User talk:David Underdown/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:David Underdown. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Mark Wright House

Hi David, thanks for your clean-up on my recent edit on Mark Wright's article, I am total awful at writing the things up! Can I point out however that the project is broken up as follows: Army - Provide the staff, Erskin - Provide the building, HFH - Provide the funding. The project is not jointly funded as the Army are only providing staff from elsewhere, no new staff are being taken on by the Army for the project. Trevor Marron (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was just me trying to avoid using the exact wording in the news item. I'll review. David Underdown (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

MC

Re. your recent edits to Military Cross, adding RN and RAF categories in addition to the Army one. Having taken a look at the 2002 London Gazette I'm bound to say that you are probably completely right about having tri-service categorisation. I always knew that the MC would be awarded to members of other Services for actions on land, but until I took a look at the updated Warrant, I wasn't fully conscious of the degree to which it had been turned into an 'environmental' award over a substantially Service one. I suppose this means that the same is appropriate for the DSC and the DFC.

Xdamr^talk 14:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess so, I did update the article wording in all cases a little while ago, but didn't think about categorisation. It's not entirely new, more than one RAF officer was awarded the MC during WWII for actions whilst escaping/evading capture. David Underdown (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Walter Colquhoun Grant

Thanks for filling in gaps in this article with a lot of interestingm useful and well sourced information..--KenWalker | Talk 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

National Archives

Hi David. Sorry, this is kind of an off request. I'm compiling the Bibiliography for my dissertation, and need to find the titles for all of the NA archive files I used (for example, CAB130/3 was something like 'Civil Defence Cabinet Memorandum, 1945-1948' or somesuch), but the search thingie for the NA website isn't bringing up the titles. Do you know how to access the search engine used inside the NA, ie the one present on all the computers? That's where I searched for all of my files before I picked them up, and it gave the titles of the overarching files - ie, I'd type in CAB 130/3 and it would bring it up and ask me if I wanted to order it. If you could help me find that search engine, I'd be dead grateful. Skinny87 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to have bothered you - I found the catalogue after some searching and managed to get what I need. Thanks anyway! Skinny87 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I was rude first

intentionally or not. Actually, you have served me well. I had not realized I was being a drag on the project by failing to learn Wiki editing. Thanks for the wakeup call and the suggestion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful work on Richard Hieram Sankey

Hey. Noted your edits to the article. Wonderful work with the infobox and the additional info and corrections with material from the London Gazette! Thanks. prashanthns (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a follow-up question. Come across any photos among those gazettes that you went through? Not able to source a photo, although, I think there must be a statue of his somewhere surviving in Bangalore. prashanthns (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This might also interest you. prashanthns (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

Don't know if this was deliberate but it made me chuckle! pablo_hablo. 11:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

M22 Locust

Hey, thanks for the new edit. My only concern is that, although it now reads really nicely, I'm worried about synthesis. I wrote it originally that way as Bishop says the Tetrarch was to be used for glider transporting, and Flint says it was obsolete and therefore available for the airborne forces, as both say seperate points. If both references are at the end of the sentence, does that mean it's synethesis?

Cheers, I think that'll work now. I don't suppose, when you have the time, you could look at the ACR and make any comments? Be grateful if you could, these things take ages anyway. Skinny87 (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've split the references over the two parts of the sentence to make it clear which statement comes from where. I don't think you really need to worry, I've used "and" to join the clauses, rather than anything that directly suggests causality. Anyway, it's really novel synthesis that's a problem, this is a fairly straightforward inference. David Underdown (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: edit to Collins class submarine

In response to this edit, I'm under the impression that "p." is for a single page, "pp." is for multiple consecutive pages, and "pgs." is for multiple non-consecutive pages. That said, I won't shed any tears over the edit. -- saberwyn 10:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen that used anywhere else before, just p. and pp., but I suppose it might be a useful distinction. Even so the inconssitency between pgs and pgs. would need fixing. David Underdown (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for hooking me up with Ian Rose David, we're conspiring for a double whammy on DYK now. Cheers again, Ranger Steve (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Times Online

David, you're a real help, cheers. I couldn't find an obiturary for Philip Hicks, commander of 1st Airlanding Brigade, but there is one for Lieutenant General (I think) Ernest Down, sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. It's not huge, but if you could send that by PDF I'd be really greatful. Paradata doesn't have much on him, save a few photos and official reports. Anything you can do would be much appreciated. Skinny87 (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Email away! Skinny87 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC for War of the Pacific

