User talk:Keith-264#Seen This.3F

Hello Keith, you reverted a recent change here: "Why lengthen short footnotes?". The answer is: for consistency, clarity and reliable editing. I have also updated Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I which does use "The Times" in the short footnotes, and I did not notice that until too late, so consistency would have helped. "The Times" is the recognised title of the newspaper, so using it rather than just "Times" seems clearer. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

: I can't agree, the sfn links to the lfn which explains everything, which is what it's for. Has anyone else complained about consistency, clarity and reliability? I did these articles before November 2017 so my methods have evolved but I wouldn't alter the sfns when they exist to be short. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey man,

I wanna tel you something about your reverting on Battle of Verdun. I think you've seen on other battle articles that there are flags for the commanders and leaders, so i think you should just dtick with my revision. MrActiniuM ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Good morning, there are only French and German commanders so the national flags in the infobox already do that. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes] also. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::OK, thanks. MrActiniuM ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::: {{ping|MrActiniuM}} Any time mate. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I wonder why you removed my edits on infobox ? Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{{ping|Elazığ Ahmet}} Good afternoon, see the edit label; we can't use wiki to cite wiki and we shouldn't have to cite the lead or infobox because what goes in them should be items cited in the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Oh and I reverted Allied as it was an Entente (Britain, France and Russia) operation. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Re your revert:

- The short description is incorrect. The Programme didn't involve the Central Powers, only Germany

- The lead is too short. It gives you 3 names and states the Programme's aim in half a sentence. How was it implemented? Was it successful? The few sentences I added cover that, which is what a lead should do.

- the age range for the Auxiliary Services Act of 16 to 50 is incorrect

I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks.

GHStPaulMN (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|GHStPaulMN}} Good afternoon, The article is good enough for a B-class but that means that there is plenty of room for improvement (I did a bit this morning) You're right about the lead being a bit thin but we need to make sure that additions are derived from the article. If the age range is wrong, do you have a source for a change? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:The information for my expanded lead is all in the article. I made sure of that. As for the age range, see https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/erster-weltkrieg/industrie-und-wirtschaft/hindenburg-programm. I'll leave any additional updating to you. GHStPaulMN (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|GHStPaulMN}} How now? Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. And how now? GHStPaulMN (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

MOS:MILFLAG

"In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended but the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) acknowledges that it may be appropriate to use flags when summarizing military conflicts in an infobox. Nonetheless, flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider:

• Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not."

The guidline even points to an article about WW2 where this is the perfect example to use flagicons. The average reader isnt expected to know who the listed commanders of each side are fighting for at a first hand glance. The flagicons serve as an easy to understand visual aid. Every other WW2 battle article follows this same guideline for a reason.

Friedbyrd (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Friedbyrd}} Why do you want columns of flags, there must be a better way. Keith-264 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've already stated why, because it helps the average reader (who basically knows nothing about this battle or WW2) easily understand who the various commanders are of the various countries on either side of the battle. You just have misunderstood the guidelines surrounding flagicons and I can easily just turn that question around and ask why you dont want flagicons so much. You undid my edit by incorrectly citing a wikiguidline and when I pointed out this misunderstand, you just kept undoing while just saying I was being obtuse.

::Even in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which you cited, it says that summarizing a military conflict is an example of when its ok to use flagicons. You're the one being "obtuse" and "fatuous" here, not me.

::Friedbyrd (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Friedbyrd}} How do you know what the 'average reader' knows? Making defeatist assumptions about hypothetical readers who don't exist says more about you than anyone else. I don't like stuffing the infoboxes with repetitive information, it's banal. Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I just found this book that may be of interest: [https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Research%20and%20Books/2024/Nov/Final-days-of-Empire.pdf]. It focuses a lot on combat medical issues, but seems worthwhile on a quick read. Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks babe, I'll have a look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Keith-264. Thank you for your work on Operation Pedestal orders of battle. Another editor, Noleander, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Lead of article needs improvement to clarify the distinction between this article and the Operation Pedestal article. For example: First 2 words of the article in bold are "Operation Pedestal" which gives the reader the impression this article is about the entire battle (not just the OOB). Also, where is link to Operation Pedestal in the 1st paragraph?}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|{{Re|Noleander}}}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Noleander (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Re|Noleander}} Have a heart babe, I've only just started. Keith-264 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::No worries. I made my comment as part of the WP:New Pages Patrol process, which asks volunteers (e.g. me) to examine new pages and identify issues. If you want to avoid comments from NPP process, you can start writing the article in the WP:Drafts area, then move it into the normal WP area when the article is past the "under construction" phase. Noleander (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::: {{Re|Noleander}} The OOB got that big that I decided to start a new article this morning. I usually do new articles in a sandbox but they're full. Is there an 'under construction' banner that I can use? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, at the top of the article you can put

:::: {{Under construction}}

::::Noleander (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} {{Re|Noleander}} Thanks babe. Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)