User talk:Abraham, B.S.

User	Talk	Articles	Awards	DYK	Sandbox	Victoria Cross

Archives

Archive 1 (June 2007 – June 2008) Archive 2 (July – August 2008) Archive 3 (September – October 2008) Archive 4 (November – December 2008) Archive 5 (January – February 2009) Archive 6 (March – April 2009) Archive 7 (May – June 2009) Archive 8 (July – August 2009) Archive 9 (September – October 2009) Archive 10 (November – December 2009) Archive 11 (January – February 2010) Archive 12 (March – August 2010) Archive 13 (September 2010 – September 2012) Archive 14 (October 2012 – October 2014) Archive 15 (November 2014 – November 2016) Archive 16 (December 2016 – October 2020)

Welcome!

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

The smaller postnominals are an acceptable way of presenting the information, and that is how it was presented prior to recent edits. Don't just change it without asking. Leave the article alone. Deus et lex (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: Please see WP:OWN and WP:AGF – being rude and aggressive is not likely to get anyone anywhere. The formatting changes are consistent with Quentin Bryce, across Australian military biographies, and was the standard in Michael Bryce's article until 2019 (i.e. for more than ten of the 12 years the article has existed). Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "rude" or "aggressive" to revert. You don't have the right to just change something back without consensus, given it was formatted in a different way for quite a while. The fact military articles may be formatted differently doesn't matter. Discuss on the talk page if you want to change. Deus et lex (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To revert? No. But to demand someone not change something or not edit an article at all certainly is. There's a difference between asking for consensus and demanding someone ask permission to edit an article – again, I would strongly recommend you read WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Further, given Bryce was an RAAF officer and one of his two postnominals is a result of his service, consistency across Australian military articles is certainly relevant to this discussion. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

Hi there, I did not realize flags and images of that nature are not supposed to be in infoboxes as I see them all over the place on Wikipedia. Whether it be politicians, actors, etc.; nearly every article I see has them. So, my apologies, and moving forward if I see them I'll start removing them. Thanks :) Bloodyboppa (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Bloodyboppa:. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

Hi. Can you please explain further your justification for the revert, beyond just linking WP:ICON and WP:III? This is not consistent with other politicians who've previously served, such as Fred Nile and Andrew Hastie who have their rank insignia displayed. -- Tytrox (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's not much further I can add to what is already outlined in the MoS links. WP:INFOBOXFLAG, WP:ICON and WP:III were developed over time by community consensus. Basically, flags, icons, logos and so forth should not be added to infoboxes as they very rarely enhance the information already there and, indeed, often obscure it. If you have a look at the article histories for Fred Nile and Andrew Hastie, you'll notice that the flags and icons were relatively recent additions. Neither are exceptions to the MoS, but are in disregard of it. Hope that helps. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for your response. Suppose as long as there's consistency :) -- Tytrox (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

Hi - The issue of flags in infoboxes has cropped up again. As you know I have been supporting your drive to establish consistency in this area. Please could you take a look at Talk:Jan Smuts#Flags in infoboxes. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I want to talk to you about the GÉNÉRAL W.D. EYRE. He is not acting anymore.

Hello @P2bn: Edits to articles on Wikipedia, particularly those concerning biographies of living persons, need to be supportable by reliable sources. The current reliable sourcing in Wayne Eyre states that, although he has been promoted to full general, he is still acting as Chief of Defence Staff. Unless you can provide a more up-to-date reliable source that states otherwise, then the change you are making is not verifiable and cannot be reflected in the article. I hope that makes sense. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

Hello, I think we can come to some sort of agreement on this rather than removing each others edits. The current Ben Roberts Smith info box has his name with the "post nominals" directly underneath. I believe this could be a good compromise as it means that they have their appropriate honours. While due to it being on a line just below. Reduces the clutter you cited in your edits. Which i can fully understand.

Would you see it as appropriate if we were to leave Smith how he is and do the same for Keighran, Baird and Donaldson?

Please let me know your thoughts.