Hi User:David Underdown,

I started a RfC in the Talk Page in order to improve War of the Pacific. I would appreciate your opinion and advice to the theme. Please, feel free to improve the grammer, style or spelling of the text. --Keysanger (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Lloyd Waddy

On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Lloyd Waddy, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Waddy (British Army officer)

On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Waddy (British Army officer), which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

James Hill

Hey David. Yeah, not surprised it wasn't verbatim, it didn't sound right; but I couldn't think of a way to paraphrase what the obituary said, so I just quoted it. I'd be greatful if you could show me the exact citation, and anything else you've got. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, all the words are used somewhere in the recommendation, just not quite in that order (and with some additional separation). The only other source I can think of at the moment is the usual London Gazette refs which are obviously the best source for commissions, joining the reserve, promotions and decorations. David Underdown (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, I never quite know what to do with Gazette links, I can never quite find the correct name or citation, lol. I'll dig them out sometime and add them in. Thanks again, Skinny87 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Email on its way. Gazette refs are no different to any other, but since they actually give legal effect to the commission, decoration etcno other source can contradict them (I'd only change a detail found in a gazette if I found a correction in a later issue). Though the mess of acting, temporary, war substantive and substantive ranks that you get in war time is a little difficult to explain. David Underdown (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dar Lyon

Hey, thanks for your additions to this article, its always great to get non-cricket information into these articles.. I tend to be a bit blinkered around the bits that I know, and don't even think to try and source information about the rest of their lives! (Really, there is life beyond sport?) Harrias (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, the championship was suspended 1915-1918 and 1940-1945. I bet most players from that era merely have missing sections of their lives there! The problem is that mostly we're interested in the cricket, not the war, so put in the bits we know and understand and skip the rest. I'll try and make an effort in future, but no promises.. maybe I'll just come knocking on your door! I did find it odd that he played very sparodic cricket in the 30s.. hadn't got that far through the article in my research yet though.. I've still got a fair bit to add to the article myself, but I've hit a bit of a work mountain, so not able to do much for the next couple of days. Harrias (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rippons

Thanks very much for adding those extra details to the Rippon twins. Much more rounded now. I think there's probably a lot of scope for adding material of this kind to the various cricketer biogs that we have, which tend, naturally, to concentrate on cricketing deeds. Anyway, thanks again! Johnlp (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I think we also tend to assume that people will appreciate that there would have been no first-class cricket between the 1914 and 1919 seasons (or 1939 and 1946) and so we don't spell out why, whereas we shouldn't assume that knowledge. I changed the Sydney Rippon article a bit after your intervention, because the match where he scored 60 was against Gloucs at Taunton, whereas the match that started on 3 August was against Gloucs at Bristol: the home and away fixtures of the West Country derby. Kind regards. Johnlp (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Lee (cricketer)

Hi. Thanks for adding all the wartime details, which are great to have. I have one query about the last reference, which seems to refer to an event in 1946 with a 1935 Times dateline. Could you maybe check that one? I'll be adding further details of the cricket career across the weekend, if I have time. Kind regards. Johnlp (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Leonard Holbrook

Thanks David, After searching through National Library of Australia's digital newspaper articles, it would appear that Commodore (first class) was given to Leonard Holbrook. The wikipeadia entry for Commodore (Royal Navy appears to explain it better: There was a need for officers to command squadrons, but it was not deemed desirable to create new admirals (as Post-Captains were promoted to Rear-Admiral in order of seniority). Captains assigned squadron command were given the title of Commodore, but it was not an actual rank. The officer so designated kept his place on the list of Captains. In 1748 it was established that Captains serving as Commodores were equal to Brigadier-Generals in the Army. Commodores could revert to the rank of Captain at the end of their posting (and Captains could be promoted directly to Rear-Admiral without ever having served as a Commodore) Thanks once again. Kind Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Lee (cricketer)

On October 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jack Lee (cricketer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Norman Field

