template, and the utterly ridiculous Category:Battleships of Australia.

In the RAN histories I have read, Cerberus is always described as a breastwork monitor, never a battleship or anything else. The closest I can get is a book is in The Royal Australian Navy: A History, edited by David Stevens, which makes a claim on the foldout opposite page 18 that the armoured hull, gun turrets, and superstructure were advances in naval architecture that were then utilised in battleships from the 1880s to the start of the 1900s. The only other times I can find reference to Cerberus and battleships is in websites saying something along the lines of "As the first ships to be constructed entirely from metal, breastwork monitors like Cerberus were an important evolutionary step between the 19th century ship-of-the-line and the 20th century battleship." (i.e. this National Trust of Australia page).

I would like to move the class article and template to Cerberus class monitor, then nominate the Aussie Battleships category for deletion and modify all the related articles appropriately, but want some other opinions to see if I'm over-reacting. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 09:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen Cerberus called a 'battleship', and have read in numerous sources that the first HMAS Australia is the only battleship or equivalent ever operated by Australia, so I'd say go for it. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
It's funny that the Cerberus class battleship page uses Oscar Parkes' British Battleships as its sole reference, and that book (pp. 166-169) refers to the Cerberus and Magdala as "breastwork monitors" or just "monitors": no mention of "battleship". --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, as I've seen the same thing as Nick-D (don't ask me where, I forget. =]). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments have been made at Talk:Cerberus class battleship that efforts should be made to learn what these ships were called back in the 1800s and use that for the ship-type qualifier. Does anybody have any idea where I can find a reliable source for such information? -- saberwyn

You could try asking Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) - if memory serves me well, he rewrote most of our articles on pre-dreadnought British battleships from scratch, and probably has a good idea for where to look. Shimgray | talk | 10:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
...and he reports that contemporary authors described them as "Coast-Defence Breastwork Monitors". I wonder if the class article got created at that title simply because that was where the redlink pointed? Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
We appear to have settled on the move to Cerberus class monitor, and there is a rewritten lead section on the talk page that encompasses the various terms used to refer to the ship (coastal defence ship, breastwork monitor, ironclad, turret ship). If there are no objections, I'll start making the appropriate edits this afternoon (around 0500 UTC). -- saberwyn 23:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Australian History re-issued

For those who haven't seen it, an updated second edition of The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History was released last week. While the book is expensive at $80, it's authoritative and covers a remarkable range of topics and I highly recommend it. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I (and probably other UK local library members) appear to have full online access to this work, if that's useful to anyone. David Underdown (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be, so long as you don't mind people asking you to check something every now and then...! The 1995 edition is in Customs House Library, Sydney, by the way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the info more closely, the online version doesn't yet seem to be the latest print edition. Presumably it will be updated eventually. David Underdown (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I've shelled out for the new edition, and would be happy to dig up citations. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney (1934)

The National Archives of Australia has (in the last few days) declassified and released a large number of documents relating to the sinking of the Sydney (see the talk page). Although the article is already rated GA, this new information should be thoroughly digested and included. We should work towards making this the FA for 22 November 2009, the 75th anniversary of her launch. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Royal Australian Navy categories

I am proposing a reorganisation of the categories used to classify ships of the Royal Australian Navy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Reorganisation of Royal Australian Navy-related categories. Please have a look at the suggested category structure and comment. -- saberwyn 11:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Very belated notice of Blair Anderson Wark undergoing a second peer review

Hi, just to (belatedly) note that I have requested a peer review for the article Blair Anderson Wark. It is currently rated A-Class, but I was considering going for Featured and would like some feedback on what improvements need to be made, or whether I should go for FA at all with this one. The review has only received one comment thus far, and any further would be much appreciated. Many thanks in advance, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for George Ingram now open

The A-Class review for George Ingram is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bruce Kingsbury now open

The A-Class review for Bruce Kingsbury is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Neil Hamilton Fairley now open

The A-Class review for Neil Hamilton Fairley is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Kokoda 'track' or 'trail'?

A discussion of the name of this battle has recently begun at Talk:Kokoda Track campaign. All editors are invited to participate in the discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Whittle now open

The A-Class review for John Whittle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories created by military-importance

The template has a new parameter military-importance, which places articles in categories, most of which are missing. I've created some, but these probably need fixing and the rest should be created.--Oneiros (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the existing categories so that they all branch from Category:Australian military history articles by importance; the other categories can be created by copying the existing ones, if desired. Kirill 15:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

GA-class nomination of Military history of Australia during World War II

I've nominated Military history of Australia during World War II for GA. It's definitely better then B.--Oneiros (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has passed and is now GA; I've nominated it for A.--Oneiros (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for James Newland now open

The A-Class review for James Newland is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial photos now labeled as being in the public domain

As the latest development in the saga over the copyright status of photos in the AWM's database, all(?) photos from World War 1, World War 2 and the Korean War have been recently labeled as having a copyright status of 'Copyright expired - public domain' in their individual records. This is in line with the guidance on copyright the AWM has placed on its website at: [3]. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for William Bostock now open

The peer review for William Bostock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Kaiapit now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Kaiapit is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for George Alan Vasey now open

The A-Class review for George Alan Vasey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for William Bostock now open

The A-Class review for William Bostock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Private Gregory Michael Sher

Some opinions from the Australian milhist task force please.

Is Private Gregory Michael Sher notable as the 8th Australian to be killed in Afghanistan ?

We could add a line on the 1st Commando Regiment article to the effect that Private Gregory Michael Sher had been killed on active service in Afghanistan Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My gut feel is that he is non-notable - the article here lists the Australian casualties, and Sher is the only one with a page. Include him on the 1 Commando page, or perhaps an Australian page matching British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 or Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan. At the very least, the page title needs to change to reflect the correct MoS - ie, it should be Greg Sher PalawanOz (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This section also deals with Aussie casualties. PalawanOz (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
At one stage there were articles on each of the Australians killed in Afghanistan, but following discussion it was decided that these men aren't notable enough as they're only known for a single event and a summary of the material was merged into the casualties section in Operation Slipper. This article should also be merged and be converted into a redirect like the others. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments sought on Military history of Australia during World War II's length

User:Oneiros has noted that Military history of Australia during World War II is very long, and has proposed that it be shortened. Editors who wish to comment are invited to do so at Talk:Military history of Australia during World War II. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Landing at Saidor now open

The A-Class review for Landing at Saidor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tom Derrick now open

The A-Class review for Tom Derrick is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See also sections in VC recipients

Moved from User talk:Anotherclown

Hi! I have noticed that you have started adding "See also: List of Australian Victoria Cross Recipients" to articles on Aussie VC recipients. While I applaud your efforts and perseverance, I have reverted a few of these additions as they add no value or information to the articles, and also there are Category:Australian World War I Victoria Cross recipients, Category:Australian World War II Victoria Cross recipients and Category:Australian Victoria Cross recipients attached to the appropriate Aussie VC articles, which includes a link to the aforementioned list and, realistically, makes the "See also" additions redundant. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that your additions are not "necessary", I'm afraid that otherwise I disagree with Mr Abraham. "Necessity" is not WPs exclusive driving criteria. Other, and in my opinion, more important criteria include, but are not limited to, conveying information and ease of use.
I believe your additions are useful; please keep doing them. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That is your POV, and I strongly disagree. The whole point of categories is to link common things—in this case the Australian Victoria Cross recipients—and not create useless and unnecessary "See also" sections that contain one link and look horrible on a page. If the "See also" section with this one link is added then we may as well remove the VC cat as it then becomes redundant. Yes, Wikipedia's main idea is to provide information; which is exactly why categories are in existance. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The relevant guidance is at WP:SEEALSO. While there's no rule against 'see also' sections, reviewers of featured article candidates normally ask that these sections be integrated into the article when it is nominated for FA status. Given that many articles on VC winners are on-track to become FAs, it's probably better not to include these sections. I personally don't find them too bad myself though as long as the links are highly relevant. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
My goodness Bryce!! That's a very strong and not very friendly response! I said it was my opinion; am I not allowed to have an opinion that is different from yours?
Other comments I have made in edit summaries on this subject include:
  • "I disagee. Yes, the link appears in the cat, but why make connection to such an interesting page an obscure two step process that almost no-one will execute? "See also" draws direct attention to it."
  • "I agree it's un-necessary, but WP is NOT about "necessity", it's about helping readers find information, guiding them to new and related information, and being easy to use. Such a link is "useful"."
Regarding your response:
"and not create useless and unnecessary "See also" sections that contain one link and look horrible on a page." - I'm afraid that phrase seems to me to only contain opinion. You have previously stated your opinion, (viz: I strongly disagree); there do not appear to be any new facts in this phrase, and hence it does not seem to add any value to the discussion. My only response is to say: "I disagree", but you already knew that. Do I need to provide evidence that it is neither useless, nor unnecessary, nor horrible? If so, then please first provide some evidence that it does posses these three characteristics.
"If the "See also" section with this one link is added then we may as well remove the VC cat as it then becomes redundant." - I disagree. They are two different things that do two different things and serve two different purposes for two different reasons. Yes, there is some overlap, but not to the extent of "redundancy"; if you remove one, you remove functionality that is not provided by the other (and vice-versa).
Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
label1
Nick-D: Hmmmm. Interesting. I find WP:SEEALSO confusing: (Bolding added by me - no bold text in the original.)

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical "perfect article" are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one.<ref>This of course refers only to links related to the topic, not links that are incidental, e.g. linking to a jargon word in a sentence.</ref> Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. A "perfect" article then may not have a "See also" section at all, though some links may not naturally fit into the body of text and others may not be included due to size constraints. Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons may thus be appropriate, though should be used in moderation, as always. These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.

To me, its use of the words "would", "generally", "however" and "may" mean that it does not seem to provide an absolutely definitive answer. i.e. To me it seems to be saying: "Whether or not an FA has a 'See also' section is not black & white, and depends on a number of factors."
Or have I missed something? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You had your opinion Pdf, and it was my turn to bring mine in. Yes, perhaps it was quite strong what I wrote, but our differences in opinion usually lead to quite unfriendly disputes regardless. The cats and "see also", in this case, do exactly the same thing I have outlined above - link to the other Australian Victoria Cross recipients. With one added, the other is, essentially, redundant. As also stated above, the whole point of categories is to link common themes or terms, making the addition of a "See also" section useless. The categories on Aussie VC recipients link to all other ninety-six, and also the List of ninety-seven, making the addition useless; just another piece of list cruft. As Nick stated, FAC reviewers usually frown on such sections anyway. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't find your response useful.
Firstly, I find your tone rather abrasive.
Secondly, you appear to be repeating your previously stated opinion - e.g. "The cats and "see also", in this case, do exactly the same thing I have outlined above". I have already said that I disagree. I have also already explained why I disagree with your other statements of opinion.
Do you have anything new to add that is not simply opinion? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
"As Nick stated, FAC reviewers usually frown on such sections anyway." - a) Actually, that is not quite what Nick said. b) As Nick has indirectly suggested to me, I suggest that you may find it useful to read WP:SEEALSO again. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
label2
I hope that Anotherclown doesn't mind us taking over their talk page! To clarify what I wrote above, while I personally don't have a problem with 'see also' sections as long as the links are highly relevant and unsuitable for inclusion in the body of the article (as appears to be the case here) I think that this may be a minority view, and the presence of a 'see also' section is normally (but not always) a black mark for FACs. As many of the VC articles are well on their way to becoming FAs, this is a sensitive topic. As a reminder, Anotherclown is a relatively new editor and WP:BITE applies in addition to all the usual behavioral norms. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move all of this to WP:AUSMIL to leave Anotherclown alone? Woody (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a very good idea; we've just dumped a whole load on the poor bugger. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
End copy from User talk:Anotherclown
label3

Further to #label1 and #label2 above, I am still a little confused about "see also" sections, in that although the MoS says that the sections can have their uses, it seems the WP FAC reviewers work by a different set of "rules". Is this interpretation of the situation by me accurate, or have I missed something? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is an automatic oppose at FAC by any means. What it does do is alert the reviewer to potential areas for expansion. They might ask why is this not expanded on in the text? In this case, I don't think that is entirely possible or at all, unless you add a line in such as "YYYYY is one of 96 Australian Victoria Cross recipients, and one of only X in ZZZ war."
The MOS is a guideline and in terms of see also sections, there aren't any prescriptive guidelines, it is up to editor discretion and consensus. So, in reality, FAC reviewers are not deviating from the MOS as it doesn't actually say that much on the matter and it is unfair to describe FAC reviewers as one entity, they will all have their own opinions. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I find that useful, and it clears up my confusion.
From that, using my personal discretion, I would deduce that a 'see also' section can add value.
On the other hand, I'm reasonably confident that, from that, using his personal discretion, Mr Abraham would deduce the exact opposite.
I can't think of a way to make progress on this issue. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is a logical impasse. What we need to do is come to a consensus, most likely on an individual basis. I would suggest that you take an article through FA, see what the consensus is on that review. There is no easy answer to this question and the MOS will never codify this as it is always down to editor discretion. There is no accurate system to judge how "useful and informative" a link is. That is how it is I'm afraid. Woody (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I see. Well, at least I am now "better informed". Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
From what I've seen, FA reviewers often identify 'see alsos' as being a sign that the article either isn't as comprehensive as it should be or that it's been inefficiently written so that relevant links aren't included in the text. For instance, when I nominated Axis naval activity in Australian waters it was suggested that the entire 'see also' section be integrated into the article when it included links to List of ships sunk by Axis warships in Australian waters and Axis naval activity in New Zealand waters (as well as other, much less useful, links). In my view integrating these two links was a change for the worse as they buried this material somewhat, but FACs are a two-way street and the article was, on balance, the better for getting rid of the other links. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Personally, I hate 'See Also' sections; they look messy and I've lost count of the number of times I've been told in reviews that all of the links should be integrated into the main body of the text - I always try and get rid of them in any article I've written. Skinny87 (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So, it's starting to sound to me that the best plan of attack is to follow something similar to Woody's suggestion just below label3 - i.e.
Nick-D and Skinny87, is that consistent with what you are saying? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep; if the link can possibly be incorporated, it should be. Ironically, if someone was to make a collapsible template which listed all the Australian VC medal winners and stuck it at the bottom of each VCs article there probably wouldn't be any complaints. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Two points there:
"Yep; if the link can possibly be incorporated, it should be."
OK. But that seems to bring me back to my opening question, viz:
  • "Further to #label1 and #label2 above, I am still a little confused about "see also" sections, in that although the MoS says that the sections can have their uses, it seems the WP FAC reviewers work by a different set of "rules". Is this interpretation of the situation by me accurate, or have I missed something?"
Or more simply, if "See also" sections are not acceptable, then why doesn't the MoS say: "'See also' sections are not acceptable"? Signed: "Still confused from Adelaide", Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"if someone was to ... there probably wouldn't be any complaints" - Yeah, you're probably right.
My first reaction was: "but that's missing the point" - my so-called "the point" being, "See also" advertises a direct path to that (in my opinion) very nice page that also happens to have a list of the VC recipients on it.
But on reflection, just what is "the" point. I'm reminded of the classic System Engineering problem where people are rushing off to solve "the problem", without anyone having specified what "the problem" is. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
label4
So, taking a step back, just what is "the problem" that we're trying to solve here? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh, okay, I'll wade in at this point... "The problem" seems two-fold to me: 1) the desirability of See Also sections in general and 2) list articles vs. categories.
1) While I agree that it's best to integrate See Also items into the main body of an article, I don't find the section's presence aesthetically displeasing per se. The rule I do follow pretty religiously is to remove items in a See Also that are already so linked in the main body of an article (redundancy being the issue here) but I've never demanded that See Also items not linked in the main article be integrated - though I have heard they're frowned upon in FAC and, perhaps not coincidentally, I've never submitted an article for FAC with a See Also section. So on that point I'm probably in agreement with Pdfpdf (yes, you heard it here first - for my next trick, we'll magically achieve harmony re. the inclusion of medal ribbon sections - that one isn't over yet, either)...!
2) On this one I tend to agree with Bryce, that the equivalent category, which he already had in his Victoria Cross articles, should suffice without the need for the list. I have to admit to being far more in favour of categories, given their low maintenance, than list articles, no matter how much more info is contained in the lists. Nick may have hit the nail on the head with his template of VC winners suggestion. That was the reason I created Template:ADF Leadership, when I had disagreements with people who wanted to list all Australian Chiefs of Staff in See Alsos in each COS article - even though they all appeared in the body of each article, some argued they should be in a nice list at the end of the article, which I found redundant. The template was my compromise that finally satisfied everyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Having been rendered speechless with surprise, I shall retire for the evening. 'till the morrow ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The main piont in favour of a list in this instance (since it's a Featured List particularly) is the additional context provided by the introduction to the list. The issue of separating "original" VCs from VCs for Australia may also bedevil the design of an appropriate template. David Underdown (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. Those are indeed two issues in need of resolution, but I don't think they are the fundamental problem. I have the feeling that it comes back to: "Why did that editor feel that it would be useful to add a 'see also' section?", or stated differently, "What problem was that editor hoping to address by adding a 'see also' section?". I'll think about it some more before continuing. What do others think? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military career of Keith Miller now open

The A-Class review for Military career of Keith Miller is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military history of Australia during World War II now open

The A-Class review for Military history of Australia during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!--Oneiros (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Passed. :-)--Oneiros (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

New book

Just wanted to let everyone know of a new book about Australia's participation in and after the Pacific War: Gerster, Robin, Travels in Atomic Sunshine: Australia and the Occupation of Japan, Scribe Publications Pty Ltd, 2009. Reviewed in the Japan Times here. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Cla68. Do you have this book? EyeSerenetalk 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Morotai now open

The peer review for Battle of Morotai is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Australia,_New_Zealand_and_South_Pacific_military_history_task_force/Archive_2&oldid=1190127438"