Lazeus (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to know why have you remove the Awards and decorations section in the admiral Art McDonald web site? Yes he is under investigation but he will keep his medals. Kindly

Hi. I didn't. I tagged the section as largely unreferenced and another editor removed the section for that same reason. Additions to Wikipedia need to be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons. Otherwise, the material may be challenged and removed, as was the case here. I hope that helps. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, For the Admiral I have added references for four out of ten medals. Some medals are given when you do a deployment and there is no references for other medals. References I have added were for the CMM, MSM, QDJM and the SCM. If I add them again will it be removed again? Thanks User:P2bn

Hi. Those awards remain mentioned, and cited, in the article – they appear in both the infobox and under the career section, so wouldn't need to be re-added. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

Re: this... no problem. I wondered what was going on! Grutness...wha? 06:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

Thank you for correcting my error that he won the MC 5 times (implying he held the MC with 4 bars, that would have been rare if not unique). This was based on what I now realise was a misread of his list of honours in the CWGC casualty record - I should have taken account of that comma which intended to indicate he was given 5 mentions in despatches.Cloptonson (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloptonson: No problem at all! And, yes, an MC with four Bars would indeed be unique...! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Hi, just checking. Is there any guidance in MOS on the use of 'Allegiance' for info boxes in any particular context? Rstory (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The "allegiance" parameter is used, as defined at Template:Infobox military person, to refer to "the country or other power the person served". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's clear for Porte's UK military service - some further study on whether that may include the US under 'other power' as well perhaps? RegardsRstory (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then show me where the consensus is to title them as Sir/Dame -- "do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, because doing so implies that the existing version is incorrect" So where is it existing beyond the opening sentence? Nowhere. Yet somehow you're interpretation is right? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snickers. Firstly, could I please recommend you read WP:AGF? Regarding MOS:SIR, the policy explicitly states that the use of honorific titles such as "Sir" and "Dame" is "optional" but "honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus." In each of the articles you edited, the honorific titles were not recent additions but long-standing and consistently applied. Removing the titles, without consensus or discussion, is contrary to MOS:SIR. Further, the reference to the opening sentence in the policy refers to the article's subject, not other individuals who may be mentioned in the body. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

You will recognize your words which I saw on my watchlist. I endorse your comment and was pleased to see it for two reasons. The first is that many VC recipient articles begin by including similar words to those used in the Arthur Aaron VC article that state the Victoria Cross is ‘the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces’. It is true but misleading. The statement that it is the highest award is qualified by including the criteria for the award. The rank of the award and its criteria should not be concatenated. Also, that it was previously awarded to Commonwealth and Indian forces should be in the history section not the first sentence. The second reason, which is more to the point, is many VC lists use slabs of text from the main VC article which are now mostly out of date. The text in lists should be describing the list not the award.

Re your featured Lists: List of Australian George Cross recipients. Craig Blanch in ‘For Gallantry’ published in 2020 included former EM recipient, Frank Duller GC. While I would be delighted if it was confirmed if Robert John Kirkham EM https://victoriacrossonline.co.uk/?page_id=28954 was an Australian soldier, his service record indicates he did not leave for England until the end 1917 and then deserted! He did not live to 1971 to exchange his award for the GC but if confirmed, the number of Australians EMs would increase by one. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Alfred Shout, introduced (in 2017): "It has been a little while since my last FAC, but I think this one is up to scratch. Shout was a New Zealand-born soldier and Australian Victoria Cross recipient of the First World War. Commissioned into the AIF not long after its formation, Shout took part in the Gallipoli invasion on 25 April 1915, was awarded the Military Cross for his "conspicuous courage and ability" over the next two days, and soon after Mentioned in Despatches. His VC was posthumously awarded for his actions at Lone Pine in August 1915 – after Ottoman forces had recaptured a section of trench, Shout twice led small parties of men to clear them out. He was mortally wounded when a bomb he was throwing exploded prematurely. Shout was the most highly decorated man in the AIF at Gallipoli, and his VC sold for a world record auction price in 2006." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

Hey! I've been going over the Class B review for the Rick Burr article for the last couple of days and I seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. On that article specificly it requires refences for {Defence Cooperation Medal (Japan), Legion of Honour (France), Army Meritorious Service Star (Indonesia)}, however the weekend has proven fruitless for finding specific refences, with the exception of images of the man wearing the specific medals. For the Japanese medal specifically, it appears to be awarded in addition to the Legion of Merit (Officer) after a tour as the deputy commander USA Pacific as every Australian to hold that post appears wearing it right after moving on to their next assignment (Greg Bilton, Roger Noble, Daniel McDaniel and likely to have Chris Smith joining them). But no posts about the award ceremonies are made from what I haven't been able to find. My question to you is, what are your thoughts on this?