Hey David. I found an obituary for Lieutenant Colonel Norman Field in the Telegraph, [[1]], but have found little else about him on the web. I'm going to try and get 'Churchill's Auxiliary Units' and David Lampe's book on the Auxiliary Units from the library, but I was wondering if you might know where any more info could be found on the good Lieutenant Colonel? Skinny87 (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, kind of you. I'll wait a week or two, and see if any more obituaries appear. He's an unusual case, though, and I hope I can dig up more info on him for an article; you don't often see an officer go from planning for one specialist unit (Auxiliaries) to another (Airborne). Skinny87 (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Monitoring Force in Zimabwe

Hi David. Greetings from New Zealand. You might have been aware that I'm working on a PhD on reconstructing armies, but I've now been forced to relocate from the UK to NZ, and some of the resources I need are at TNA and Oxford. Yet I cannot easily search them. I've tracked down DEFE 24/1876 ([2]), on Operation Agila in 1980-81, but am not sure whether it contains the information I need: did the initial British Military Assistance and Training Team (BMATT) have any written doctrine or manual that covered how it was going to reconstruct the new Zimbabwe National Army. Is there any way you can pull that file and check? I would be incredibly grateful, and would be pleased to buy you a beer or three when next in London... Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for your quick response. I'd really encourage you to get a reader's ticket - lots of interesting things in the archives there. The file is not red-hot urgent but needs to get done reasonably soon. Would it be fair to ask you to find it by this time next month - say 19 November, so that I can incorporate it in my notes for a conference presentation I'm doing? Tell me if that sounds OK or not. Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Banes-Walker

Another of those pesky cricketers that served (and was killed) in military service for you. Think I've done a pretty good job on this one, but if you could have a quick look over it for me, that'd be great. Harrias (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your work on this is, as always, brilliant. Everything you've altered is very clear, and as you can probably tell, my work was laced with ignorance! But at least I'm trying to admit they did stuff other than cricket right!? Harrias (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice find, should prove pretty useful. I was looking around the CWGC site last night actually, and it's incredible! Harrias (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cricket in the Great War

I've started working on Cricket in the Great War, and have posted for comments on WP Cricket Talk, any comments/input would be appreciated. Harrias (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mick Slater

Well done. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Richmond library

Fantastic if you could, but perfectly understandable if you can't. The article I'm after is:

Author(s): Richards, J. M. Sir, 1907-1992 (James Maude) Title: Recent building in Oxford and Cambridge Source: Architectural review 1952 Aug., v. 112, p. 73-79

The FAC in question is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford/archive1 - I've used a quotation from the journal given in another source, but a reviewer wants me to locate and cite from the original. In an ideal world, I'd love a copy (photocopy by post or scan by email) of the article; if that's not possible, then a note of the writer's views on Nuffield College, particularly confirmation that it contains the phrases in quotation marks here: "a missed opportunity of a really tragic kind", as the University could have shown, in a building outside the city centre, "that Oxford does not live only in the past". Many thanks in advance for your assistance. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 10:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Many thanks indeed for your kindness, above and beyond the call of duty. Is there anything I can do in return? Yours, Bencherlite ^Talk 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I've sent you an email, by the way. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Scans arrived safely. J. M. Richards really didn't like Nuffield, did he? The article is very interesting reading and will be very useful for me in future Oxbridge buildings articles, so thanks once again. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Office documents

Hiya, another editor thought you might help me further with an enquiry I posted here. Basically, I was asking if we were allowed to upload old Foreign Office correspondence (from the 1940s) to Commons.

I am also wondering how to get hold of further documents relating to the same topic. An author we quote in a biography says, without going into too many details, that there is "damaging" material on the subject "throughout FO 371 and FO 395 from 1926 to 1950". I got hold of some of these documents via the online document service (it is those that I was thinking of uploading). They do indicate that there was a concern, and that the FO did not want to re-employ the man on any similar mission, but there is precious little info on what specifically happened. At the time, I was unable to translate "throughout FO 371 and FO 395 from 1926 to 1950" into a meaningful request in the online ordering system. Any advice on either of these issues would be appreciated much! Thanks, --JN 466 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. --JN 466 19:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, David Underdown. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Siegfried Sassoon

Nice to see your update about the papers. For some reason, it didn't occur to me to add it myself. Deb (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - wish I could find a hook to hang that on the Sassoon website. Deb (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Visual identification

If you can spare a few moments, I would find it very useful if you can identify what it is I'm missing.
As you are aware, I really don't understand the argument that says visual identification of something from a picture is OR, but visual identification of the same thing from text is verification.
I don't understand the significance of the difference - in both cases, one is using one's eyes to gather data, and then using one's brain to process that data.
(If it helps, take the example of traffic lights. If that example just confuses things, please ignore the example.)
Looking forward to your help, and thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Essentially it's to do with the degree of certainty If you have it in black and white (as it were) "so-and-so was awarded such-and-such a medal on..." there's no room for interpretation. If you are looking at an image, firstly there's the matter of colour reproduction not being consistent leading to potential confusion, but then taking it step further, you're saying, right, I'm looking for a medal with a ribbon that's green with pink spots, medal x has such a ribbon therefore that's what it is, when medal y, which you've just never heard of, is a slightly different green with magenta spots and so. If the ID can only be made at that level, it seems to me we're better leaving it implicit. David Underdown (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So I interpret that as: With traffic lights, there are just three options, and "everyone" knows the top one is "stop" and "reddish", and the bottom one is "go" and "greenish".

However, with ribbons, there are many, many more alternatives, and the differences between alternatives may not be so clear, and hence are NOT as unambigous, whereas text is able to be less ambiguous, possibly even definitive.

If you agree with that, then I would say you have done a very good job of explaining the difference.

If you don't agree, well, ... "Help!"

Thanks, most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So, the "issue" is NOT that you are identifying it from a picture. The issue is that you are identifying it from a source that is NOT unambiguous. So OR really doesn't have anything to do with it - the issue is level of ambiguity.

What do you think of that statement? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As defined by WP:OR (and particularly a subsection of that WP:PRIMARY) taht act of interpretation to try resolve the ambiguity does constitute Original Research. A simple photo is a primary source, it hsows how that person, medal set, etc looked at the time the photo was taken. Unless a reliable source has in some way captioned or labelled the photo to describe what it represents. The most relevant part of the policy is:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

So any fool can see someone's wearing medals/medal ribbons, but a certain amount of knowledge is necessary to identify them unambiguously. Related to this is the idea of synthesis. We may have other sources saying the person concerned served in Iraq, Afghanistan etc, but putting this together with the appearance of the medal ribbons to make an identification is synthesis, which is also "banned" under the OR banner. We can link to the relevant articles on the campaigns, which if they're any good, should mention the relevant campaign medals, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions, but we shouldn't be presenting it as gospel without reliable secondary or tertiary sources making the same identification. If however you're looking at a service record, the Aussie ones I've seen for WWI have an official stamp on the last (non-blank) page indicating that the person received teh Victory Medal, 1914 Star or whatever. Though the service record is still a primary source the stmap doesn't need the same level of interpretation as anyone can read it. David Underdown (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Several issues there. I'll reply when it's daylight. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Chuckle.) It seems the main "issue" is/was: "don't try to do complex tasks when you are tired".

OK. Thanks. I've found that quite a bit clearer than previous "explanations" and "conversations". I'm not sure what I have concluded yet, but at least I now feel I have a much better understanding of the basic issues.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"General" Harris

Hello, David.

I know he wasn't a general. Yet, he is called "General Harris" in at least two commemorative places in France : a park near the British war cemetery in Cambes-en-Plaine (square Général Harris), and the street in Caen. It puzzles me a lot, but I can't find any other war-time "general Harris" that fits (I'm currently writing a dictionary of the street-names and place-names of Caen). Here are a few extracts from different sites that seem to imply that "general Harris" is in fact Air Chief Marshall Arthur Travers Harris :

La situation devient extrêmement tragique pour les défenseurs allemands qui doivent supporter un bombardement le 7 juillet au soir, par les forces stratégiques composées d'appareils types Lancaster et Halifax du général Harris. 2500 tonnes de bombes sont largués au Nord de Caen, sur les faubourgs [3].

Au moment où Le général allemand Dollman, atteint d'embolie, meurt le 29 juin, les deux maréchaux Von Rundstedt et Rommel, sont à Berchtesgaden où Hitler les a convoqués : Le bilan fin juin des pertes allemandes s'élève à plus de 50 000 prisonniers. Les 7 Panzerdivisions engagées ont perdu plus de 300 chars. Le 7 juillet au soir, premier cas d'appui aérien tactique par les forces stratégiques, Lancaster et Halifax du général Harris larguent sur les faubourgs nord de Caen 2 500 tonnes de bombes. Le 8 juillet matin la convergence des 3e divisions canadienne et britannique permet d'occuper le nord de Caen, alors que les Allemands des 12e S.S. Panzerdivision et 272e division réussissent à se maintenir dans la partie de la ville située au sud de l'Orne [4].

Cambes-en-Plaine : Le cimetière britannique et le square Général Harris, inauguré le 7 juin 2003 [5].

In Cambes-en-Plaine, a path from Mathieu to the British cemetery at Cambes was named after the Royal Ulster Rifles. Moving ceremonies also took place later that evening in the same town at plaques placed in memory of the Irish, Scottish and British fallen, and in General Harris Square [6].

Mairie de Creully, QG de la 2nd Army ; l'exemple de la résistance acharnée des Allemands sur tous les secteurs de Caen depuis un mois, fait craindre un second "Cassino". A fortiori, après le 4 juillet, devant la fixation des Canadiens, incapables d'arracher l'aérodrome de Carpiquet, on en revient toujours à la même évidence : l'engagement tactique du Bomber Command (bombardiers stratégiques de la RAF) de l’Air Chief Marshall Arthur Travers Harris contre les formidables défenses allemandes enterrées qui contestent l'accès à la ville. Des canons de toutes sortes, Flak, Pak (Note de MLQ: Panzer Abwehr Kanone= canon antichar de la Wehrmacht), Sturmgeschütz, Nebelwerfer, des chars enterrés qui défient artillerie et chasseurs-bombardiers, constituent une barrière formidable sur la ligne : Franqueville - Gruchy - Buron - Galmanche - Cambes - Lébisey, jusqu'au canal de Caen à la mer [7].

I'll let you do the editing if necessary (I haven't got much time, and this isn't my subject : I'm more into linguistics than war history), but I'm pretty sure this is the same guy, though I have no idea why he is called a "général".

Let me know what you think about it,

Regards from across the Channel, Dominique Fournier (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Well I guess the issue is that there is no direct French translation of Air Marshal, I assume the French Airforce uses the same ranks as the army, unlike British practice, so in naming the roads it makes sense, but in an article in English, it doesn't make sense to refer to him as "the general" as you had done. David Underdown (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Donald Allister

On November 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donald Allister, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Albert Axel Gibson

On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Albert Axel Gibson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

tweaks

So valuable. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lonsdale

Hey David, thanks for your help so far on Richard Lonsdale. If it's at all possible, and you have the time, could you email me Lonsdale's obituary from the Times, dated 26th of November 1988 (26/11/1988)? It would be of great help filling in his early and later life. Many thanks for all of your help, Skinny87 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much fir that David, very kind of you. It'll be extremely helpful. Skinny87 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Lonsdale

On November 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Lonsdale, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

National Archive microfilm

David, I see that they are quire happy for section to be reproduced in thew 'your records' section of their website, I couldn't see and I don't know if you did, see any reference to use further afield? NtheP (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the Wooden Horse diagram could be used from the page it's highlighted on? That's not downloaded via DocumentsOnline and it's not an image. As long as the source is identified and copyright acknowledged . . . NtheP (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Order of St John

"appointments in the Order of St John do not confer postoms"

True, in the same sense that "Imperial honours have been abolished". However, they used to be, prior to the Governor-General’s media release of 14 August 1982. Please do not remove them without discussion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian Bailey MM

Thanks for adding the London Gazette citations for this article. I did look myself but couldn't find any of them. I was hoping you'd come along and add them, but didn't like to ask. Jack1956 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean regarding notability, but I guess my rationale was how many E II R MMs were awarded for the Falklands? Plus I met the guy in 1982 at Depot Para in Aldershot so I suppose I had a vested interest! Jack1956 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt

Captain Fryatt most certainly was involved in the Zeebrugge Raid. See the postcard image of his sunken ship in that article. Looks like his article is missing a few details. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fryatt was not involved in the Zeebrugge Raid, the most salient point being that he was executed nearly two years before that raid took place. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 10:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, Brussels may have been there, but he certainly wasn't! David Underdown (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gordon Bastian

On December 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gordon Bastian, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert Thomas Carter

Thanks for the tidy up! I totally forgot about adding an infobox - although I'm not totally sure that the current one if the best one, as he wasn't primarily a Navy chap! Oh, and I didn't know about the London Gazette template - thanks! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably some variant of {{Infobox officeholder}} would be better - but you can incorporate the military info into that with the same parameter names, and I'm more familiar with using the military one, so I put it up as a placeholder until I've got my head round the monster that is Infobox officeholder and its assocaited redirects. As you may have noticed I've turned up his Times obit. Apparently he actually changed his surname to Gilbert-Carter in 1910, so that needs to be incorporated in the article somehow. I also have (free) access to his naval service record, which should fill in a few blanks [8][9]. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to do any more work on him in the near future, so if you drop me a line I could email those as pdfs. David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed you! Obviously, holidays are fast approaching, so I may not have much time during the next couple of weeks to work on the article, but I will definitely work on it in the first week of the new year if not before! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Year links not date links

Regarding Henry Allingham and other "oldest persons": if Allingham died at 86, no one would have noticed. He is noted primarily for his age, and for surviving to become the oldest WWI veteran, oldest man in England, world's oldest man, etc. As such, his year of birth is relevant/tangible to this story. That's why you see timelines of the lives of the "oldest persons":

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23709629-briton-worlds-oldest-man-at-113.do

It's clear from the above, and many other examples, that linking long lives to early years and events (including and especially the birth year), is standard/common practice. Wikipedia policies/regulations are that Wikipedia should reflect outside sources, not original research or personal viewpoint.

Further, your comment that "no one else seems to agree" is callous and disrespectful, a violation of "assuming good faith."

Too many editors on Wikipedia revel in their own cynicism, not ever stopping to hear or consider other points of view, as they should.

Personally, I think ALL biographies should have a year link to them. The day might not be a big deal, but the context of a person's life fits into the life-brackets which show up on tombstones and which, notably, go at the very top of an article. Aside from the name, few other items identify a person's life more. But names alone don't provide much context; years do. A link to a year can tell a reader on Wikipedia what the world was like when person X was born in year Y.

There are a few advantages of Wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia. Probably the top one is that "anyone can edit." A close second is that "Wikipedia is not paper" and so can cover more information. But also high up there, probably third, is the WIKI-link. One of the most important advantages of Wikipedia is that links on an article page provide background details to other, relevant/related topics. Is that too hard to understand?Ryoung122 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Ryoung122 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at Allingham's talk page. I was against linking the dates because I did not see that of itself 1896 is interesting to Alligham's life. As you say, if he had died at 86 that would not be interesting, and if he was born in 1896 and died, at 86, in 1982, that would not be interesting either. So I can't see why 1896 is interesting. However, I lost that argument, so it stayed as being linked. The relevant conversation is here].

For myself, I think if it is decided that bios' dates of birth or death should be so categorized, this should be done in the {{Birth date}}, {{Birth date and age}}, {{Death date}} and {{Death date and age}} templates. That ensures the consistency you desire (assuming those templates are used, of course), and then any change of consensus on how to deal with them can be fixed centrally in one place (well four places) instead of across thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of articles.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway there is Category:1896 deaths. And surely if someone wants to find out what the world was like in 1896, they can just look up 1896? Of course links should be made but we don't link every date, because the event is not interesting to the date, usually. For example that 25 December is in many countries Christmas Day is useful; to list there every person who was born on that day, roughly one-three hundred and sixty-fifth of all people, is not. Thus I am not against linking dates outright, but am against doing so when the subject is not relevant to the date in any meaningful way. On this occasion I lost, and will accept that (that's consensus for you); I notice for example the death date has not been linked, and if there was a wholesale linking of dates in this article, I would be more concerned about it. But that has not happened, and so the date should stay linked, with consensus, or discussed again at the article's talk page, which is what it is there for. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The default is for the date to be unlinked. Anyone who wants to establish a case for the date to be linked ha the onus to establish consensus for that. It seems to me that there are 2 issues with the link as it stands. 1896 is not inherently important to understanding Allingham's life, it is purely incidental that he was born in that particular year, rather than in 1895 to 1897 - what's important is the length of his life, not the year that happened to begin, unless there was something in particular about that year that influenced the fact he lived so long. If the fact that he was born in 1896 was so important we would spend some time discussing it in the article - and we don't. Which brings me on to the other main problem, simply linking in the dob in the lead gives no context as to why th elink is there, the reader doesn't discover (unless he or she already knows) why it might be important until after they have read past where the link is, it just looks an odd, marooned link, with nothing in particular to entice the reader to click on it. I can see in the future that for someone being born in 1948 in the UK when universal free health care was introduced that there is (potentially) something about that year which has genuine bearing on longevity - but even so the reader would be better served a direct link to history of the NHS, rather than being directed to an article on the year. Within the Allingham article, we emntion his early memories of troops returning from the Boer War and seeing W G Grace, such things provide far more context for a reader. I note also that neither Bill Stone nor Harry Patch has the year linked, and particularly in the case of Patch there was opposition to the proposal for linking, and attemtps to link (as with Allingham) have been reverted. Even the timeline you're so keen on doesn't actually mention one significant event in 1896. Si, Rcyoung is the only editor to have added this link, the vast majority of time from August to December it has not been in the article as it has always been deleted - in this instance this demonstrates the active consensus on the page far better than one brief talkpage discussion with two particpants, see also talk:Harry Patch where the same subject was discussed.David Underdown (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the vast majority of Wikipedian existence, the DEFAULT has been to LINK dates. Unfortunately, a CABAL of a few Wikipedia admins and editors decided that dates should be unliked for "aesthetic" purposes. That's a HORRIBLE argument, sacrificing content and usability for the sake of outward appearance.

Probably for the majority of articles on supercentenarians, a decision to LINK to the year has been accepted. This article, along with Harry Patch and other WWI veterans articles, might be different because the focus of editors like yourself is the "military" aspect of his history. Yet Mr. Allingham was the "world's oldest man" (and Patch the "oldest man in England") so even if they never served a day in the military, their age alone would have been of sufficient interest to generate an article on them. In other words, there is a "cross-purposes" here, whereby Mr. Allingham is "famed" for more than one reason.

As for Bill Stone and others, the younger the person gets, the less celebrated their age is. Mr. Stone was not the world's oldest man or the oldest man in England. As such, he is not as much a symbol of longevity. On the other hand, for a "world's oldest person" there is much more interest in the year of birth, as there is for oldest man and oldest/last person from year X. For example, Gertrude Baines was the last person verified from the year 1894, so a year link is certainly relevant that way...but it's also relevant because, as the world's oldest person, she was a symbol, a bridge from the past to the present.

My edit summaries "year links appropriate for oldest persons" made it clear why, even if one didn't generally want date links on biographies, exceptions should be made where the year of birth is relevant to discussion. Unfortunately, editors such as yourself, rather than considering the difference, simply try to enforce "conformity" and mistake that for "consensus."

Part of the benefit of Wikipedia is that we can each edit articles that we know something about. If editors would show a little more open-mindndess on topics that they might not be the best-informed about, Wikipedia would certainly operate more smoothly and be more useful, overall, to its readers.

Ultimately, content and linking is more important.Ryoung122 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summaries made it clear why you think the link is appropriate, as I've said, you don't seem to have made the case effectively - which is what I was trying to express in my edit summary. You have not addressed my point about the context of the link. Linking in the lead lacks any context, there is nothing to indicate to the reader why, exceptionally, this year is linked and no other. I suspect that many readers (as I do) rather skim over the birth and death dates in the opening - I notice if they're not there, and if it's an article I'm going to do some work on, sure I'll try to find them, but I probably pay more attention to them in the body of the article, rather than in the lead. It seems to me that a link to the year would be far more effective in the "Oldest living man" section of the article where the context in which the link is made can be fully established (though I appreciate that we normally link on the first mention of something). Maybe there even mention one or two of the events of that year. I finally got round to actually lookingat 1896 last night - there are one or two striking facts (to me) there, but I owuld never have clicked on the link in the lead. Having the conversation here isn't going to help you establish the general convention that such years should be linked - that really needs to be established at WP:MOSDATE.

Yes, my focus is more on the military aspects - but then he was notable for that before he was the world's oldest man and so on. Looking over the lead, it seems to me that the emphasis is out of kilter with most media coverage, which emphasises the military over the age-related, consider for example the Guardian's obit, http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/jul/18/obituary-henry-allingham which puts WWI veteran status first, and the BBC's, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6958420.stm which doens't mention the status of oldest living man at all. David Underdown (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in the discussion taking place at WT:Linking#Year linking Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC).