Jump to content

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relationship between Three letter acronym and TLA

Must have been an oversight, sorry. Though it may be better as a dab link on the top of the page, something like "For other uses, see TLA", don't you think? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 17:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. I have mixed feelings. Three letter acronym is a subset of TLA, so it would have to say something like "For other uses of TLA, see TLA." which (I think) would look a bit weird at the top of an article called "Three letter acronym". Not surprisingly I guess, I prefer it as it currently is.
(i.e. "A three letter acronym (commonly referred to as a TLA) is ... ").Your thoughts? Pdfpdf 16:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus favours it, ok. I'm going to be a bit busy for awhile, so could you bring it up on the talk page? It's not that big of a deal, so it'll probably get solved quickly. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to bring "it" up on the talk page, but I'm not altogether sure what "it" is.
  • You changed "(commonly referred to as a TLA)" to "(commonly referred to as a TLA)".
  • I asked "Why?".
  • You replied "Though it may be better as a dab link".
  • I replied "I prefer it as it currently is". (Perhaps I should have replied: "Sorry, I still don't understand"?)
  • You replied "If consensus favours it, ok".
I have two responses/questions: 1) I think I (still) don't understand why you don't like it as it is, why you think it may be better as a dab link, and what such a link would look like. 2) It has been like it is for a while; isn't that already some sort of consensus?
I agree that it's no big deal, and that there's no hurry; from my POV, it's just that I don't understand why you want to change it, and I don't understand what you want to change it too.
As I've said, I'm happy to both leave things as they are, or bring "it" up on the talk page. However, if the latter, I'm not sure what "it" is. Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. May the Edit also be with you, always. Pdfpdf 01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I just ment that if we use {{otheruses3}}, for example, it would look more standartised. I mean, I haven't seen other pages link the acronym. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. (That's much less complicated than what I thought you were saying ... )
OK. I'll think about it, and then do something. Cheers, Pdfpdf 12:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification:
Your original question was: Though it may be better as a dab link on the top of the page, something like "For other uses, see TLA", don't you think?.
Now that I think I understand what you were asking, my answer is: "Yes, you are probably right. That probably would be better." Pdfpdf 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbairn

"It does not help to add disambig or hndis tags where the page only contains people who share a surname."
Well yes, I agree, but this page does not only "contain people who share a surname" ...
So, I'm not altogether sure I agree with your statement "It's a surname article, not a disambig page" ...
(However, I'm not about to "die in a ditch" either opposing your POV, or supporting my POV! ;-) )
Cheers, Pdfpdf 07:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to go around confusing or upsetting other editors or readers, so I'd like to know what it was about the change that you didn't agree with. I see no articles on that page that deserve to be called simply Fairbairn. If there were a couple, I would make the page into a real disambig page and move the people to a new article, Fairbairn (surname). From what I can see, the only non-people articles are a few in the See also section that simply contain Fairbairn as part of the article name. If I had been in a fairly grumpy mood, I might have applied the instruction in WP:D#Lists and taken some or all of them out, but then it would truly only be a list of people with that surname, so it would be a surname article, and WP:D no longer would apply, so they could go back in. If you know that some of these are generally called simply "Fairbairn", then I would completely change the page. Let me know. Chris the speller 16:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must be talking at cross purposes; i.e. I think you think I'm saying something completely different from what I think I'm trying to say.

  • I see no articles on that page that deserve to be called simply Fairbairn - Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
  • the only non-people articles are a few in the See also section - Agreed. (5 articles actually.) Yes, that was what I was referring to when saying it doesn't only contain references to "people who share a surname".
  • If I had been ... and taken some or all of them out - Sorry, again I don't understand.
  • but then ... so they could go back in. - Agreed.
  • If you know that some of these are generally called simply "Fairbairn", then I would completely change the page. - Sorry, don't understand.

What I was saying is: "It seems to me that this is (still) a 'disambig page', because (in the 'See also' section) it contains stuff about things other than people."

It doesn't bother me that you've changed it to a 'surname page'. I am just a little confused as to why you changed it. I hope that helps explain "what I didn't agree with". In any and all cases, I'm quite comfortable with the page as it is at the moment, and happy to leave it as it is. Cheers, Pdfpdf 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key is understanding what the purpose of a disambig page is. Per WP:D, when a "term [is] likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article", the need for a disambig page arises. Imagine a parallel universe where there is a large city in Alaska named Fairbairn (not Fairbanks), and Ford Motor Company produced a car mode named Fairbairn (not Fairlane), and there was a famous author named Evelyn Fairbairn. A person asked where thay lived might answer "Fairbairn", a person asked what kind of car they drive might answer "Fairbairn", and a person asked who their favorite author is might answer "Fairbairn". But all three can't have an article named Fairbairn, so qualifiers would be added to the city and the car, and the articles would be named "Fairbairn, Alaska" and "Fairbairn (automobile)", with a "Fairbairn" disambig page to aid navigation. The author already has a given name, and Wikipedia naming conventions hold that the natural article title for a person is generally the given name and surname together, so no real conflict there, but they tend to get added to the dab page. If the list of people gets to be more than a handful, they should be moved to a surname article (which, by definition, is not a disambiguation page). In this universe, I don't see any article that has a claim to the natural title "Fairbairn", so the people can occupy that spot as a surname article. Having a See also section doesn't turn an article into a dab page; it's just a courtesy to readers who might land on that page seeking something other than those people. If I were shown that a Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife was carried by 2 out of 3 people, and most people called it simply a Fairbairn, I would see the need for a disambig page (and for some body armor for myself), and the Fairbairn people would get moved to Fairbairn (surname). I admit that as the page stands now, this is a fairly close call, and if someone made it into a disambig page, I wouldn't die in the ditch, either. What drew me here was the hndis template, which was not applicable here (but is properly used on Andrew Fairbairn). Hope this helps. Chris the speller 18:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps - It certainly does. (Also, I now understand your previous reply!!) Thank you for going to so much effort to enlighten me. Most appreciated. Regards, Pdfpdf 18:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship(s) between "surname" and "hndis"

I've been thinking. (No rude comments thank you, no matter how justified the comments may be ... )
There are several "hndis" situations within the Fairbairn page. Andrew Fairbairn is a particularly good example because that page/list contains two entries, whereas the Fairbairn page/list only contains one of the Andrews.
Two questions/comments:

  • In an ideal world, there would be some sort of cross-reference/cross-link between the Andrew Fairbairn page and the Fairbairn page. Does WP have a functionality to support this?
  • Is there any WP mechanism to support/ensure/enforce consistency? (Given that these two pages are not consistent with each other, I would guess not!)

Cheers, Pdfpdf 09:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to 1: No.
Answer to 2: None exists. Perhaps an invisible note could be added to each page, encouraging a change in the other page. Just being made aware of the other page would probably be a help. With just 2 Andrews, they should probably both be listed on each page. For longer lists, I have seen surname pages defer to the hndis page, just mentioning that there are several cases of "Joe Smith". However, the question remains whether a surname page should be an exhaustive list or something more or less, whereas a hndis page should certainly list all articles that have been written or should be written. The surname pages sometimes start to accumulate every editor's great-uncle, while disambig (hndis) pages have reasonably strict standards. Chris the speller 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks for the enlightenment. (Your comment The surname pages sometimes start to accumulate every editor's great-uncle raised a chuckle; I'm afraid I may have been guilty of contributing to such situations at one time or another!) Pdfpdf 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbairn vs Fairburn (vs Fairbn)

And now a question for you. Is the second syllable in Fairbairn usually unstressed, causing it to be pronounced much like Fairburn?

In Australia, yes. (I can't comment with any reliability on what happens elsewhere.) In fact, it's often shortened too. (i.e. Fair-bn)

If so, I could add a See also entry.

Good point. Yes, I agree.

(Many Americans pronounce names the way they appear, and think there are 4 syllables in Cholmondeley, so at least give me credit for asking). Chris the speller 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the sterling effort of your previous replies to my questions, I'm happy to give you credit for whatever you would wish to be credited with!

Australians notice all the syllables, but then tend to shorten some and drop others. Examples:

  • Few would know about Chumley; most would probably pronounce it something like Ch-mond-ly
  • We call ourselves Ozzies, and our major cities are pronounced: Sinny, Mel-bn, Briz-bn, Ad-lade and Can-brǔ (i.e. u-as-in-up, not u-as-in-you)

(We tend to get amused when we hear visitors refer to "you oss-sies", Mel-born, Briss-bain, A-del-aide/Ad-el-aide and Can-berra.)

  • But conversely, we call the car/feline a jag-u-ar, and our tallest mountain (hill? 7000ft) Koz-i-oss-ko!

I think the American expression is "go figure"? Pdfpdf 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

... for kind words! (I've done a bit more work on a related article today - took pity on it after it was blanked yesterday, and did a bit of wholesale wikification on it.) PamD 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Fry - Question

Hi! There are some aspects of WP I haven't educated myself about yet. I started creating Henry Fry at 12:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC); You rated it at 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC). What is the mechanism that brought the page to your attention? Thanks (in anticipation of your reply). Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under Australian Wikipedians' notice board there is Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), which contains a list of new articles found by a bot, which contain words like "Australia", "Victoria" etc. An article which I created last night, Thomas Paterson was also prematurely rated last night, but these things are easily changed.--Grahamec 01:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication, omissions and ambiguities ...

A few comments:

  • Have you noticed that the contents of the Tiger Airways Australia destinations page are basically a duplication of the information in the "Route Announcements" subsection at Tiger Airways Australia#History? I'm not sure what purpose this duplication serves.
  • Neither that table nor this page address fares particularly well.
  • ALL of these destinations are flights from/to Melbourne ONLY. e.g. Although both Alice Springs and Darwin are destinations, you can't fly from Alice Springs to Darwin (without going via Melbourne).

Pdfpdf 10:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I do agree that that huge table looks really out of place. I arent sure who changed it into a table, but I think the information was pre-existing. Will need an overhaul or something. I am considering creating a much smaller table somewhat similar to this, but highlighting the price wars as a result of each announcement. Will work on that later, but meanwhile, I think it might be prudent to clean that table up.--Huaiwei 10:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa!! (I created the table.) But I agree with you: "that huge table looks really out of place". What was there previously was very hard to read/analyse; the table is easier to read/analyse, but as you say, looks out of place. If you can improve it, Please do - you have my blessing.

But that wasn't my point. My point was the duplication of information in what was two sections, and is now two pages. I think the answer is ONE table which shows ALL of the information, (i.e. the routes, the fares, the announcement dates, the service commencement dates, etc.), but I don't want to stomp on anyone's toes. Pdfpdf 11:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDF (disambiguation)

(→Probability density function and Probability distribution function - rm slightly cynical, but true, comment)
Could I impose upon you to explain why you made this change please?

FYI, there has been absurdly lengthy discussion on this topic in several places, (an abridged version of which appears on the talk page), and what's there has been achieved by consensus. Further, what's now on the page explains why one can never be quite sure (without looking) just which article Probability distribution function is currently redirecting to. If you really don't like that sentence in the body of the page, then it could be put in a footnote. I'm also open to having someone reword it. But I object rather strongly to having the sentence completely removed. Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are not imposing at all. I removed under the following reasoning; I thought that it is not important what individual editors believe or what opinions they hold, and wiki should not reflect these opinions as far as possible. Rather the factual nature of the matter should be considered. To state that "depending on the opinion of the last person who edited the redirect link" makes the implication that the subject matter is decided not by what the world outside of wiki believes, but by what editors believe.The subject matter is independent of wiki, and wiki contributors, however that the redirects may keep changing is quite true, and some comment needs to be made that there is no clear consensus in the real world. I do not believe that the existing statement aids this, but rather seems to be a lightly bitter comment on the wikipedia process, not on the lack of clarity in the subject matter. The discussion of the redirect link being funneled by opinion is not required (IMHO) and purely underlines issues that naturally occur from the editing process, rather than the ambiguity in literature. Regards, User A1 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it again, maybe that is better? User A1 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you A1!! Not only is your response reasonable and rational, it's logical and sensible! But worst of all, I completely agree with you. I've changed the two pages (PDF (disambiguation) & Probability distribution function) accordingly. Please advise if you think these changes are an improvement (or not). Thanks for the feedback. Regards, Pdfpdf 10:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just to clarify: As a result of your response, I've changed my POV; I no longer "object rather strongly to having the sentence completely removed". Thanks again, Pdfpdf 10:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. but rather seems to be a lightly bitter comment on the wikipedia process - Yes, right again. I guess I'm becoming a bitter, twisted and cynical old man. (Having teenage children will do that to you ... ) Pdfpdf 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise if you think these changes are an improvement (or not). - Awaiting your reply. Pdfpdf 09:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm. Errrrr. Sorry. This is your talk page. (I shouldn't be quite so pushy.) Pdfpdf 12:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rank articles: capitalization of title

I have a proposal which should be straightforward, since it follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms, but which I know from a previous experience with one article will be controversial.

A while ago, I proposed to move Rear Admiral to Rear admiral. It got accepted in the end, but the discussion and later reopening of it didn't encourage me to continue these moves. However, I feel that for consistency and per the MOS, they should be done. Thus, I propose the following moves:

and all those listed in Category:Military ranks by country and Category:Military rank stubs not already listed here. Targets which are already bluelinks are (in the cases I checked) redirects to the other spelling, so the opposite of what I propose.

I would urge you all to consider that these article are not about e.g. Flight Lieutenant John Smith, but about all flight lieutenants, and what describes a flight lieutenant. Some (most?) of you may be more used to seeing the first form, Vice Admiral James Jones, and therefor have at first the reaction that it should be capitalized, but when you speak about the vice admirals of the US Navy, you don't capitalize, and it is that use we should reflect here (as described in the Mos, and as linked to in the MilHist style guide).

The capitalization of the first capital in the title of an article is standard Wikipedia practice, in articles both the first and second word should be lower case. This also means that the smae capitalization rules have to be used inside the article, in all the ones listed above and in the single word ranks like captain. This is a huge change, and will not be done in one day or so, but I think it is best that formal agreement on the principle is reached before I (or anyone else who wants to help) starts making these changes. This way, editors can be pointed to this discussion to explain easily why it is done and how consensus was reached. Fram 11:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, at least, it's semantics either way. Each of these should have a redirect page going to the other (or vice-versa), so the end result of searching or wikilinking to the article would be the same. JKBrooks85 12:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's semantics, but also consistency. I agree that having a redirect from the other spelling is always good of course, and I don't intend to remove these redirects. Fram 13:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These moves sound eminently sensible. I've noticed a great deal of inconsistency within articles regarding the capitalisation of ranks and these moves would do a lot to help get across the MOS's guidance on the subject to editors. Leithp 13:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so that everyone interested can reply. I have not mentioned this discussion at every article involved, as that would be quite a lot of work, and this is about the general principle. 14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

Support. This issue has come up at least one time before, and I think the general consensus was for lower case, but no one got around to renaming the articles. —Kevin Myers 15:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Military ranks do not use lower capitals and it would be improper to change them all. MilborneOne 15:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean here; the ranks are normally capitalized only when given as part of a title (e.g. "Admiral Smith came" versus "the admiral came"), no? Kirill 15:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne: As mentioned above the Manual of Style is quite clear (and correct) on this. Leithp 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the MoS is an authority on this. All I can say is that having been one of the above ranks on the list it was never written with a lower case second noun in any circumstances. So sorry my opposition stands. MilborneOne 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Economist style guide seems to agree with Wikipedia's, and to be honest so do all the military history books on my shelves. "Captain Smith was promoted to the rank of captain in 2007", etc. This doesn't apply to posts, rather than ranks, i.e. "Jock Stirrup holds the rank of air chief marshal and is current Chief of the Defence Staff". Leithp 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true in all cases. As stated below, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy is both a rank and a title of a billet in the US Navy. The same goes for the equivelant ranks for the other four U.S. military branches. Neovu79 06:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever i have been on bases (Army and Navy) and in the wardrooms (Royal Navy) they have always been written in upper case e.g. Lieutenant Commander. The RN lists them as such on their website [1] as do the Army [2]. I think the capitalisations should stand, though i am not aware, nor have any experience of, the American way of noting their ranks. Woodym555 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Army only does that when using a rank as a title. See this Army article for an example " WO2 Watson is the regimental catering warrant officer of 5 General Support Medical Regiment, based at Fulwood Barracks, while the two lance corporals are based at Weeton Barracks near Blackpool with 2nd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (Green Howards)." Leithp 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would support the proposal, though maybe the MoS may need a little clarification (I haven't looked at it). In common U.S. Military usage, the rank is uppercased when used as part of someone's title or command position, but is generally lowercased when used in such a way as to not denote a specific individual or command position. It seems to have the same usage requirements as those posted above for the UK officers. "First Lieutenant Frank Zappa was the leader of 2nd Platoon" would be correct, while "Frank Zappa was a member of Alpha Company as a First Lieutenant" would be incorrect, it should be lowercased in this usage. wbfergus Talk 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After having time to think and study on this some more, I now think that I would have to Oppose this. As proposed above, (using my comments from yesterday, down below), a rank like "Technical Sergeant" would be changed to "Technical sergeant", which is very incorrect. It may be appropriate for use as a Wikipedia article title that way, but that is all it would be appropriate for. In usage in an article, the case would remain the same for both parts of the rank, as in "Technical Sergeant John Q. Public" or "there were 33 technical sergeants in the squadron". Using mixed case in the same 'title' or 'rank' construct is incorrect usage. wbfergus Talk 14:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true. Any use of "technical sergeant" at the beginning of a sentence would be capitalized, creating "mixed case" as you call it. "Technical sergeants comprise 20 percent of the squadron" is a correct sentence. Wikipedia articles, by convention, start with capital letters as if the title was the begining of a sentence. —Kevin Myers 14:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a common-sense exception to what would ordinarily be the lowercase rule, where the title or rank is applied to a specific individual. In the example you provided, it would be lowercased, except since it's at the beginning of a sentence, the first word needs to be capitalized. So, in essence, nothing I stated previously was violated. wbfergus Talk 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, going through the list, we seem to have a number of separate types of articles that may need to be considered separately:
I suspect that much of the debate could be eliminated (as could a large number of permanent stubs) by merging the more obscure and infrequently-used ranks to by-country articles. If we have an overall article along the lines of Flag officer ranks in the Royal Navy, we could easily merge, say, Port Admiral to it and not need to worry about how the title of a separate article would appear. Kirill 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into a bit more, i agree with Kirill, we have several different types here that each have their own usage. Some like Vice-Admiral seem to be capitalised more often than not. It all depends on the placing in the sentence. Obviously, as a proper noun before names, it should be capitalised, yet in most cases, when used as a common noun, it is not capitalised. This varies between some publications I think. Reflecting that most of the general ranks and rates should not be capitalised in the article name. The others, i am not sure about yet. Woodym555 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kirill as well, for the country-specific ranks. Pseudo ranks, as titles, should probably remain at their capitalized article, and non-ranks should not be capitalized. Certain ranks, such as Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, I think should be treated as titles rather than ranks. Personally I think that ranks should stay at the capitalized title. I suppose this means that ultimately I oppose? --Mukk 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with reasoned opposed for individual ones where my general reasoning may be incorrect. A good way of checking usage is to put "a" in front of the title, or to search for the plural. The 1911 Britannica used "masters of the horse"[3], as do some other reliable sources: vice admirals is used in lowercase by the military as well[4], as it is with Cornell University Law School[5], Time Magazine[6] (a whole range of ranks here), and US law (if I interpret this correctly at least)[7]. But, as someone will probably soon point out, you can find examples of the opposite as well. True, but when the real world is divided, we should follow the MoS, and things like the Chicago style guide and most major dictionaries. These all indicate that they should be in lowercase. Fram 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You're right, Fram. I think the article names should be changed (though I'm not actually volunteering to do it myself, you understand). Kirill makes a valid point which would remove much superfluous stuff but Fram's core argument remains correct. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to see them remain in captial letter form, as I have never met anyone on base who had there rank spelled with lower case letters. Part of my military upbringing, I guess; it just oppose changes to titles when I think them unessicary. (I will respect the majority opinion on the matter though, whatever that ends up being). TomStar81 (Talk) 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with TomStar81, no military officer would call himself or herself as a Lieutenant general. Besides, if you do uncapitalize, then you run into the problem with particular ranks like Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Sergeant Major of the Army, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force and Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard. These are not only ranks, they are the titles of their respective billets/positions like the Chief of Naval Operations or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Neovu79 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too have to oppose this. It's just strange to look at ranks like this in this fashion. Saevurr 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of whether you regard article names as titles (capitalized) or job descriptions (uncapitalized). This is why I thought Kirill's solution was such an elegant one: generic articles on job descriptions (ie "a sergeant is a non-commissioned" etc etc) uncapitalized, with the country-specific titles in country-specific articles. However, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, and now you've had my two cents/pence, I'll go back to sleep :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
1) To misquote Kirill, We have a number of separate types of articles that need to be considered separately and treated differently. To treat all of the enties in the above list in the same manner is inappropriate. There may be arguements for (and against) "Rear Admiral Fred Smith is a rear admiral", but in any and all cases, "Fred Smith is the Apothecary General" (because it's a title, not a rank).
2) However, I feel that for consistency ... they should be done. - It is unwise to apply a consistent rule to a set of things which, themselves, are not consistent. The rule may not be appropriate/relevant to certain cases, and the results may be inappropriate and/or unpredictable.
3) However, ... per the MOS, they should be done. - The MoS is an evolving set of guidelines, not a set of of rules cast in iron. Sometimes they are not appropriate for some situations.
4) Shouldn't the use and presentation of information in wikipedia reflect the use and presentation of the information in "the real world"? To say "the real world is wrong because it's different from the MoS" seems (to me) to be a peculiar POV.
Etc. Perhaps more later, Pdfpdf 13:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re (4). Yes, of course, it should. Fram's proposal is how dictionaries treat ranks. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Re (4). The dictionary omits special grades all together as stated by Neovu79 above; the Sergeant Major of the Army is not in the dictionary. Saevurr 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. For example, here's an excerpt from the "rank and hierarchy" entry in the Oxford Companion to American Military History. Note the lack of capitalization:

Officers are ranked as admiral (four stars); vice admiral (three stars); rear admiral ...; captain; commander; lieutenant commander; lieutenant; lieutenant junior grade; and ensign. The five-star rank of fleet admiral was ....

This is an issue that can easily be confused, because one would write "Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz", or "Chester Nimitz was a fleet admiral." Another source of confusion is that many more words are capitalized in Older Works than we would capitalize today. And I think some writers in the armed forces have a penchant for capitalizing Terms whether or not they are Proper Nouns; it's a Government Thing. Reference works like Wikipedia should take a more conservative, scholarly approach and only capitalize proper nouns. —Kevin Myers 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The other issue here is that names are sometimes implicit; according to some style guides, it's permissible (if somewhat uncommon) to write "The Admiral ordered the fleet to turn" as an equivalent to "Admiral Nimitz ordered the fleet to turn", the admiral's name being assumed from context. Kirill 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a form of capitalization that I've never seen discussed on Wikipedia, but it can be pretty common because it can be used for just about anything. For example, the article on the United States Declaration of Independence often uses a capitalized "Declaration" as shorthand for the entire proper title. To avoid confusion about style issues, it's perhaps better to avoid the practice of using capitalized ranks as a shorthand for a full name and rank. So, instead of "The Admiral ordered the fleet to turn", use "Admiral Nimitz ordered the fleet to turn", or simply "Nimitz ordered the fleet to turn". —Kevin Myers 16:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but you're not thinking into context. The military does not refer to an officer by their last name; it is a form of disrespect. They can not refer to FADM Nimitz as "Nimitz." They would refer to him as "Admiral," "The Admiral," "Admiral Nimitz" or "Sir." Neovu79 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In official military documents, perhaps; and certainly in day-to-day military conversation. In historical works, on the other hand, referring to military leaders by last name is quite standard ("Longstreet ordered an attack on the right flank", etc.). I think, for our purposes, we should not feel too bound by the styles adopted in the former context, as the bulk of the sources we use for our articles will be in the latter. Kirill 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that they would be refered to by last name, however you're forgetting the Mr. in front of it, i.e. Mr. Jones. Neovu79 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not in formal academic writing. The normal historical style is "Montgomery ordered an advance"; "Mr. Montgomery ordered an advance" would never appear in a scholarly work. Kirill 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but how would an officer address or call to another officer? He or she would say "Mr. Montgomery." Neovu79 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the Army, I think; based only on evidence of watching films, a superior officer in the Royal Navy might address a junior officer as Mr X, but not the other way round - "lower the boats, Mr Christian". A junior Army officer would be Captain Blackadder, or just Blackadder. Cyclopaedic 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are objecting for a number of reasons, some more valid than others. I would like to say that even singular ranks like "Sergeant Major of the Army" are, even in military documents, just as often capitalized as they are decapitalized. Take a look at this one[8], which has "the former sergeant major of the Army said." and also lists other ranks like "I've been a battalion, brigade and division sergeant major" and "retain his rank of staff sergeant". So it is incorrect that the military never uses lowercase for ranks, or that special ranks like Sergean Major of the Army are always in uppercase( although it would be equally incorrect to claim that they are always in lowercase, of course). I just feel that if our MoS states that they should be in lowercase, and US law agrees (sepcifically for US ranks of course), as can be seen in the ranks listed in this document of the US code[9], [10], [11] (includes some of the titles which led to the oppose of Neovu and others). So we have official documents (laws) agreeing with our (and general) style guides, as used by all major newspapers and magazines. Fram 09:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me any example of "Apothecary General" appearing in lower case?
Similarly, "Chaplain General", and I also expect you will be unable to find a lower case version of "Master of the Horse".
This is because these are not ranks.
I see no value in repeating what Kirill and I wrote above. Until you refine the list into categories, and make separate proposals for each category, I will continue to oppose your proposal; your argument is only relevant to a subset of the members of your list. Pdfpdf 09:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Andrew Craigie was the first apothecary general of the United States"[12]
Chaplain General: check the first line! But see also page 20 of this book[13], this book review[14], or this article in Time[15].
"Master of the Horse": see e.g. page 8 of this pdf[16], or see this book[17], and note again how it is written in Master of the Horse both in upper-and lowercase.
But anyway, I am not opposed to strike a number of titles from this page, as long as people can agree on what are titles and what are ranks. The intention is that we can agree on what should be done, and if enough people think that we must separate those two categories, so be it. I've added (TITLE) to all those that at first glance seem to be more of a title than a rank, and should be treated separately. I have also struck those from the list, to make clear that these (and other similar titles) are no longer included in this proposal. Fram 10:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pause for a cup of tea (or coffee, if you prefer)

Summary:
A lot of words have been typed, and a lot of opinions repeated. Let's see if I can objectively summarise. If you disagree with how I have summarised/classified your words, please alter my summary/classification accordingly:

  • Proposal
    • (Fram): Let's be consistent, and match the MoS too.
  • Comments:
    • (JKBrooks85): As long as it doesn't affect searching or linking
    • (Kirill): We seem to have a number of separate types of articles that may need to be considered separately. (Followed by a number of "I agree with you.")
  • Comments in support:
    • (Leithp): That sounds sensible.
    • (wbfergus): I think I would support the proposal I changed my mind (see comments above or in next section).
    • (RogerDavies): "You're right Fram" - (No supporting argument, just a statement of support)
  • Support:
    • (Kevin Myers): This has been discussed and agreed before. (But nobody actually carried out the changes.)
  • Oppose:
    • (MilborneOne): 1) Military ranks do not use lower capitals. (Followed by lots of comments about various style guides, but not many adressing MilborneOne's statement; those that do address it agree.) 2) I am not sure that the MoS is an authority on this.
    • (Mukk): I agree with Kirill. I suppose this means that ultimately I oppose?
    • (TomStarr81): I have never met anyone on base who had their rank spelled with lower case letters.
    • (Neovu79): 1) no military officer would call himself or herself as a Lieutenant general 2) if you do uncapitalize, then you run into problems with particular ranks and with titles
    • (Saevurr): It's just strange to look at ranks like this in this fashion
    • (Pdfpdf): 1) To treat all of the enties in the above list in the same manner is inappropriate. They are not consistent with each other, so you can't make a "consistent" change. 2) Sometimes the MoS does not cover a situation. 3) To say "the real world is wrong because it's different from the MoS" seems (to me) to be a peculiar POV. (Followed by lots of comments about various style guides, but not many adressing the statement.)
    • (Wbfergus): mixed case usage in the same 'title' or 'rank' is incorrect. It would never be "Technical sergeant", only "technical sergeant" or "Technical Sergeant", depending on the context of usage.
  • Comments I don't quite know how to classify:
    • (Roger Davies): It's a question of whether you regard article names as titles (capitalized) or job descriptions (uncapitalized). ... it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Analysis:
Despite all the text, there are only a few actual points:

  • Let's be internally consistent, and be consistent with the MoS.
  • The things in this list are not consistent with each other - there are a number of different groups. Some groups could use lower case, but other groups never use lower case. At the least, there is ambiguity between "rank" and "title".
  • Independent of what style guides say, the Military do no use lower case. Maybe the MoS is not appropriate for this situation?

And then there's the point:

  • No military officer would call himself or herself as a Lieutenant general.

I hope some of you found this useful! Pdfpdf 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful, thank you. One point I disagree with. "Independent of what style guides say, the Military do no use lower case. " This is, as far as I can see, not true. This is a military document from 2004[18], found through a sarch on the army.mil website. It uses only lowercase, even for commander in chief. See e.g. table 2.1 in the document. In fact, looking at thissearch on that website, it looks to me that almost all official military documents do use the lowercase when referencing the rank in general (not a person with the rank). Fram 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is slightly clouded by the Wikipedia convention of capitalizing the first letter of an article title. Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, doesn't follow this style and thus articles about generic ranks appear as 'lieutenant', 'admiral', and so forth. This is also how dictionaries handle it. Your point about no military officer calling themself a Lieutenant general (your capitalisation) is correct. It would be "Lieutenant General X is a lieutenant general in the Y Army". --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of discussion

Whilst I was constructing the previous subsection, Fram was busy addressing my personal major objection. I need to reconsider my POV. Pdfpdf 12:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment needs more discussion:

(Roger Davies): It's a question of whether you regard article names as titles (capitalized) or job descriptions (uncapitalized). ... it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

i.e. Is a rank a title or a job description? My view is: At different times, it can be either, and perhaps sometimes, both. Pdfpdf 12:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rank is a job description that can be used as a title :) Even with the ranks that people require uniquely as titles (Master of the Horse, for instance) there can still be more than one holder of the title. This is the same problem that arises when talking about kings of France or about presidents of the United States. Is it the 'Kings of France ruled ...' / the 'Presidents of the United States are elected ...' or the 'kings of France ruled' / 'Presidents of the United States are elected ...'? The Manual of Style is clear on this:
Titles
  • When used as titles (that is, followed by a name), items such as president, king and emperor start with a capital letter: President Clinton, not president Clinton. The formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun: Hirohito was Emperor of Japan and Louis XVI was King of France (where King of France is a title). Royal styles are capitalized: Her Majesty and His Highness; exceptions may apply for particular offices.
  • When used generically, such items are in lower case: De Gaulle was a French president and Louis XVI was a French king. Similarly, Three prime ministers attended the conference, but, The British Prime Minister is Gordon Brown.
I hope this helps. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the above discussions again, it looks like one point is missing. The capitalization is consistent, whether it be upper or lowercase, it is not mixed, as in "Technical sergeant". It remains consistent in its usage as either "Technical Sergeant" or "technical sergeant", whether used as a title or a PD. wbfergus Talk 18:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's the point I was making (perhaps poorly) here. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So then it would follow naturally that because Wikipedia style demands that the first letter of an article name be capitalized, it should be in all caps? Makes sense to me. Since it looks like either all caps or no caps, and we can't do no caps because of Wikipedia style, we're left with all caps. JKBrooks85 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it works. We have Press but Printing press, not because anyone suggests that they should be alway capitalized like that, but because they follow our technical limitations, while reflecting the correct capitalization otherwise (i.e. in the text, and when used as a second, third, .. word of a title). Similarly, we will have General but Lieutenant general, and "general" and "lieutenant general" throughout the article text, except when we talk about "Lieutenant General Pearson". Thsi is standard practice in Wikipedia, and to object this proposal for that reason should be adressed in the main MoS, not ghere specifically. The question here is if it is correct in an encyclopedic context and considering the MoS Wikipedia currently has (and which is supported by this project), to keep the current spelling (titles and body of articles), or to change them. People have made the remark that a distinction has to be made between ranks and special titles, and so I have changed the proposal. But your opposition is based on a mixture of technical restrictions (title only) with actual style rules (title and article body), which makes not much sense, and is not supported anywhere in Wikipedia. Fram 15:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To restate a point from above that might get lost because I posted it in the wrong place: the claim that something like "technical sergeant" would never used "mixed case" is not correct. Any use of "technical sergeant" at the beginning of a sentence would be capitalized, creating this mixed case. "Technical sergeants comprise 20 percent of the squadron" is a correct sentence. Wikipedia articles, by convention, start with capital letters as if the title was the begining of a sentence. This is not entirely a technical limitation (there's a workaround), but is better understood as a house style. —Kevin Myers 15:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to state something in case people don't realize this. (Pardon me if you all know it.) Just because the first word of an article title is capitalized doesn't mean you have to capitalize it in your link. So, although the article Rear admiral is (correctly) capitalized as such, you can still link with the small case rear admiral without any piping or redirects involved. A little tip for anyone who didn't know. —Kevin Myers 15:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining this more clearly (and patiently) than I did. Fram 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I understand what you're getting at now. JKBrooks85 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's actually a technical limitation and that the Wikipedia software converts an initial lowercase letter to a capital for file storage purposes. For example, although eBay appears as eBay, the file name is actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay. The same happens with e e cummings, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_e_cummings. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(If you need/want one,) Another is pH, which is actually PH, but doesn't look like it is. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry if this question has already been answered, but what would be the problem with the following:

  • All first letters of nouns capitalized for title / rank of specific individuals, including usage of having the title/rank substitute for an specified individual ("Private Jones escorted General Smith. When ambushed, the Private took X action.")
  • All first letters of nouns uncapitalized for generic usage. ("The list had the names of many privates and generals.")

The only grey area I see is if the phrasing refers to the rank/title as "the" for an unspecified individual. ie. "...should X conditions be fulfilled, the president can then declare martial law." Oberiko 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, provided a slightly modified example was provided. Using your example, change "Private" to "Private First Class", so it more apparent that when it is a multi named title or rank, each word is capitalized. wbfergus Talk 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what is proposed. As far as I see, most editors have no problem with this in the body of articles, but some have trouble with the capitalization of the titles of articles, where the first letter is capped by default (as the first word of a "sentence", one could say). But what Oberiko and wbfergus say here, is what I intended as well. Fram 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The example—"Private Jones escorted General Smith. When ambushed, the Private took X action."—is not quite right. MoS says "When used as titles (that is, followed by a name)". The term "the Private" is not followed by a name so it is not therefore being used as a title and should be "the private".
This formula, which is used by the Chicago Manual of Style and most (if not all) newspapers, removes grey areas. In the further example, "the president can then declare martial law" the term is not followed by a name so is therefore lowercase.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that argument, as I see it both ways and it does keep things simple. If we're going with that, then am I correct in summarizing the following as our positions?
  1. Article title: debated
  2. Title / prefix of individual: upper case (Vice-Admiral Smith)
  3. Substitution for a specific individual: lower case (the general ordered a retreat)
  4. Generic usage: lower case (Smith the vice-admiral)
If that's the case, I'm going to have to side with the article titles being in lower case, as we are discussing the rank / title itself. Oberiko 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've summarised usage very succinctly there. And, yes, the MoS formula does keep things simple. --ROGER DAVIES talk
(I promised myself to keep out of this, but it's too hot outside - 37C/99F).
  • An example that I'm thinking of would be from somebody I knew once, who went to West Point to be the Command Sergeant Major of the U. S. Military Academy. His title, rank, and position/job description were all capitalized, and for all intents and purposes, the same. wbfergus Talk 13:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look way up above, you'll see the start of a discussion justifying: "Private X and Corporal Y did Z. The Private then did Z." That discussion wasn't completed.
  • Fram: " ... When ambushed, the Private took X action."—is not quite right. - I disagree that it is not quite right. Just like when you say elsewhere "the military do use lower case", and provide examples, there are plenty of examples of the above usage. I would agree with the statement: " ... When ambushed, the Private took X action."—is not consistent with the MoS. - However, as I (and others) have previously said: Perhaps the MoS does not adequately address this situation?.
  • Roger Davies: 1) This formula, which is used by the Chicago Manual of Style and most (if not all) newspapers, removes grey areas. - I do not agree that most (if not all) newspapers use the Chicago MoS. Perhaps "most in Chicago", maybe even "most in USA", but not unqualified "most". 2) yes, the MoS formula does keep things simple, but, unfortunately, any set of rules that avoids dealing with the difficult situations and the outliers will keep things simple. However, they will not address the difficult situations and outliers ...
  • Oberiko: This time I agree with Roger - You've summarised usage very succinctly there. However, as you can see, I only largely, not totally, agree with you on your point 3.
  • Very little of the above addresses the point: "Rear admiral" looks strange/wrong/etc. My POV is that more attention should be paid to: Also, just to state something in case people don't realize this. (Pardon me if you all know it.) Just because the first word of an article title is capitalized doesn't mean you have to capitalize it in your link. So, although the article Rear admiral is (correctly) capitalized as such, you can still link with the small case rear admiral without any piping or redirects involved. A little tip for anyone who didn't know. —Kevin Myers 15:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in thinking that "most" interested parties would now agree that, as an example, the article about "rear admiral"s should be titled "Rear admiral", and its first sentence should be one of:
  1. rear admiral is ... below [ [ vice admiral ] ].
  2. rear admiral is ... below [ [ Vice admiral | vice admiral ] ].
  3. Rear admiral is ... below [ [ vice admiral ] ].
  4. Rear admiral is ... below [ [ Vice admiral | vice admiral ] ].
(Note: Although visually different, from a mechanistic WP POV, they are all identical.)
I expect most would choose option 4. (My preference is for option 1.) Pdfpdf (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that I still think that the article title should be Vice Admiral, as is certain common usage in places other than North America. Is suspect contributors like myself who have held a military rank will still despute usage on individual articles whatever the consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with MilborneOne, however IF I had a second choice, I'd go with number 1 because Title 10 and Title 14 of the U.S. Code of law uses standard article style and does not capitalize any letter in ranks unless it's stated before a name in title form. Neovu79 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching consensus? - Not yet!

So people, where do we go from here? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, while everybody has presented their own valid arguement, we still do not have a consensus. Neovu79 (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in thinking that "most" interested parties would now agree that ...
I seem to have misread the the trend; it seems I am wrong in saying: "most" interested parties would now agree.
So, it would seem that there might be (at least) five options under consideration:

  1. Article name: "Rear admiral". First sentence: rear admiral is ... below [ [ vice admiral ] ].
  2. Article name: "Rear admiral". First sentence: rear admiral is ... below [ [ Vice admiral | vice admiral ] ].
  3. Article name: "Rear admiral". First sentence: Rear admiral is ... below [ [ vice admiral ] ].
  4. Article name: "Rear admiral". First sentence: Rear admiral is ... below [ [ Vice admiral | vice admiral ] ].
  5. Article name: "Rear Admiral". First sentence: Rear Admiral is ... below [ [ Vice Admiral ] ].
  6. "Something else" - please add other options to this list.

Pdfpdf (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pause for thought

If you must go down this route, it should only be after adequate discussion of the options. There has been none. What you have produced is an arbitrary list, which is highly contentious, not least because it does not reflect real world usage and MoS. For instance, option 5 suggests that rear admiral, lieutenant general etc should be capitalised for every usage, which is simply not the case, not even in the military. I also believe that people should first read Wikipedia:Straw polls as the route you have chosen is likely to get very polarised, very quickly. I further invite you to delete the lists of people you wish to "vote": I think it's presumptive and likely to force polarisation.--ROGER DAVIES talk 12:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS "Rear Admiral is" is only always correct if you're referring to the name of a racehorse or a prize bull :))) In an article lead, it's generic and therefore takes an article "a rear admiral is the rank immediately below a vice admiral".--ROGER DAVIES talk 12:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many senior military figures do behave like racehorses and/or prize bulls! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In an article lead, it's generic and therefore takes an article "a rear admiral is the rank immediately below a vice admiral". - If that's your POV, then please add it to the list Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my POV, it's what MoS says: "When used as titles, (that is, followed by a name), items such as president, king and emperor start with a capital letter: President Clinton, not president Clinton ... When used generically, such items are in lower case: De Gaulle was a French president and Louis XVI was a French king. Similarly, Three prime ministers attended the conference, but, The British Prime Minister is Gordon Brown." --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Yes, it's supported by the MoS, and, you may be "right", but never-the-less, it's still your POV ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
P.P.S. Alternatively, if you don't like any of the options that are there, please create a new one that you do like. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me Roger, you've completely missed my point. The point of this exercise is was to determine what the options might be, so that we can discuss them. At the moment, there seems to be a large amount of "going around in circles" (yes, I like your racehorse analogy), and as Neovu79 "said": while everybody has presented their own valid arguement, we still do not have a consensus.

  • What you have produced is an arbitrary list - Yes, that's why option 6 says: "Something else" - add other options you wish to vote for to this list. The rest of that sentence is your POV.
  • For instance, option 5 suggests ... - No, is doesn't. It says what it says. You are extrapolating it in directions that suit your POV. If it did say what you are extrapolating, I'd agree with you. (In which case I wouldn't have written it.) But I didn't, and it doesn't.
  • I also believe that ... - OK, it seems that "Straw Poll" is a "Reserved Word" (two actually). I'll change it to say something else. If that too is a "Reserved Word" that you don't like, then suggest something else. You are intelligent enough to know what I'm trying to do. I think you are not assuming "good faith".
  • I further invite you ... - Thank you for the invitation, but I don't accept. These people have stated that this is their opinion. If they disagree with me, they are perfectly capable of removing their name from option 5 and putting it where they want, and no doubt they will.
  • Pull your head in Roger, assume good faith, and stop being so agressive.

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I did miss your point (though re-reading what you posted I don't think so) but this is based on the assumption that we need to arrive at consensus. This is not the case, as without consensus status quo prevails. This happens regularly here and the discussion re-opens a while later. I really don't see the need to force the pace on this particular discussion, especially when it now doesn't follows the usual route of asking people to support or oppose a specific choice, with nuanced remarks. Incidentally, I did assume good faith (and still do) but this doesn't mean I think this is a wise course of action :) Here, we have an inadequately discussed and drafted multiple choice option which broadens rather than narrows the issues. An initial discussion about capitalising in article titles has spilled over into and become conflated with capitalisation of ranks/titles in general. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I see. Maybe it's my turn to pull my head in.
Mmmm. Well, it seems to me that there are two "status quos"; the general "status quo" which is similar to option 5, and that which is currently on the Rear admiral page.
I really don't see the need to force the pace' - I guess I agree. I guess I was frustrated by the discussion going around in circles not going anywhere.
So, somewhere I asked: "Where do we go from here?". Please advise. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My 2/100 is let's do nothing and put the whole thing on ice until after the New Year :) I see from talk:Rear Admiral that this has been rumbling on for months and a pause will do no harm. I suspect, too, that there is no perfect outcome and whichever way it goes it will look wrong to a substantial minority. Oh—and on your point about discussions going round and round—I share your pain :))) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I share your pain - Thank you. I do appreciate that. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think what might help at this point would be to separate out the issue of article titles from the issue of general capitalization. The former offers a much narrower range of choices than the latter, and is really the problem we're trying to get at; I don't think that it's worth extensively debating all the possible permutations of ranks within prose when the choice for article titles is much more limited.
But I do agree that wrapping up this particular round of discussion somewhat and then starting with a fresh and coherent proposal that summarizes the major points from the current debate after a break (I'd say a week or two, rather than a month, but either is possible) may be a good idea. There's no real rush here, I think; if there's a mass renaming to be done, it can be done just as well in the future. Kirill 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kirill: when the topic is revisted, the two overlapping issues (article titles and capitalization within prose) should be dealt with separately. I think that's why there's a lack of consensus thus far: some of us have been focusing on one issue, and some of us on the other. Personally, I don't really care how article titles are capitalized, because this seems like a minor style issue that works either way ("Vice Admiral" or "Vice admiral" are both valid article titles). But I do think that correct capitalization in prose is important in making Wikipedia articles look good. "John Smith was a Captain in the army" is not good, modern encyclopedia writing. —Kevin Myers 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much my position. Keep the issues simple and separate. I can live with articles titles whichever way ... though wouldn't like to see capitalization-creep in content.--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the issues separate and simple sounds good to me. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, we're finally reached a consensus! (Unfortunately, not on the topic we were discussing, but consensus none-the-less ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Clarification: The consensus we have reached is that we have decided not to decide. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
Hey, I'm glad with any consensus that is reached, and with the good discussion here. I'll not start changing the text of articles yet, as discussion continues, but to have grammatically and per MoS correct text is a great step forward. Fram (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. The concensus that we have is that we have decided to not decide! i.e. There have been no steps anywhere - forward, backwards or sideways. (In my reference to consensus, I was trying to be amusing; sorry to be ambiguous and mislead you.) I'm afraid there is still a group who still do not agree that the MoS has got it right on this topic. As Roger Davies said, it's entirely possible that consensus will not be reached. Never-the-less, splitting the discussion into its two elements is likely to be more successful than continuing going around in circles. (I hope!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, on article names, we could always use the {{lowercase}} workaround which would give us rear admiral without piping. (An elegant solution, I think.) This then gives us a straight choice between rear admiral and Rear Admiral. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Further discussion

Uncomfortable with how the example for this vote is phrased. With a better example, I could more easily decide. Perhaps something like "A rear admiral is one rank below that of vice admiral..." with the various capitalizations. As is, "Rear" is the first word in the sentence, so it would always be capitalized. With an example like that, then I would cast my vote for #1, though #5 does look better to me personally. It is more in line with how I've commonly seen the 'term' used in the military and how my drill sergeants drilled it into me. wbfergus Talk 13:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, and I agree. But that wasn't the raw material I was presented with; I'm just "lifting" what's actually there in Rear admiral (which, by-the-way, I don't like.) Remember, this is WP - I'm not god - if you don't like what I'm doing, say so, and change things. If you don't like options 1-5, please make a new option that you do like. and vote for that. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's rather long (120 pages or so), perhaps this Army document may help. It's AR25-50, Preparing and Managing Correspondence. wbfergus Talk 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot the page. It's page 64 of the manual (or page 73 of the PDF). wbfergus Talk 13:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In otherwords → John Harvey, Jr., Vice Admiral you can have it capitalized and John Harvey, Jr., vice admiral of United States Navy (if vice admiral was used grammatically correct, which it is not in this instance) is not capitalized. Neovu79 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workaround:
Incidentally, on article names, we could always use the {{lowercase}} workaround which would give us rear admiral without piping. (An elegant solution, I think.) This then gives us a straight choice between rear admiral and Rear Admiral. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it is elegant.
However, I not sure what point you're making about choosing "Rear Admiral" vs "rear admiral".
I was under the impression our discussion was about "Rear Admiral" vs "Rear admiral".
Clearly, I'm confused. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The workaround lets us call the article "rear admiral" (no caps) i.e. the generic form. This makes the "Rear admiral" discussion irrelevant (because it was based on the belief that Wikipedia automatically capitalise the "rear" in "rear admiral") and thus enables title use (i.e. "Rear Admiral" Fred Bloggs) via a redirect of "rear admiral". --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is what you are saying the same as, or different from, what Kevin Myers was saying? Viz:

Also, just to state something in case people don't realize this. (Pardon me if you all know it.) Just because the first word of an article title is capitalized doesn't mean you have to capitalize it in your link. So, although the article Rear admiral is (correctly) capitalized as such, you can still link with the small case rear admiral without any piping or redirects involved. A little tip for anyone who didn't know. —Kevin Myers 15:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a different aspect of the same issue. Using the {{lowercase}} template means the articles appear as "rear admiral" etc in category listings and as the article heading. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! And I thought it was elegant before I understood what you were proposing. Now I'm really impressed. Is seems to me that this renders a lot of the above irrelevant. (Or have I missed something?)
For example, it seems to me that Fram's proposal is now unnecessary. (Or have I missed something?)
Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought this was not supposed to be used unless in very exceptional cases, mainly brand names which are in camelcase, to keep them correct. But for the moment I am not able to find an indication in the guidelines which would show if this is encouraged or discouraged. But anyway, you can turn Rear admiral into rear admiral with the lowercase template, but I don't think you can turn Rear Admiral into rear admiral this way... So it may be a way to convince those people who oppose the renaming solely because Rear admiral looks strange (not my opinion), but it will not help to convince those people who want to have it as Rear Admiral c.s. I have no idea what the opinions are of the people who initially commented, so it is a bit hard to know if the lowercase would bring us to a consensus or not. It is certainly worth pursuing, both to see if it is "allowed", and to see if it would generate enough support here. Fram (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly simplify matters considerably. Articles would still need renaming though otherwise you'd end up with rear Admiral.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to also agree with Fram on this solution. I'd be willing to agree to this proposal, however I am also, within reason, a proponent of conformity. There are houndreds of thousands, if not millions, of pages that do not need to be capitalized either. How do we justify changing these pages without changing the others? Can we really see this as an isolated group issue and not as well an issue with with the other pages in Wiki? Neovu79 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this workaround/proposal. It would help simplify this one issue of capitalization in Article titles, while the rest of the articles' usage is restricted to proper context of the rank/title and whatever capitalization rules apply then. wbfergus Talk 12:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melsaran

Sorry, but due to my ignorance, I'm rather confused. Periodically I "talk" to "Melsaran", but I see that username has been "blocked indefinitely", for reasons I don't comprehend. Can you enlighten me please? If so, thank you in anticipation, Pdfpdf 12:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wknight94

The short story is that he was blocked for sockpuppetry (he created several abusive socks and was also strongly suspected of being a sock of a banned user - which banned user I have not heard). Some number of the sock edits were so controversial that they were oversighted so no one can see them. The long story is at:
—Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmm. Yes, it is a long story. Thanks for the summary and the pointers to the detail. Most appreciated. Pdfpdf 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah

Is this is in reference to something I have said or done, or are you just asking me as a random admin? If it's about something I have said, you are going to have to point me to the diff. As for Melsaran, he was blocked by the Arbitration Committee because he was caught using multiple disruptive sockpuppets. This was the notice from the Arbitration Committee: [19] He knows why he was blocked and he needs to contact the Arbitration Commitee and resolve it with them. Sarah 15:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your enlightening reply; it is most appreciated. Pdfpdf 09:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(In answer to your questions: You had made an edit to Melsaran's page which suggested, to me, that you knew what had been going on and could explain it to me.)

Rear admiral vs. rear admiral

The reason is sadly purely technical. The article title should be read as rear admiral, just like it should be prime minister, but because of how the Wiki software is made, it is automatically changed into Rear admiral and Prime minister. You can see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Lower case first letter for more info on this. It is for this reason that I only propose to move two word titles, and not captain or lieutenant. The content of every article should be ckecked though, so that every line that says "a Captain is" gets changed to "a captain is", and "All Vice Admirals are" to "All vice admirals are".

I hope this makes it a bit clearer.Fram 13:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Huh?

Is this is in reference to something I have said or done, or are you just asking me as a random admin? If it's about something I have said, you are going to have to point me to the diff. As for Melsaran, he was blocked by the Arbitration Committee because he was caught using multiple disruptive sockpuppets. This was the notice from the Arbitration Committee: [20] He knows why he was blocked and he needs to contact the Arbitration Commitee and resolve it with them. Sarah 15:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brigadier General

Brigadier General WAS an Australian rank (as is correctly noted on the brigadier general page). Unfortunately, it was discontinued in the 1930s, replaced by the new rank of brigadier. The rank wasn't actually abolished though, so officers who already held the rank continued to do so at least until the 1940s. Blamey, for example, never held the rank of brigadier, being promoted to brigadier general in 1918 and then major general in 1931. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Nathan, West End and SA Brewing

Hi, I'm not particularly happy with what you've done with the Lion Nathan & West End pages. In no particular order:

  • The opening sentence used to say it's a publicly listed Australian company 46% owned by Kirin. The removal of the "46% owned by Kirin" implies that it's an Australian controlled company, which is misleading and inaccurate. Maybe the original sentence was clumsy and needed rewording, but it was neither misleading nor inaccurate.
  • You removed the reference to Lion Nathan's aggressive acquisition strategy and activity. Why?
  • You added a section on Breweries. Good. But you only put one brewery in there. Which are the other eight? As a minimum, the names of the other breweries should be listed.
  • You took a page titled "West End Draught" (an article about one label of one brand), copied only some of it into a section called "SA Brewing Co." (an entity that no longer exists, and which brewed a number of labels for that brand, AND ALSO brewed a number of other brands, each with a number of labels, yet you make no mention either of the other brands or of the other labels produced by those brands), and you ignored the rest of the information on that page, and then effectively deleted that page by turning it into a redirect page. Why?
  • You mix in information about ONE label with information about the brand.

As I said, I'm not particularly happy with what you've done. I can't see how it's an improvement, it doesn't seem to add any value, and it deletes an amount of useful information. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing your concerns here first. Hopefully we can together reach a consensus on the best way forward. I think you raise some reasonable points. I'll address them in the order you raise them.
  • The 46% ownership was mentioned twice in the original lead section, so one mention needed cutting. Even though only one edit is seen, I did play around with placing the 46% statement in various different places in the lead section, and felt that having it in the second paragraph was giving the information suitable prominence while allowing for a certain readability of the opening sentence.
  • I condensed material which been tagged as unsourced, and which read as being contentious, hostile and potentially POV into a single statement "Lion Nathan and Foster's Group together control 95% of the Australian beer market" and moved that into the History section. I left it tagged as unsourced as I didn't have the time to search for a source. It would be appropriate to include suitably referenced material on Lion Nathan's acquisition strategy, though care would need to be taken with the use of language to avoid the appearance of pushing a point of view. Words such as "aggressive" would best come as a quote from a reliable source rather than a Wiki editor, and if possible balanced with a counter-view. The intention is to present a neutral and balanced viewpoint of the brewery (no matter our own personal views).
  • I agree that only one brewery is mention so far. It was my intention to add the others if nobody else had done it by the time I next came upon the article. I see myself as but one of many editors putting my small brick in the wall. Though I agree it would be better to put in a whole section, I'd rather put in one brick in and move on, than pass on by without doing anything.
  • West End Draughtand South Australian Brewing Company. This relates to my response above in that it is all a work in progress. But to expand: Though South Australian Brewing Company was bought by LN in 1993, it still operates a brewery by that name - look at this and click on the red dot placed on Adelaide, and also check out this. Also, if you look at the material in the merged West End Draught article, you'll see I have kept almost everything. The merge was done under the WP:Product guideline.
  • I've had another look at the material that I removed from the article - I paste it here in its entirety:
After an aggressive period of acquisition of smaller breweries in the 1980s and 1990s, they now operate in a virtual duopoly in the Australian beer market, "competing" against Carlton & United Beverages (CUB, now owned by the Foster's Group, producers of Foster's Lager, Victoria Bitter and many other "popular" Australian beers). Together the two companies control 95% of the market share. This has been widely cited by Australian beer aficionados as the primary reason for the comparatively poor quality of mainstream domestic beers.[citation needed] However, in recent years, smaller brewers
(like Coopers and Cascade) <ref>Note, however, that Cascade is now owned by the Foster's Group, and Coopers have been the subject of intense takeover "desire" by Lion Nathan, presumably because of their success in increasing market share.</ref>
have been increasing market share at the expense of the duopoly.
My feeling is that
Carlton & United Beverages (CUB, now owned by the Foster's Group, producers of Foster's Lager, Victoria Bitter and many other "popular" Australian beers).
could be reduced to Foster's Group.
That
This has been widely cited by Australian beer aficionados as the primary reason for the comparatively poor quality of mainstream domestic beers.[citation needed]
contains WP:Weasel words, is unsourced, and contentious. And
However, in recent years, smaller brewers (like Coopers and Cascade have been increasing market share at the expense of the duopoly. (Note, however, that Cascade is now owned by the Foster's Group, and Coopers have been the subject of intense takeover "desire" by Lion Nathan, presumably because of their success in increasing market share.)
is a piece of unsourced POV WP:OR, and even if well sourced would be better used in the Australian beer article as it is a general statement about Australian beer rather than directly about LN. I still feel that condensing that material into the neutral Lion Nathan and Foster's Group together control 95% of the Australian beer market.[citation needed] is an appropriate move.
I hope all this gives you the appropriate background into my thinking. And thanks for reminding me to add the other breweries to the article. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for such a useful reply. Yes, in the past I, too, have employed the strategy of hoping someone would help - with mixed success! Also, I, too, like to see both sides of the discussion in the same place; unless you prefer otherwise, I'll reply here on your talk page. I'm afraid I've a busy non-wiki day ahead of me today, so it may be a little while till I reply. As a general point, yes, the unattributed and/or unreferenced statements that sound like POV do need to be restated with supporting evidence. (In fact, certain sub-sections probably need to be rewritten!) And although it's POV that I don't like LN's aggressive acquisition strategy, it is fact that they have had one, and I'll need to find a better way of stating it! Thanks again for your efforts in explaining your rationale. Best Wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for it being more than "a little while till I reply".

  • The 46% ownership was mentioned twice ... - True. I agree with your logic, but not the result. Perhaps the opening sentence could/should say "LN is a Japanese controlled Australasian ... company"? Your thoughts?
  • I condensed material ... - Yes, various "assertions" do need supporting references. Yes, we do want NPOV. But, if it is (verifiable) fact that they have done something undesirable, is it possible to present that without it sounding like it's POV? (For example, it's hard to present the facts on James Hardy's move out of Australia without it sounding like they're trying to avoid their obligations.)
  • I agree that ... - That sounds like a reasonable strategy to me.
  • Re: SA Brewing. Really, there should be a section on the history of SA Brewing Co / SA Brewing Holdings / Southcorp / etc. Maybe someone else will write it? Maybe I'll write it. (Both are nice thoughts, but unlikely.)
  • Similarly, mention of CUB shouldn't completely disappear; a history section there is probably a good idea. (That one I couldn't write - I've never had much interest in the history of Victorian beer.) Giving the topic a bit more thought, it's probably a good idea to have histories of all the brewers / breweries.
  • And I agree with most (but not quite all) of your last bullet. (For the record: Yes, they are Weasel words - not mine, but I hadn't decided how to "fix" them. Yes it is unsourced, but it isn't WP:OR (no matter how much I'd like credit for expressing the idea!)

So, it would seem to me that we're not as far apart as I originally thought we might be.
I think I need to start thinking about an SA Brewing article, (as distinct from a "West End" article.)
What do you think? Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADM Bloggs RAN ?

I'm not sure if this is the right forum. If not, please redirect me accordingly.

(Given the volume of response generated, my guess is that this is the right forum! Pdfpdf (talk))

I've noticed in a number of places the addition of "RAN" to the end of the title of some admirals, (e.g. "ADM Bloggs RAN"), but this addition of "RAN" to admirals is not done with any consistency.
I can understand the addition of "RAN" for naval Captains. (e.g. "CAPT Bloggs RAN". (I have a number of Army Captain friends who enjoyed being treated like a Colonel until it was noticed that they were in a khaki uniform.))
But why for an admiral where, by definition, he can only be a naval officer?
And why is the addition not done with any consistency?

Example: Chief of the Defence Force (Australia)

  • ADM Sir Victor Smith AC KBE CB DSC (November 1970 - November 1975)
  • ADM Sir Anthony Synnot KBE AO (April 1979 - April 1982)
  • ADM Alan Beaumont AC RAN (April 1993 - July 1995)
  • ADM Chris Barrie AC RAN (July 1998 - July 2002)

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the issue is. Are you asking about the use of abbreviations? All I would say is: why use CAPITALS for abbrevs? They aren't A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S like AVM and there is no need for the two to be the same. The ADF seems to love doing this, even more than the average military, but it's totally unnecessary and sticks out like a sore thumb, because no-one else does it that way, not even the Aust. Defence Dept. Cheers, Grant ;-) 14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my POV, the issue is: "Why is the 'RAN' there? It isn't a rank or award, and the ADM at the front already says that they're a naval officer, so, AFAICT, it adds no value. So why is it there? And, why is it there for only some admirals?"
No, I'm not asking about the use of abbreviations.
Restating in a way I hope is clearer: Sometimes "RAN" appears, but with no consistency. Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pd, I meant there is no need here for ranks to be consistently either "Title case." (Adm.) or "ACRONYM" (ADM), which is possibly a motivation behind the ADF house style. Cheers, Grant | Talk 02:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grant, In answer to why use CAPITALS for abbrevs?, my response is: "Good question, I don't know why they've chosen to do it that way."
In response to They aren't acronyms like AVM: I agree that "ADM" isn't, but "RAN" is. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the adding of the service is fairly standard in British and Commonwealth forces particularly when the chance that more than one force is operating together. I dont think it an official part of rank/name but it is common. I dont think that in the pages you indicate it is needed because presumable the Australian Army or Navy dont have Admirals. But as User:Pdfpdf indicated it is more commonly used with Captain which can be more ambiguous. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MilborneOne. That throws a bit of light on the issue.Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe commonwealth citizens can serve in the British armed forces, so you could conceivably have an Australian citizen who was an admiral, but in the RN, not RAN. The lines between RN/RAN/RCN etc were considerably more blurred in the past as well so for wartime admirals it could be a useful distinction. David Underdown (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. (See Chief of Navy (Australia)) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(New question): I wonder why the army and the air force don't do this too? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will find the distinction when you have mixed aircrew together in say Bomber Command in the Second World War, you might have RNZAF plus RAAF plus RSAF alongside RAF personnel. It depends on the usefulness of making the distinction. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The British Army (and probably Commonwealth armies) equivalent is to use the Regiment or Corps in that position: Colonel Strait-Gaiters DSO, Barsetshire Fusiliers, or Captain Trucker, RASC. They are commissioned into a particualr regiment, and the seniority of the regiment determines precedence between officers of equal rank, so you need to know the regiment before you know who is senior. Generals theoretically no longer belong to a regiment, so they would stop using the regimental title; perhaps the same applies by extension to admirals? Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I'm not aware of that happening formally in the ADF - Yes, certain groups believe they are superior to certain other groups, but I'm not aware of any formal seniority ... Pdfpdf (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In actual fact, it's the date of promotion to the current rank that's important, not the seniority of the regiment. Hence Chard taking command in Zulu because his date of promotion to lieutenant was slightly earlier than Bromhead's. Colonels, Brigadiers and Generals no longer belong to their regiment, and in very formal lists it is customary to put Colonel J Strait-Gaiters, late Barsetshire Fusiliers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency ?

I see that an hour after I posted the above question, 220.253.69.54 deleted the two "RAN" entries from CDF, and the one "RAN" entry from Chris Barrie (Admiral). Seven hours later, PalawanOz reverted those edits (on CDF only), leaving the comment "'RAN' is standard after naval ranks".

Given that we now have two statements that this is "standard" and/or "fairly standard", that answers half of my question. (i.e. the half that asks "Why is it there"?)

However, it doesn't explain the inconsistency of usage (or not) of the "RAN" suffix (e.g. on Admiral (Australia)), or indeed the complete lack of usage of the "RAN" suffix on many pages referring to naval officers (e.g. Anthony Synnot, VCDF, Chief of Navy (Australia), John Augustine Collins, Roy Dowling, David John Shackleton) ...
Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An "RN" suffix is very common when referring to Royal Navy officers, though whether thee is any rule as to its usage I don't know. I have always read it as meaning "of the Royal Navy", used when there might be any doubt about the rank; it would distinguish not only common Army ranks, but also the Merchant Navy, foreign navies and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (for which the suffix RNVR is used). Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That makes sense. Being "very common" rather than "standard" explains the inconsistency of usage.
Thank you all - I now have my answers. Most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RN suffix is not used for Officers above 1 Star; Commodore, Adm etc.
The RNVR doesn't exist any more, RN Reserve Officers are styled RN.
Retired RN Officers remain on the retired list and therefore continue to be styled RN.
Similarly RM Officers retain the suffix after retirement.
ALR (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the use of ", RAN" (note the comma) after naval ranks is directed by the Australian Defence Force Publication 102 (Manual of Service Writing). I will confirm the exact wording of the direction and provide it here shortly (hopefully today). Having said that, I am now not sure if Admiral's get the ", RAN" or not... will confirm PalawanOz (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I managed to find a copy of the ADFP102 on the net here. Para 3.20 (on page 154 of the PDF), and multiple other locations, states in the 'Names' section (my bolding):

For example:
Commander I.M. Coral, DSC, RAN
Note that as in the above example, for naval officers the letters RAN are preceded by a comma after the family name and any postnominals.

and it is pretty clear from the example in the document that it applies to Admirals as well as to other lowly officer ranks. PalawanOz (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having written all that.... I should clarify that the RAN postnominal is usually only used once in articles, in the same circumstances that you would use other postnominals like VC or OBE PalawanOz (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel that service postnominals are unnecessary additions to articles. They are indeed commonly used by officers (but not by warrant and non-commissioned officers) in Britain and the Commonwealth (and in the United States too I believe) when necessary and when full postnoms are included, but we don't use full postnoms on Wikipedia. We only include honours and decorations, major fellowships and a few others (like QC and PC), which are always used, but we don't include degrees etc. I think service postnoms come under the category of unnecessary, particularly since many officers have changed services and corps over the years. Which one do we use if, for example, an officer transferred from the RAN to the RN? Better to omit them altogether.

Incidentally, retired officers usually use RN(Retd), not just RN. Royal Naval Reserve officers use RNR not RN. In the British Army it is common to use corps letters (e.g. RA, RLC, RAMC), but only for officers below the rank of Colonel (since senior officers technically cease to belong to their corps or regiment). It is not common to use abbreviations for infantry or cavalry regiments unless absolutely necessary. These differences, I think, just add to the reasons to omit these postnoms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it is appropriate, and reasonably visually pleasing, to have the full list of postnominals (including 'RAN') in the first line of a biography article - as that is usually the only place we show the full list. However I believe it would also be appropriate in some lists (eg, Chief of the Defence Force (Australia). PalawanOz (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't show the full list of postnoms, as I've said. It's against Wikipedia policy to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where to find the policy you mention - indeed, the style guide here would seem to indicate that they should be included. PalawanOz (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the section above the one you cited: "Postnominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name". We include some postnoms, but not all by any means. I believe that since postnoms indicating a service are not issued to indicate any form of achievement but just an affiliation they should not be included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My position is that the the Wiki Manual of Style permits the use of post-nominals (in the situations described above), and the Australian standard (as per the ADFP102) is to include the "RAN", so for Australian naval officers, I would see it as appropriate to include it. I wouldn't extend this to RN or other services without seeing their standards documented. PalawanOz (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the RN (etc) is actually part of the rank designation when used officially. It is used even without decorations etc - see eg the Royal Navy website where officers are referred to as Captain X, RN or even in full as Commander X, Royal Navy [[21]]. I also suspect that naval officers would regard this as correct and would be mildly offended by its omission - perhaps one would confirm? The website appears to confirm the the suffix is not used for officers of flag rank (admirals). I know this practice has a long tradition - I know of an episode of the Goon Show (1950's) poking fun at the RN suffix of naval officers.Cyclopaedic (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we are not obliged to use every standard mandated by service manuals. The London Gazette, incidentally, does not usually use the RN suffix. I very much doubt that any RN officer would be offended by its omission unless he was incredibly pretentious (in which case he would probably be offended by our omission of his academic degrees too!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can recall, Gazette entries are invariably listed under the name of the service (and regiment or corps where appropriate), so a postnominal would be superfluous. David Underdown (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but the statement above was that it is always used, whether superfluous or not and that it would be incorrect not to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it appears that the Gazette does use (or has used) them when necessary, see [22] David Underdown (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but not consistently. My argument is not that they aren't used - they definitely are - but that they are not obligatory. Not that it would be binding on us even if they were obligatory within a service environment - we differ from outside "rules" in many areas, not least in the fact that we don't list postnominals for academic degrees. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well in all honesty they shouldn't use RN Rtd, because they're not. RN Officers are placed on the retired list, the difference is subtle but present. I don't know of any ex RN who would style themselves Rtd. With respect to the RN poinst, many RNR continue to describe themselves as such, but that changed about 2 years ago and they should now style themselves RN. Reserves ID cards are now exactly the same as RN, and the uniform no longer has any distinction.
My DS at JSCSC discussed it at length at one stage.
ALR (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that officers are placed on the retired list when they leave the service, but when their reserve liability is up they are removed from the retired list and are indeed fully retired. I admit I didn't know about the RNR changing their nomenclature, but as you say it only happened a couple of years ago it wouldn't apply to many articles on Wikipedia anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some nosing around on this, apparently the RN reserve commitment doesn't expire but retired officers are unlikely to be recalled after the 60th birthday. So RN Officers don't actually retire.
Anyway, notwithstanding the spat below my own view is that we should follow the appropriate service conventions. I really don't get the WP attitude of we don't have to adhere to anyone elses conventions so we'll do our own thing.
ALR (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, it seems somewhat strange then that numerous officers are listed in the London Gazette as RN(Retd)![23]-- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, there is an inconsistency. The RN appearsw to take the view that it's Officers don't actually retire, so I'm more prepared to take their position on HMs employees.
fwiw that wording above was taken from the letter that Second Sea Lord sends out when an Officer is transferred to the Retired List.
Frankly I've never met anyone who has described himself, or herself, as RN (Rtd), always RN where the postnom is used.
ALR (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Naval Officers - ADM Bloggs, RAN

I love this talk page! You ask what you think is a simple question, and within hours you have a dozen complementary answers explaining the history and/or background of all sorts of things that you didn't realise were related to your "simple question".

So, I asked three questions about the "RAN" suffix for Australian Naval Officers:

  1. why for an admiral where, by definition, he can only be a naval officer?
  2. why is the addition not done with any consistency?
  3. I wonder why the army and the air force don't do this too?

The answer to questions 1 and 3 is quite simple: "Because ADFP102 says so."
(I get a little tired of people saying "the MoS says this is the way to do it", and ignore what actually happens in the real world.)

For me, the issue now is question 2, viz: Why is the addition not done in WP with any consistency? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out though - this is only the Australian standard...
Yes, that's why I put in a sub-section heading to separate this from the preceeding discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British sub-branch

the conversation here also branched into British ranks, which would require their own standard to be quoted (although, I am pretty sure it would somewhere, given that you see it on official correspondence so much, including from the USN).
It may or may not be that easy; the British are not given to codifying and writing down their traditions, nor to publishing sensitive military secrets like guidance on how to address officers! Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of which, I like the old British adage that the army and navy have traditions, but the RAF has habits :)) --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" — A B Cunningham (or should that be A B Cunningham, RN?).[1] Cyclopaedic (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dirty habits, bunch of chavs IMHO.
ALR (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect ALR, your "O" doesn't sound very "H"! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch it, ALR! I used to be a chav in a cadet squadron at school; got my RAF marksman's badge; wore itchy blue-grey battledress (allegedly made from horse blankets); and built vast amounts of character. We had to swear (if I remember correctly) rather quaintly, "on my honour, to do my duty to God and my Sovereign Lady, the Queen, and to my country and my flag". --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness gracious! That brings back some memories that I didn't realise I still had! I promise to do my best to do my duty to god and the queen, to keep the law of the wolf cub pack, and to do a good turn for somebody every day. I wonder how long ago pre-teens stopped reciting that! Pdfpdf (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They still do: "I promise that I will do my best To do my duty to God and to the Queen, To help other people And to keep the Cub Scout Law"[2] Cyclopaedic (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if they still stand around in a large circle and yell "Dyb, dyb, dyb. We'll dob dob dob."? (When you only have daughters, you lose touch with these sorts of things.) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder why they call them Cub Scouts, and not Scout Cubs ... I imagine these are questions for a different page. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir is usually a good bet if s/he is senior. Mate if s/he is equivalent :)
ALR (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used to have to ring the House of Lords from time to time professionally at one stage. The flunkeys there would always address you as "My Lord" on the phone, just to be on the safe side :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Australia

Re your Q2 - the simple answer is that with a thousand different editors, you get a thousand different styles of writing. Also - the use of it isn't as simple as "see a name, add RAN"... rather, it would be appropriate to use it in an opening sentence when you give the full list of post-nominal honours ("RADM I.C. Bloggs, VC, OBE, RAN")- but thereafter, the individual would be referred to as "Bloggs", or "RADM Bloggs". I would use it in lists in a similar way (ie, if "VC" is shown, then "RAN" as well). THe only other time I would use it in lists is if there was a reason to differentiate for some reason - eg, the Chief of Navy (Australia) list, to show that some of the bosses were RN. I guess the last usage could be up for discussion though. PalawanOz (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but ...
Have a look at: Chief of Navy (Australia), Admiral (Australia), Anthony Synnot, VCDF, Chief of Navy (Australia), John Augustine Collins, Roy Dowling, David John Shackleton. This was a list I constructed in 2 or 3 minutes. If I did a serious search, I suggest I would find dozens. Not having the ", RAN" suffix is considerably more common in WP. Does this suggest that a wholesale search and destroy repair effort is necessary? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Search and insert? I would suggest yes :) PalawanOz (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grunt. (I was hoping you'd propose a solution that was less work ... :-( Pdfpdf (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that elsewhere it has been suggested that it is "illogical" for the Royal Australia Navy to be different in their use of postnomials, and that Wikipedia should ignore this difference. I have difficulty with that line of argument - to me that would be analogous to saying: "It is illogical for the French not to speak English, and Wikipedia should ignore this difference." Do others have an opinion? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent desire to change the topic

The whole point is that the Royal Australian Navy is not in any way different with its use of postnominals. They are used in Britain and other countries as well in exactly the same way, are probably listed somewhere in service manuals in those countries, and there is no reason why discussion should be restricted to the RAN. The point is not whether the use of postnominals is mandated by the RAN or any other service, but whether Wikipedia should use them, an entirely different issue. I'm simply perplexed as to why you would think that simply because a service manual says they should be used in service documents this means that Wikipedia is duty-bound to use them also. We are neither an RAN document nor beholden in any way to the RAN. I have seen this argument that we should follow the government line used many times before and it is almost never considered to hold water. Wikipedia makes its own decisions about style and content. If consensus (and not the opinions of a handful of people as so far) is behind using them then I and other editors will follow that consensus, but I'm afraid I do not consider that the Australian government (or any other government) has made the decision for us and it therefore should not be questioned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find the I don't agree so we don't have consensus to do things your way argument isn't entirely helpful. It would be helpful to have some informed comment from the MOS geeks, although personally I'm sceptical of how informed that might be; given the simplistic approach taken in other policy-land pages.
ALR (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think we should follow the service conventions of the service which the individual belongs to. Realistically we're only talking about one mention in any article.
ALR (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the much-cited ADFP102 I see that all it is talking about is the use of postnominals when addressing an envelope! This is identical to information found in any manual of style anywhere in any English-speaking country and is in no way specific to the RAN. Of course one puts a service at the end when addressing an envelope! What it is not talking about is writing an encyclopaedia, or indeed any other document. More appropriate is p127 of the document which says "at the discretion of the signatory, postnominals may be appropriate..." -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there is no confusion: I find your tone aggressive.
I, and others, do not agree with your first sentence. Perhaps "Your whole point is ... ", but I do not agree that "The whole point is ...".
And no, navy postnomials are not used in Australia in exactly the same way.
There is a reason to restrict discussion to the RAN. The reason is: "No, they are not used in Australia in exactly the same way."
Now you may not like or agree with the above, but never-the-less, as far as I am able to determine, they are the facts - not my POV, the facts.
(If you want my POV, you'll get a different answer, but I don't think my POV is a useful addition here.)
The rest of what you have written seems to be your point of view, so again, it is Your point, not The point. As you were well aware before you started expressing it, I, and others, don't share that POV.
So, do you think you could find a less aggressive manner to express your POV please? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm also choosing to no-longer participate in this discussion sub-thread. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Where is the evidence that the RAN is in any way different in its use of postnominals apart from your unsubstantiated claim that it is? The cited document is a manual of style about addressing envelopes. I have a similar manual of style saying similar things about addressing enevlopes to RN officers in the back of my (British) dictionary. How does this say that the RAN is unique or that this is the way we should use postnominals in an encyclopaedia? Any attempts at discussion seem to be destined to be stymied by the "this is unique to Australia" claims, which do indeed seem to point to the fact that further discussion at this stage is pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another digression

Please let's try to avoid "RADM Bloggs". People using abbreviations in articles is one of my pet irritants. You may know what they mean, but many people don't. Use "Rear Admiral Bloggs". And as I've said, adding "RAN" (or other service abbreviations) at the end of the postnoms is unnecessary and I for one will delete them when I see them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call on the abbreviation comment - but I think your attitude on the postnominal issue is at odds with every authority quoted. I would suggest that the current consensus on this particular talk page is that the postnominal addition of RAN in certain circumstances is entirely appropriate. PalawanOz (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what does this have to do with the RAN suffix?
Also, you're hardly displaying "good faith" or NPOV.
I'm not really concerned one way or another about your pet irritants. (I have enough of my own, thank you, without taking on yours.) Your pet irritants are your problem, not Wikipedias, not mine.
Maybe many people don't know what RADM means, but those people probably wouldn't be reading articles that contain "RADM", and if they were, they would be perfectly capable of looking it up, and probably would expect to do so.
No, I won't use "Rear Admiral Bloggs". (Though I would probably use RADM Bloggs.)
And as I've said, adding "RAN" (or other service abbreviations) at the end of the postnoms is unnecessary - Whether it is "necessary" or not is not the point. The point is that ADFP102 says: add it.
and I for one will delete them when I see them. - Gee, that's a mature and well thought out Point Of View - and I for one and my Australian colleagues will delete will revert them if/when we notice.
Go have a cup of tea, a Bex, and a lie down.
Then come back with a less aggressive attitude, and discuss this in a reasonable tone. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postnominal issues aside—that seems largely a matter of different accepted styles—Necrothesp has a valid point regarding the use of "RADM". We are writing for a general audience, and should avoid using cryptic jargon merely for its own sake. It's not as though we only have space for four letters on a form or something of the sort.
(This applies to all abbreviations, incidentally, not merely those for ranks. While they can be used, it is, at a minimum, necessary to give the full version beforehand; and, here, something like "Rear Admiral (RADM) Bloggs" seems rather more trouble than it's worth.) Kirill 12:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Kirill, I'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone, but what is Necrothesp's valid point regarding "RADM"?
Don't we have a rule on this, my god, there are Wiki rules on everything else. Maybe an acronym section at the bottom of each article?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing for a general audience, and should avoid using cryptic jargon merely for its own sake. It's not as though we only have space for four letters on a form or something of the sort. - Well yes, but I still think my comment is valid. Viz: "Maybe many people don't know what RADM means, but those people probably wouldn't be reading articles that contain "RADM", and if they were, they would be perfectly capable of looking it up, and probably would expect to do so." Do you disagree with this statement?
♠I would say it is common practice to write a personal rank/title as is customary in that country/organization, and to either write out the acronym or abbreviation as soon as possible before use (where it makes sense) or add a separate section at the end of the article to provide this information. We don't write 'Mister' Jones, but 'Mr.' Jones; 'Doctor' Smith, but Dr. Smith; Colonel Adams, but COL Adams. This might help.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in case there is any doubt, I agree completely with: it is, at a minimum, necessary to give the full version beforehand.
and, here, something like "Rear Admiral (RADM) Bloggs" seems rather more trouble than it's worth. - Agreed!!!
Postnominal issues aside - Sorry, but what "got my back up" was the postnomial comment. If you remove my comments about postnomials, (from my POV), there isn't much left that's worth talking about.
Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, true enough. So long as we don't all start randomly sprinkling articles with rank abbreviations, I'm happy. ;-) Kirill 13:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General defence writing convention is to use something in full first time to explain the abbreviation, I rather agree with Kirrils points about it being excessive since it would only be usual to use the rank once in an article.
And just to add my peeve; RAdm, not RADM, Lt Cdr not LCDR, Lt Col not LTC. My point being, if we're going to use abbreviations then use the appropriate one for the subject.
ALR (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 1: I thought what I said implied I agreed. If it didn't, let's be explicit: I agree.
Re point 2: The official Australian abbreviations are RADM, LCDR and LTCOL. To quote a reliable colleague: if we're going to use abbreviations then use the appropriate one for the subject.
In other words, these things are context dependent, and maybe not obvious/unambiguous. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that only military addicts who know all the jargon read articles on admirals are you?

No, I'm not saying that.
You appear to be.

I think that's a bit of a ridiculous claim frankly.

Yeah, I do too.

It also goes against all the aims of Wikipedia as a general encyclopaedia as against a technical manual for fanboys (from whom military articles sadly suffer disproportionately). I certainly don't confine myself to reading articles on subjects in which I have a specific and stated interest, and I should think I have this in common with many others. I also happen to think that abbreviations like this in articles look amateurish, sloppy and ugly. Yes, that's my POV, but one I'm sure I share with many others.

Yes, that's your POV.
Indeed. But one to which I'm entitled.

I also find your claims that my attitude is aggressive to be a little laughable. Please reread your own comments and then mine and judge which appear more aggressive.

Is this a competition?
Of course not. You made the accusation, not me.

"The point is that ADFP102 says: add it." So what?

The "so what" is that this topic of discussion is about the addition of "RAN" to Australian Naval Oficers titles.
My question still stands. What ADFP102 says has no bearing over what Wikipedia's style guide says.

Australian military manuals are not binding on Wikipedia editors. Neither are they binding on things that predate them, and most articles on Australian naval officers will predate the current manual.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.
My point is that most articles about Australian admirals on Wikipedia will be about admirals who lived and served before that particular manual was introduced and therefore what it says has no bearing on those articles.

"I for one and my Australian colleagues will delete will revert them if/when we notice." I'm sure you don't speak for all Australians. And frankly this is not a specifically Australian issue, since it applies equally to many Commonwealth countries and also to the United States.

No, I'm afraid not. In this particular discussion, it is a specifically Australian issue. ADFP102 only applies to Australians.
Yes, but the general issue is a wider one. There is no reason to make a special case for the use of RAN postnoms when equivalent postnoms are used in other countries and other services. That would be illogical.

As to your claims that my statements are POV. Er, this is a talk page. All our comments are POV - that's the whole point. And which of my comments go against "good faith"?

I think that's attributable to the talking at cross purposes and the misunderstandings. I guess my my main complaint is your aggressive tone, not what I interpreted as your lack of good faith.
I wasn't aware my tone was aggressive. I put forward my opinion and you put forward yours. We merely disagree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has addressed one of my points. Many officers transferred from one service to another. Which service abbreviation should we then use? For instance, Captain Bloggs has served for thirty years in the Royal Navy and then transfers to the RAN, where he serves five years and is promoted to Rear Admiral. Do we use RN or RAN at the end of his postnoms? Do we allow his five years of service in the RAN to take precedence over his thirty years of service in the RN just because it was his final service and in it he received his highest rank? I think that's a little strange. That's one reason why I oppose the use of service postnoms. It's more acceptable for serving officers, but highly complicated for retired officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I don't pretend to be an expert here. I'll leave it to someone who is. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chill out time - Could I suggest a a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down? We're not talking sheep stations here folks... For the record - Necro I also found your tone aggressive, but obviously my blood wasn't up enough to respond in kind. I note your points (service transfer, currency of the ADFP102), however in the majority of cases they wont apply - and the 102 is only the most recent codification of custom, the addition of RAN has been around a lot longer than that reference. PalawanOz (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm confused. How was "my tone aggressive"? I think you need to reread my comments and the responses they provoked, which I would regard as far more aggressive (e.g. accusations that my comments were POV - irrelevant on a talkpage in any case - and not in good faith).
I'm aware that the addition of service postnoms has been around a long time, but the constant quoting of a recent service manual to support its addition on Wikipedia and the attitude that that's "end of argument" gets us nowhere. Most sources would also require us to add academic postnoms, but we don't. We are not bound by "standards" imposed on other organisations by themselves. We are bound by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, and that we do not have. This needs to be discussed more widely than a project page, which is why I have drawn attention to the debate on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm choosing to no-longer participate in this discussion sub-thread.
I, and others, have already addressed all of your comments and questions, both specifically in response to your comments, and more generally in previous discussion; I see no point in repeating what has already been written.
If you really are confused, and really want answers to your questions, then please re-read all of what has been written above - I think you will find that it will answer all of your questions.
Farewell, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back on track

The discussion seems to be getting pulled off on tangents a bit, so let's try to collect the threads and see what matters are actually in need of discussion at this point. Looking at the original question, it seems to me that there are two related issues here:

  1. Postnominal use in the introduction of articles
  2. Postnominal use in lists

As far as the first issue is concerned, I think we should avoid taking stylistic rules to extremes here, and try to be guided by what works well in text. Consider these examples, taken from some of the articles in question:

Admiral Christopher Alexander Barrie AC, RAN (born May 1945) was an Admiral in the Royal Australian Navy and the Chief of the Australian Defence Force from July 4, 1998 to July 3, 2002.

Admiral Sir Anthony Monckton Synnot KBE, AO (January 5, 1922-2001) was an Admiral in the Royal Australian Navy and between 1977 and 1982 was Chief of the Defence Force in Australia.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville Patrick McNamara KBE, AO, AFC, AE (born April 17, 1923) was a senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force.

The first example, as given, is fairly redundant; both "Admiral" and "RAN" appear twice in the first sentence. The second is less redundant, but still repeats "Admiral". I'd suggest that the third form, which mentions the rank once (before the name) and the service once (in text after the name) is the most elegant way of putting this information into a single sentence from a prose perspective.

The second issue seems more of a contrived example; I'd argue that we can follow whatever form we go with for the article introduction in the list merely by adding columns. For example, if we wish to use the third form, then we can replace

  • ADM Sir Anthony Synnot KBE AO, RAN (April 1979 - April 1982)

with

Service Dates
Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot KBE AO Royal Australian Navy April 1979 - April 1982

Turning the list into a table allows us to use virtually any form, rather than being constrained to a short-hand listing.

Comments? Am I missing something obvious here? Kirill 13:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem for me is that it may be difficult to understand for someone new to the subject. Forex, most of those abbreviations following the name probably won't be immediately understandable for someone without the background to understand military ranks, positions, and militaries of the world. Even if the reader is familiar with the topic, it may require some thought to realize that we're talking about one definition of an abbreviation, rather than another. JKBrooks85 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The post nominals could always be wikilinked, like: Lord Admiral Bob McBob VC RAN CDD and such. Narson (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CDDs are a hard act to follow, but I'll try ...
I started this by saying: "I'm not sure if this is the right forum. If not, please redirect me accordingly.". I then asked a specific question about a specific Australian phenomonem that is restricted to the Royal Australian Navy.
Nobody directed me elsewhere, so I assumed I had the right forum.
A number of people were very helpful, saying things like "I don't know about the Australian situation, but this is what happens elsewhere."
Eventually, someone pointed out the Australian Defence Writing Standards (ADFP102), which, as Defence Manuals are inclined to do, goes into great detail about how different things are done in different situations, and throughout its 379 pages gives 9 examples of how the RAN postnomial is used.
Along the way, some people started talking about the general topic of postnomials, rather than the specific use of the RAN postnomial.
So, Kiril, when you ask Am I missing something obvious here?, I would respond, "Well, I don't know about missing something obvious, but you are addressing a different topic from the one I raised." Hence, I don't really agree that this is "getting back on track" - to me its more a case of "starting a new track". I suggest that at least three topics are being discussed. (For example:
  1. Use of the RAN postnomial
  2. Is the Australian use of the RAN postnomial different from other countries' use of their naval postnomial?
  3. Use of the naval postnomial vs non-use of the service postnomial by other services
  4. Use of titles in the introduction of articles vs use elsewhere in articles
  5. Use of abbreviations in the introduction of articles vs use elsewhere in articles
  6. When is a second use of a term "repetiton", and when is it "explanation"?
  7. Postnominal use in the introduction of articles
  8. Postnominal use in lists
  9. and quite a few others as well.)
So, I agree with your statement:
The discussion seems to be getting pulled off on tangents a bit, so let's try to collect the threads and see what matters are actually in need of discussion at this point.
However, although I'm not sure which matters are "actually in need of discussion at this point", I have a feeling that the two you have listed are not the only ones "in need". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilinks work for me, Narson. That makes it pretty clear. I just don't think we'll have too many cross-dressing Daleks, though. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder; the wikilinks work for me too. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Lord Bob": We don't have any Lords in Australia any more. (Just various levels of membership of the Order of Australia). And ADFP102 says "use commas" and "the RAN comes last".
So our metalic friend with the Australian accent, (were he to exist), would be: "Admiral Bob McBob, VC, CDD, AC, RAN.
And there's no repetition or ambiguity.
(Clearly, we need more CDDs to help us solve our problems.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, he could be ADM Bob McBob, VC, CDD, AC, RAN.
But were he an army officer, he would be GEN Bob McBob, VC, CDD, AC.
(i.e. no service postnomial.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart

Copied from User talk:156.34.142.110

(It's unusual, and pleasant, to see an anonymous talk page not full of vandalism warnings.)

I'm unhappy with your recent edit to the Heart (band) page. Not with the reformatting, but with the fact that you have deleted useful information. Rather than trying to "fix" your edit, and doing it "wrongly" (i.e. have it not comply with the template), I reverted it. Hence my edit comment:

(Rv. I'm all for uniformity and standards, but not for the removal of information. Your edit removes useful data. (viz: dates, and why remove "Arena Rock"?) P.S. What does "Landscape=yes" do?).

Yes, reverting it was a bit extreme, and I apologise for employing such a blunt tool; I had (wrongly) assumed that your edit had been done by a vandal (for whom I don't have as much patience as perhaps I should.)

Can the dates be incorporated in the data in the template? (It would seem counterproductive to have them appear elsewhere.) Is there a reason why you removed Arena Rock?

By-the-way, I didn't make the format change to include line breaks, but I support it; the data is much easier to read, and looks much neater, with the line breaks.

And lastly, could you point me at the explanation of what "Landscape=yes" does?

Many thanks, Pdfpdf 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article has always had commas, by the way [So I've put them back in per current consensus]. Btw, Lib's, I found Pocketwatch don't worry :-D I'm gonna toddle off and let my ears unwind to classic grunge. ScarianTalk 23:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. It was the removal of "Arena Rock" that was causing me problems. Pdfpdf 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know why he removed it. If you check the Arena Rock article; it says it is a term to loosely describe a "rock era" (or something like that). So I think it isn't really a genre (I'm not 100% sure, but that would be my guess) that can be included. ScarianTalk 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify for you Scarian :D . The field is meant for a "genre". Arena rock isn't a 'music genre' it's a term used to cover a rock era which blankets many bands... mostly Hard rock bands. Simply put... arena rock doesn't qualify as a genre since in reality it was just "Hard rock bands playing hard rock music... in an arena" The actual Arena rock article article has been going through a bit of a clean in recent days to try and clarify the difference between 'music genre' and 'music term'. Hope that helps. The other edits to the Heart infobox are simply proper formatting based on the rules and guidlines of the infobox template. Details, like label years, don't go in the box... they go in the main body of the article.... hopefully with as many refs from reliable sources as can be found. Hope that helps. 156.34.215.43 01:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that helps. - A little, but not as much as I'd like it to.
Re: Arena Rock: OK, given your explanation, I can live with its deletion. At least I now know why.
Re: Dates: I asked: Can the dates be incorporated in the data in the template? (It would seem counterproductive to have them appear elsewhere.)
Your response was to spout policy at me, not to answer my question. I would like a better answer than that, please. Do you think you could have a go at answering the question I asked? It would be appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By-the-way: If you insist on removing the dates, then replace the line breaks with commas. Pdfpdf 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I didn't answer your questions properly. I was following up more on Scarian's comments than your own. To give you some background. I am a former 'logged editor'. Under my old account I had amassed over 20000 Wikipedia edits. But I saw growing "anti-anon" trend happening... something I felt was completely opposite of what Wikipedia was all about. So I rejected my account for the "purity" of anonymous editing. As I near 30000 IP edits here I do not regret the path I have chosen. I have been here a long time and any AGF I had pretty much disappeared many moons ago. My edits are based on policy, guideline and consensus. And I tend to "wiki-speak" in cold policy and guideline rather than "good neighbour" conversation. Some may consider that a 'wiki-fault'... but it is how I have functioned here for several years.. both as an account and as an anon. The infobox is a brief overview and is not meant to contain any fine details. Things like label years, band member durations or instruments played, or adding the word deceased beside any dead band member names is not req'd in the box. Genre wars are common on Wiki and sometimes infoboxes get stuffed with refs to try and support editor POV on what genre they feel is right. Again this is also frowned upon as referenced content looks much better in the article main body than it does in the little box. And the only spot where linebreaks are not a battleground is in the current member, past member fields. The current push is for commas... just to be consistent with the Wiki Album project (who get along a lot better with each other then some of the musician project editors do :D ) Again, I am sorry if my earlier comments were not helpful. If you ever have any questions you can feel free to go to my static page and ask me... lots of editors do. I am an old relic here. I've seen every type of editor and edit that there is. As a logged user I was prompted to let my name stand for Adminship 15 times... and I turned them all down. I am not here for any type of 'Wiki-glory'... part of why I don't have any use for an account. I just edit... "promote the good, delete the bad"... is my edit motto. Pretty simple. OH... if an infobox picture is much wider then it is tall... you can say 'yes' in the landscape field and it will stretch the image to fill the empty white space that narrows in images that don't have that field switched on. If the field is missing completely, just add "Landscape=Yes" into the box right above the background field. Good luck editing... Cheers! and have a nice day! 156.34.220.210 14:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, album covers are only fair-use in the articles specific to the source of the album cover itself. IOWs... The Dreamboat Annie album cover can only be used in the Dreamboat Annie article and no where else. See WP:FAIR for more details. I rm'd the covers from the article already... I just wanted to follow-up with you just in case your weren't familiar with the policy. Similarly... screenshots from videos and movies violate WP:FAIR if they are used anywhere else other than the article specific to the source of the screenshot. Many editors don't know this and so covers and screenshots are used improperly all over Wiki. If you notice either of these types of violations feel free to delete them and just quote WP:FAIR in your edit summary. Cheers! 156.34.220.210 14:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the info box: That seems logical. And also, it addresses my observations about duplication.
Regarding the pictures: That's sad at a number of levels. But, I guess, that's life.
Would you mind copying the relevant bits of your explanation to Talk:Heart (band)#Fair use rationale for Image:Heartalbum.PNG?
To be honest, given that I went to the effort of creating a rationale for the use of each of those pictures in the Heart (band) article, and I think I followed the guidelines to the letter, I dont really understand why they're not acceptable. Perhaps the guidelines need revising? (i.e. rewritten to make them clearer.) Pdfpdf 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAIR is one of the most heated battlegrounds on Wiki. It's not an easy read. It's understandable that editors want to see colour in the articles they care about... not just bland text. The fulcrum that balances Wikipedia text being accepted as a trustworthy resource... and the addition of "shock and awe" to add some article colour (while still looking 'encyclopedic')... is WP:FAIR. For me... the colours I like to see most are the little blue numbers at the end of sentences that link to references. There can never be too many of those. I will copy the first sentence of my "PS" over to the Heart talk page if you think that it will help others understand why covers can't be used in the article.

Barnstar

BTW... congrads on the barnstar. Scarian is a 'balanced' editor here. He doesn't just throw those things away to anyone... you have to earn them... Although I will tease him that he is just buying votes for his eventual run at being an administrator :D Your 'edit demeanor' indicates that you are deserving of the little Wiki-token (we call it the "shiny"). Cheers and take care! 156.34.217.48 02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I'm giving you this barnstar because of your incredible level headed-ness. You WP:AGF, remain WP:CIVIL and you generally seem really WP:NICE. So I give you this deserved barnstar for being such a great Wiki-contributor. ScarianTalk 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lib's was joking about me buying RfA votes btw :-D - Anyway, I gave it to you because I noticed [After Lib's had explained his rationale] that you didn't continue arguing your point. You calmly agree'd with his way of thinking and you were very polite about it. We don't see much of that on Wikipedia and it is lovely to see that people are as mature as yourself. Take care. Happy editing! ScarianTalk 13:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Have you ever thought about being an admin? ScarianTalk 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very good at the unexpected!
Ummm. In answer to your question: "Not really. It seems to me they spend their wiki-time dealing with the least pleasant people on WP, and frequently have their user pages vandalised, often in very offensive ways." Is there an "up" side to being an admin? Pdfpdf 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all admins have to deal with unpleasant people :-) - I estimate, roughly, that you'll encounter as many "unpleasant" users as before [If you became an admin]. The plus side to becoming an admin is that you'll have community support; people will have seen your contributions to this project and trust you. The tools can also increase your editing effiency on Wikipedia.
If you're worried about attracting unpleasant user's attention, just take a look at User:Wiki Alf. He's a quiet admin and I hardly ever see him engage in jousts with trolls.
I thought you'd be an excellent candidate because of your demeanour on Wikipedia. You are, as I've stated in the barnstar, very patient and controlled. Those are two very important qualities that an admin must possess.
Well, if you ever think about becoming one, just give me a shout and I'll nominate you :-) - If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask me! ScarianTalk 09:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm. (BTW: Never underestimate the power of flattery. (But don't overestimate it either ... ))
Well, thanks for the kind words. I'll give it some thought. Pdfpdf 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further BTW: There are those on WP who may not agree that I am "very patient and controlled". Pdfpdf 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PEK (Dec07)

Well done.
I was trying to work out how to respond cooly and calmly, when I wasn't feeling either cool or calm.
(I made the mistake of reading his talk page.)
Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to wait a day before responding also<g>. What loonies some topics attract! jmcw (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of loonies, have you peeked at Talk:Homeopathy? A first class wiki circus! I think PEK only got splashed with a few drops of manure. jmcw (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious me! What a can of worms. I had no idea the topic was such a mine field. Having sampled some of those "conversations", I'm surprised we haven't experienced more "spillage" onto the PEK page. I suppose that's probably something we may have to look forward to!! Merry Christmas, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the PEK shovel brigade, I wish you also a Merry and Peaceful Christmas! jmcw (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(So you're advising that I should keep away from WP for a few days ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is the time of year to practice benign smiling at the world. jmcw (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Just as long as it isn't classed as an "idiot grin".
As they say, "You can choose your friends, but not your family." Pdfpdf (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Idiot grin" or "Benign Smile": as with beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder<g>. jmcw (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Rhodes Scholars

Thanks for your work on Notable Rhodes Scholars; it's nice to have some help! Pdfpdf (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of observations and questions:

  • There is a difference between Harvard College and Harvard University. I don't know if the difference is important; do you?
  • You have nominated a university for a number of entries marked with "University uncertain". I'm not sure if that's useful. (e.g. UC Berkeley is not the only campus of UC, let alone not the only university in California. Also, wouldn't you put "UC Berkeley" rather than "California"?) Your thoughts?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) You're right on the Harvard detail. Go ahead and change the "Harvard University" to "Harvard College". (2) I got ahead of myself a little. I should have looked at the reference tag. :) (3) Generally, "California" by itself refers to the Berkeley campus. Other campuses are either referred to as "California-XXXX" or "UC XXXX". The Los Angeles campus is pretty much universally called "UCLA". — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Update: Changed the Harvard edits to point to the undergrad college, and undid the uncertain schools I had "nominated". In the case of Tom McMillen (listed under his full name of Charles Thomas McMillen), I'm old enough to remember him as a basketball player at the College Park campus of Maryland, so I pointed his school link there. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Given that 32-Americans-per-year are awarded scholarships, there's scope for lots of "notables"!) Pdfpdf (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My! You have been busy!! Don't let me interrupt you, but ...
Perhaps you can explain something for me?
As I said before, There is a difference between Harvard College and Harvard University. I don't know if the difference is important; do you?.
It would appear to me that you might understand the difference.
It now appears to me that Harvard College only awards "undergraduate" (for want of a better name) degrees, Harvard College is the only "Harvard institution" that awards "undergraduate" degrees, and ALL other "Harvard institutions" (only) award post-graduate degrees.
Is that correct? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I had wrongly assumed that there were other "Harvard institutions" (other than Harvard College) that awarded "undergraduate degrees", hence my no-doubt-annoying edits - sorry about that. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • As far as I know, the only unit of Harvard University that awards undergraduate degrees is Harvard College. By the time women became eligible for Rhodes Scholarships in 1977, graduates of Harvard's former all-female undergraduate unit of Radcliffe College were being issued Harvard degrees signed by the presidents of Harvard and Radcliffe. Starting in the fall (autumn) of 1977, women enrolled directly into Harvard College, and Radcliffe dissolved itself in 1999 and became a women's studies institute within Harvard University. On another topic, I did find that some of the people with two U.S. degrees got them from graduate-level schools (e.g., Mel Reynolds' Harvard degree was a Master's in Public Administration from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and at least a couple others had earned law degrees before going to Oxford). — Dale Arnett (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddfellows

Hi! I see you've added Oddfellows to "WikiProject Secret Societies". I'm wondering if Odd Fellows and Independent Order of Odd Fellows should also be added? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Right now, I am placing the banner primarily on the basis of categorization. Neither of those pages is categorized in the Category:Secret societies, so I probably wouldn't initially, at least until all the subcats are also tagged. Having said that, it does seem to me that both of the pages reasonably could be tagged, the dab page certainly could be. The criteria for inclusion in the scope of the project are at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies#Scope section. At this point, until all the details are worked out, I probably wouldn't place the banner there, as they technically aren't within the scope of the project's category. However, if someone else, presumably who knew the article in question and whether the subjects met the criteria for inclusion, thought that it qualified within the scope of the project, and tagged it accordingly, I would certainly think that the project would probably include those articles, as well as any others tagged by outsiders, as much attention as circumstances permitted. Also, I would add all articles tagged to the project's watchlist, to ensure that they aren't vandalized. If these were tagged, they'd be added. If you knew someone who thought the IOOF qualified by the definitions in the scope section, I don't think anyone would reasonably object. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I need to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies#Scope and react as appropriate! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rear admirals

I posted the following on the talk page, but as yet have had no response. Perhaps you can explain it to me?
I've read the above discussions with interest, and I can understand how it could be titled "rear admiral" or "Rear Admiral", but I can not understand how the above discussion resulted in "Rear admiral". The most quoted example is "Rear Admiral X is a rear admiral". "Rear admiral X is a Rear admiral" was never justified, or even advocated, yet that's what the article ended up being called. Can someone explain this to me please? Pdfpdf 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in anticipation of your reply, Pdfpdf 12:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been taking an extended vacation from Wikipedia, so I just saw your question. There is continuing confusion on the capitalization of military ranks and suchlike. The exchange you note was some time ago, but I believe that I was making the following points:

  • A rank is properly capitalized when used as a proper noun, with or without the person's personal name. Thus, a sailor might be quoted as saying, "Aye, Captain," or "Aye Captain Smith!"
  • The same rule applies to civilian titles: "I object, Judge Brown."
  • When a title or rank is used as a job description, with no reference to any particular person, it is not capitalized. "The U.S.S. Fubar rates a commanding officer with the rank of captain." "The case is being heard by a special master, rather than a judge."
  • When a title or rank has two words, then the two are capitalized or not together, with the obvious exception of the initial word of a sentence. Thus, "I went to see the Rear Admiral," or, "He is a rear admiral." One would not see, as someone seemed to be advocating, "I went to see the Rear admiral," or "He is a Rear admiral." Such a usage is neither flesh nor fish.

I apologize for the delay in responding, and hope that this helps. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoyed your time away; thanks for the reply. Yes, your reply is helpful. It's always handy to have a second opinion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buses

They were removed in the latest service changes, effective 13th January. Now we have:
190 City to Glenelg via Bray Street
191 City to Mitcham via Unley Road
192 City to Torrens Park via Unley Road
194 City to Blackwood (via current 195 Route)
196 City to Blackwood (Same Route)
198 City to Warradale via Daws Road
199 City to Marion Centre via Springbank Road and Flinders Uni

Check it out at the Adelaide Metro site: [24]


PEK

I had to wait a day before responding also<g>. What loonies some topics attract! jmcw (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of loonies, have you peeked at Talk:Homeopathy? A first class wiki circus! I think PEK only got splashed with a few drops of manure. jmcw (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the PEK shovel brigade, I wish you also a Merry and Peaceful Christmas! jmcw (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the time of year to practice benign smiling at the world. jmcw (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Idiot grin" or "Benign Smile": as with beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder<g>. jmcw (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope & Glory (album)

I've put it back to Footnotes, ok? I just replaced it with 'References' without thinking, when i changed the forth level to a second level heading. SkeletorUK (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Royal Society of South Australia

You asked me why I used "Society of South Australia, Royal" for Category:Organisations based in Australia with royal patronage. It is basically because "Royal" appears far too many times as the initial word to be useful for sorting, so I've told Wikipedia to ignore them. My complete reply is on my talk page. —Felix the Cassowary 06:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I'm giving you this barnstar because of your incredible level headed-ness. You WP:AGF, remain WP:CIVIL and you generally seem really WP:NICE. So I give you this deserved barnstar for being such a great Wiki-contributor. ScarianTalk 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lib's was joking about me buying RfA votes btw :-D - Anyway, I gave it to you because I noticed [After Lib's had explained his rationale] that you didn't continue arguing your point. You calmly agree'd with his way of thinking and you were very polite about it. We don't see much of that on Wikipedia and it is lovely to see that people are as mature as yourself. Take care. Happy editing! ScarianTalk 13:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Spell Checker

a javascript spell checker is available on Wikipedia, refer to the Help to find out more or contact me if you don't find. Martial BACQUET 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a Wikipedia spell checker. I use the spell checker built into my Mozilla browser. Further information can be found here: Wikipedia:Tools/Editing_tools#Spell_Checkers. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find wikEd running in Firefox very elegant with wiki syntax highlighting, spell checking and preview features. jmcw 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you gentlemen! (This is even more effective than "help me"!!) Pdfpdf 10:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Churchill, Winston; The Second World War Volume III, "The Grand Alliance", Chapter XVI Crete: The Battle. p265
  2. ^ http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/6to25/cub/intro.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive04&oldid=1142481383"