Do we;

• 1) Reference images of the generals wearing the medals as sufficient evidence.
• 2) Leave the honours in the articles with no specific references.
• 3) Remove mention of all honours that don't have a specific reference (even though we have images of the generals wearing the medals)

The Michael Noonan (admiral) article is a good example of this predicament, most of the foreign honours don't have specific references, however, we have images of the man wearing the insignia. Furthermore, the Royal Australian Navy used Wikipedia as a reference for the list of his honours in numerous articles, Facebook posts and comments. For me personally I can identify most of the commonly awarded foreign medals to Australians at ten paces, though the Army Meritorious Service Star (Indonesia) threw me for quite a while. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until there is a reference, I support option 1. I am not sure what reference you are seeking. Is it that the award was officially granted to the individual by the foreign government or that the award was officially approved by the Governor-General to accept and wear? The good news is that the recent regular Australian Bravery Decorations were gazetted for the first time in ten years and hopefully Australia Day and King's Birthday honours will similarly be gazetted in future. It is crazy that in the last ten years while ordinary citizens never saw their name in the gazette unless it was cancelled, awards to foreigners have always been gazetted. While it is OK to publish the names of foreigners a similar courtesy should be applied to Australians. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Staunton Pretty much yeah, referencing foreign honours to individuals can be near impossible, with the exception of a few (standard) foreign honours to from Singapore. I'll proceed with option 1 for the time being then, many thanks for your input! Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

Hello, you removed the ribbons that I had put for the decorations of the soldier Bryan Budd.  If for you these additions are useless additions do not hesitate to discuss it on the talk page.  I remind you however that it is a standard on a large number of pages (including extremely consulted for example Honours of Winston Churchill in addition to their certain educational interest. for these reasons I have therefore deleted your  edit.

Dralon99 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per TFAR request, this is to let you know that the Alfred Shout article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 25, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 25, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

In the early hours of 30 June 2023 you reversed an edit I had made about 90 minutes earlier, where I capitalised the description of the rank to which Knighton had been promoted - so I edited "air chief marshal" to read Air Chief Marshal. You reversed that, explaining "ranks are not proper nouns, so are only capitalised when attached to an individual's name". I believe schoolboy grammar is irrelevant here, what matters is usage. There seems no settled Wikipedia house style on this matter; some text agrees with you, other text does not. Just within the article "Royal Air Force" in the section "Senior management" the list of responsibilities and the rank associated with them uses capitalised ranks when no names are involved. Confusingly, in the subsequent section "Ranks", commissioned ranks are shown with the first word capitalised, the rest not, so Air marshal, Wing commander, though non-commissioned ranks are fully capitalised, so Warrant Officer, Flight Sergeant. Finally, rather than grammar or Wikipedia style I would follow the usage of the Royal Air Force itself. https://recruitment.raf.mod.uk/career-progression (retrieved 2 July 2023) confirms that ranks, with and without personal names attached are capitalised. I therefore propose to reverse your reversal of my original edit. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ShropshirePilgrim: Please see MOS:MILTERMS -- while the military may tend to capitalise ranks, ranks are not proper nouns and community consensus on Wikipedia is that they be decapitalised unless attached to a name. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say there is "community consensus on Wikipedia" but I say (and have given you chapter and verse on JUST the RAF article on Wikipedia) that there is no such consensus. I imagine there are, possibly many, other examples I could find if I didn't have a life to lead. Are you going to go round and sniff out all the occasions where the text differs from your view (which is clearly not universally shared) or is it just me? ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read MOS:MILTERMS. This is Wikipedia's manual of style on military terms, which was developed through community-driven consensus. MOS:MILTERMS states: "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people, below. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general." Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

I actually don't accept the business of changing World War I to First World War, say. It is longer, and also tendentious. I don't think the "Great War" or "European War", as contemporaries called it, was the first global war: the Seven Years War or later great power conflicts of the 18th and early 19th centuries went on in many parts of the world.

To get back to the article titles: WP:CRITERIA is supposed to apply, so if the Wikipedia article is called "World War I", that should be good enough to use. I don't see that your reference to "British and Commonwealth usage" is that helpful: I'm British. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding your edit to the Tommy Prince article. Regarding the post-nomials of MM (Military Medal) and SSM (Silver Star), it may not (although I am not sure of this) be permitted for the recipient to use the post-nomial if the honour was conferred by a foreign government. The language is not clear in the Canadian act, which does not directly address the issue of post-nomials relating to foreign medals. See: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/medals/cf-honours-policy-manual/chapter7.html However, it is allowable and common practice for others writing about the recipient in a biographical description to use the post-nomial as a description, regardless whether or not the honour or medal was foreign or Canadian. Thus, Tommy Prince himself would not have used SSM for his Silver Star in his signatures or correspondence, but a biographical account of him could do so. I would suggest that mention of the Silver Star be included in the introduction. Note that Canada Post, an official Canadian government office, includes mention of the Silver Star in the Tommy Prince postage stamp in his honour. Tennisedu (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It would be perfectly reasonable to include mention of the Silver Star in the introduction. However, the Silver Star itself does not carry post-nominals. In fact, no US military decoration does. Post-nominals are mostly unique to the United Kingdom and a number of Commonwealth nations. So, in this case, it's not an issue of foreign post-nominals being used, but rather that the decoration in question does not confer the recipient with post-nominals. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Actually there seems to be much misunderstanding about this issue for the U.S. decorations. The restriction seems to apply only to the recipient himself and not to anyone else, even the military uses post-nomials to describe the soldiers.. The use of post-nomials is quite correct for U.S. awards given used in descriptions of the recipient by others. For example, in printed descriptions of the individual as a celebrity dinner speaker or guest, the program will include the post-nomials, or in biographical descriptions (NOT auto-biographical descriptions). The U.S. military will automatically include post-nomials in headstone descriptions of medal winners. See for example the headstones of Audie Murphy and other medal winners, "on the government issued headstones...for military/naval personnel it is the common practice to note major conflicts and decorations unless you tell them not to do so." Also, military discharge papers for U.S. soldiers use post-nomials to describe the record of the soldier. "...award abbreviations appear on DD 214 (discharge papers), so that is as close to post-nominal usage as can be expected."

https://gmic.co.uk/topic/74987-does-us-medals-confer-post-nominals/ Tennisedu (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, Audie Murphy and other U.S. medal recipients had post-nomials on their gravestones automatically by the U.S. military who provided the headstones. The same thing happened for Tommy Prince, as can clearly be seen here, the ""SS" denotes Silver Star. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/11860394/tommy-prince This practice was in keeping with the U.S. military tradition. The Canadian military provided this gravestone for Prince with the "SS" post-nomial on the headstone, so this usage is officially authorized by the Canadian government. The representatives of the Crown attended the ceremony, so the Crown has given authorization for the SS post-nomial in the case of Prince. Tennisedu (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Abbreviations are not the same as post-nominal letters. The notations on grave markers to which you refer are abbreviations to indicate the awards received. One can tell the difference in that, unlike post-nominals, the letters do not immediately follow the individual's name. As mentioned above, no US award confers official, authorised post-nominals. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

Hey hey, what are your thoughts on Simon Stuart (general) going up to GA? I'm taking a week off work starting the 11th and want to try and sink my teeth into getting it up potentially. Just seeing what you think about what may need to be done for it. I generally don't tread above B mainly because I know I'm not that good. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 May 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for the article about "a senior Royal Australian Air Force officer and First World War flying ace"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

hi @Abraham, B.S.,

Where do you go to in citations for the medals belonging to Australian military figure? There used to be a government site, itsanhonour.gov.au where you could check, but that seems to have been shut down. Any tips? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @User:MatthewDalhousie. It's an Honour technically still exists, but has been rebranded as (the terribly named) Australian Honours Search Facility. The searchable database can be found here. Otherwise, the Australia Day and Monarch's Birthday honours lists can be found on the Governor-General's website here. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that's where the database went! Thank you @Abraham, B.S..

However, it's not helping me find information on medals for the the subject at hand - which is the retired SASR officer Mark Wales. (The only person the database turns up is a Prison Officer who shares the same name, and won the National Medal in 1998.)

Looking at the medals he's seen wearing in the media, and making deductions from his service story, I think I've figured things out, which you can see here. But I'm really looking for some database or journal where that is validated.

Appreciate any further suggestions you may have. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. It's an Honour/Australian Honours Search Facility only includes decorations and select (gazetted) long-service medals. It does not include general service or campaign medals. This is one of the reasons why ribbon bars and lists of service awards tend not to be included in most articles on Australian military figures – such sections are often unreferenced or require original research. That, and they tend to detract from the main content of the article for little added value. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will let it be. If I see some article in the future that mentions the medals, then I will use that.

By the way, fantastic work on the Teddy Sheean article. One of our greatest stories. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you get a heads up, If you weren't already aware, apparently the "community" have now chosen to completely do away with postnominals from all articles, and the systematic change has begun. see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies.

I know I didn't see any notifications about that discussion. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Nford24. I wasn't aware of that discussion either, otherwise I would have weighed in. I very much doubt the change will be well received by the broader community. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at a diverse range of works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the "center of gravity"

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Tokyo war crimes trials

Hello, just me again. I'm doing an article on the senate inquiry into the defence honours scandal, and I was hoping you'd cast your eye over the draft User:Nford24/2024 review of the Defence Honours and Awards system. The senate committee is reporting back on 28 November 2024, so do you think I should wait until its report is published before moving the article into mainspace or post largely as is this week? Many thanks! Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 13:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've reverted your reversion of my removal of "Sir" for other people because you have misunderstood the MOS on this point. The consistent use of titles in an article, such as "Sir", *only* applies to the *subject of the article* as the MOS mentions. It does not include other people with the same title who are also mentioned in the article, especially not in info boxes where, in nearly all cases except for royality, people's titles are not included. Regards, Quizical (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Respectfully, I would recommend a re-read of MOS:SIR -- although the policy states that the title should be included in the initial reference in the lead/infobox of the subject's article, the remainder of the policy is not at all limited to the subject of an article. It is also inaccurate to say that infoboxes do not include the titles of others. Indeed, it is a common practice and the removal of such titles is against the advice of the MOS. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm looks at the bayou battles for Vicksburg

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Army divisions in the Pacific War, Nick-D on the First Indochina War

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at battles of Operation Veritable in 1945

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franco-Prussian War Op-ed: Nick-D visits the Swiss Air Force Museum

Morning,

I found you on the military biography project page and hoped you could help.

In any case I created the account when I saw a certain page that was quite poor and though - this chap was a martial of France he deserves something a little better. So slowly I edited it, but one area I knew very little about was his time in Algeria. Anyway this winter I got myself a book on Algeria party for personal interest, partly so I could tidy up that page.

Anyway some edits latter I'm on Emir Abdelkader - Wikipedia and I add some information - he paid a money sum to a French officer in exchange for some secret provisions.

And frankly I feel harassed by another user there, I have explained the rationale for the addition they will not justify the removal other than it can go elsewhere.

I feel its a critical event in this persons life, because out of that payment he obtains things that strengthened the state he was leading. The very next part of the article is indeed about how in the next couple of years this guy stabilises his state.

I cannot think of any other person whom if they engaged in a similar quid pro quo it would not appear relevant to put in someone's biography.

Could you if you have time have a look in at this as I have said here, I feel quite alone as new user I dont know what to do really.

Best regards,

LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LeChatiliers Pupper: Welcome to Wikipedia! As a newbie, it may be worth taking a look at WP:WELCOME, if you haven't done so already, for a general introduction to Wikipedia, how it works, and some of the key policies that guide editing.

I'm sorry that you are having a difficult time editing Emir Abdelkader. I must admit, I'm not an expert in the topic and, as I am currently travelling, I may not be the best person to offer assistance. What I can recommend is that you post a neutrally-worded request for imput on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, mentioning that you are a new editor. You will likely get one or two friendly and experienced editors, who will weigh in on the dispute and try to offer the best option to move forward.

I hope that helps and, again, welcome to Wikipedia. Kind regards, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abraham, B.S. - thanks for your excellent contributions and I fear I may have made a mess of Template:Post-nominals/GBR/doc by attempting to correct the nomenclature from & Bar to with Bar. I just saw your comment about long-standing usage on Wiki (so apologies for having already made that edit), but long-standing or not, the correct post-nom terminology for British military decorations is with Bar, with two Bars &c...

I also note that, since many online publications follow Wiki's suit, the phrasing & Bar is becoming ever more commonplace. What to do?! I leave it in your capable hands. Many thanks. Best Primm1234 (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject