Talk:Fokker Scourge/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

CE

The period is usually considered to have begun in July–August 1915 How can something "begin in" consecutive months? Either it began in July or in August. If authorities vary we need to show that.Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok - we could make this bit more/less specific (what about simply "August", or even "July") NOT an event to have a definite day of starting really - but lets settle the more general when question first. (see above) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Which one was it? Keith-264 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You know that! Wintgens first (unconfirmed) victory on 1st July (which recent historians recognise as the first "eindecker" victory) - or the "traditional" date - 1st of August Immelmann's first (confirmed) victory. Since its "usually considered" and I'm in my eighties and allowed to be a little out of date I'm perfectly happy with August. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

But please lets do para one first!!

I've changed this to "August" - but there was actually nothing wrong with "July or August" or even "July/August" in the context of "usually considered" - we could even change that to "traditionally considered". Or (with a source) take that bit about when the RFC started to notice something was going on (September) - whatever you think. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Structure

@Musicals: I'm still uneasy about the structure of the article; have we done enough to differentiate between the tactical history of the Eindecker and the propaganda campaign that was conducted after it? Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't think we confuse them unduly - apart from the lead - which of course summarises the whole article, each aspect has its own sections. The link is "subliminal" really - provided we make it clear than the losses - considered as eindecker victories were actually not that heavy - a thoughtful reader can work it out for himself that the fuss was a bit overdone without us going on about it too much. I am just a little unhappy over some sentences that read as if they have been edited by a BOT - where mechanical "style improvements" have actually changed the intended meaning, or rendered it obscure. Those things really need to be applied with great care or you get into all kinds of mess - exactly like a spell checker - you can't believe everything it says. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Commas before "and"

I think that at least one of the BOTs used by some editors to cut unnecessary commas must be a bit draconian. Anyway, I have restored a number of eliminated commas that are actually required by the sense - especially to delimit parenthetical clauses/phrases. This took a painstaking manual run through the entire article. If anyone thinks there are any commas that really grate - then please raise the matter first here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I was sorry to see that Soundofmusicals felt the need to take this to arbitration; a quick glance at the Arbitration page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comma usage dispute shows that the request for arbitration appears to be heading toward a consensus to decline acceptance of the case. I have not had any interaction (that I recall) with either Keith-264 or Soundofmusicals, but when I saw something about "comma", I thought I'd take a look. I thought perhaps I might be able to help resolve the issues here. I reviewed the latest edits, beginning with this edit and going back to this edit. I think both points of view have some validity, and I'll point those out in a minute. I can also understand Keith-264's statement at the Arbitration page, "my laconic prose and Sounds's flowery circumlocutions don't mix". I was a bit surprised that, at User talk:Keith-264#Commas before conjunctions, the discussion seemed to focus on the merits of the Oxford comma when, at least to my eye, many of the commas in question in that series of edits mentioned above had little to do with the Oxford comma. Before I take some edits one by one, I'd like to say that, generally:

• Keith-264 does write more concisely than Soundofmusicals, and for that reason I would support several of his edits. Soundofmusicals, several times you use more words than are necessary to say something.

• I agree with most, but not all, of the commas Soundofmusicals has added. It is true that when used to set off a phrase parenthetically (where a pair of parentheses could be used instead), two commas, one on either side of the phrase, are needed. However, occasionally, Soundofmusicals, you set off a phrase (with a pair of commas) that does not need to be set off. For that reason, I would say that you sometimes overuse the comma. I will point out a few examples of this. Generally, there are three possibilities with regard to the comma:

(a) Situations where the comma is required, or at least usually used by good writers;

(b) situations where no comma is necessary, and most good modern writers would not use one; and

(c) situations where it is a stylistic choice to use a comma – some writers would use a comma, but others would not. Note that commas are used less frequently than they used to be.

One place where a comma is required, or at least usually used – (a) – is following the first independent clause (complete sentence) in a compound sentence, that is, a sentence comprising one or more independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction ("and", "or", "but", etc.): [Independent clause], and [independent clause]. The only time it might be acceptable to leave out the comma is if both clauses are quite short, or as a literary technique to speed up the flow of the sentence. So Keith-264, you can see that to say that "punctuation next to a conjunction is never justified" isn't quite right. You can, however, say that it is a stylistic choice whether to use a comma before a conjunction that comes before the last item in a list (the Oxford comma), and that you believe the comma is unnecessary. That's a style question, and people can differ regarding questions of style.

Regarding the use, or non-use, of the Oxford comma, I grew up being told that no comma was needed before a conjunction ("and", "or", "for", "nor", "so", "but", and "yet") that precedes the last item in a list. The first time I saw the Oxford comma was when I started editing on WP. I then learned that some style guides require it, and others do not. I actually have been persuaded that it adds clarity to a sentence, but I do not insist upon it, and I do not think it is worth arguing over. Also, I don't think it is the main problem with the commas in the various edits here, so it is almost a non-issue here.

I will now discuss some edits one by one:

1) In this group of edits, Soundofmusicals added a number of commas in this sentence:

• The number of aircraft in front line service was small, and the development of air fighting was rudimentary, but the German Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL the high command of the army) had ordered the development of machine-gun armed aircraft to counter those of the Allies, including the aggressive employment of the new armed two-seaters (the "C" types) and "fighter" uses for twin-engined aircraft such as the AEG G.II.

I can see you felt "and the development of air fighting was rudimentary" ought to be enclosed in a pair of commas to set it off. Your addition of the two commas is not wrong, but, because there really is no reason to set it apart from the first clause – no need to minimize it, and it's not an afterthought – it really should be given equal weight to the first clause – I would not set it off with either parentheses or commas. What I might do, though, is to remove the second "was":

The number of aircraft in front line service was small and the development of air fighting rudimentary...

However, the second comma, after "rudimentary", is necessary because it follows an independent clause that precedes another independent clause.

2) Later, in this edit, Keith-264 changed "was rudimentary" to "had only begun". I wonder, was the development of air fighting rudimentary, or was air fighting rudimentary? Can you really say the development [of something] was rudimentary? I would say "the development of air fight was still in its early stages", and Keith-264's wording, "the development of air fighting had only begun", is pretty close to that.

3) In this later edit, Keith-264 removed "but" and separated the two clauses. I agree with this. The paragraph seems to be a series of statements about the advances made by various powers. The German moves were not made in response to "The number of aircraft in front line service was small and the development of air fighting rudimentary", so there is no need to indicate contrast. (I'm not even sure this is the best place in the paragraph for this clause just mentioned; it seems a little out of place.)

4) Keith replaced Soundofmusical's "(OHL the high command of the army)" with "(OHL army high command)", and Soundofmusical changed it back. Soundofmusical, I'm surprised you would write, "the high command of the army" instead of "[the] army high command". "Army high command" is colloquial English, a very common phrase. "The high command of the army" sounds like a translation from a Romance language such as French: la directoire haute de l'armée, or something like that. If that is what Keith-264 meant by "flowery", I have to agree with him. It is unnecessary.

5) Next, I'd like you to focus on the second clause, which Keith-264 made into a separate sentence. I'm going to remove the parenthetical explanation of the German phrase for a minute.

• the German Oberste Heeresleitung had ordered the development of machine-gun armed aircraft to counter those of the Allies, including the aggressive employment of the new armed two-seaters (the "C" types) and "fighter" uses for twin-engined aircraft such as the AEG G.II.

I'm going to temporarily pare the sentence down a bit to show you something:

• the German Oberste Heeresleitung had ordered the development of machine-gun armed aircraft..., including the aggressive employment of the new armed two-seaters (the "C" types) and "fighter" uses for twin-engined aircraft such as the AEG G.II.

The information that follows "including" should be one or more types of machine-gun armed aircraft – that is, nouns (like "aircraft"). Instead, you have "the aggressive employment [of something]". "Employment" (though a noun) is not an example of aircraft. Those words, "the aggressive employment of", or even "the aggressive employment of the", should be removed. The noun that is an example of "machine-gun armed aircraft" is "armed two-seaters". Even "fighter uses" is not right there. The second noun phrase example is "twin-engined aircraft such as AEG G.II". If you need to specify, you can add something like "fitted for fighter use" at the end. So Keith-264 was right to remove "the aggressive employment of the".

6) In this edit, Soundofmusicals added a comma after "proposed" in this sentence:

• This was not the first such gear proposed, but was the first to be fitted to an aircraft and proved in flight.

and Keith-264 promptly removed it in the next edit.

Because what follows "but" is not a clause – it has no subject and is a second verb phrase for the subject at the beginning of the sentence ("This"), no comma is needed after "proposed". Some writers seem to like using a comma there, but it is definitely not necessary, and I would not put one there. It would read as follows:

• This was not the first such gear proposed but was the first to be fitted to an aircraft and proved in flight.

On the other hand, I don't think it is important enough to edit-war over. If the pronoun "it" is added so that the verb phrase becomes an independent clause, then I would say the comma is needed:

• This was not the first such gear proposed, but it was the first to be fitted to an aircraft and proved in flight.

7) In this edit, Soundofmusicals removed two commas in this sentence, the ones immediately before and after the parenthetical phrase "(military designation A.III)", with this edit summary: "Brackets here supply the parenthetical effect of the commas - which does not need "reinforcement":

• The device was fitted to the most suitable Fokker type, the M.5K, (military designation A.III), of which A.16/15 assigned to Otto Parschau became the prototype of the E.I.

leaving the sentence as follows:

• The device was fitted to the most suitable Fokker type, the M.5K (military designation A.III) of which A.16/15 assigned to Otto Parschau became the prototype of the E.I.

8) Now, it is true that a pair of commas would duplicate the pair of parentheses (or brackets), so are not needed, and should not be used, if the parentheses (brackets) are used, but there are other issues here.

(1) The phrase "the M.5K", with the explanatory "(military designation A.III)", is an appositive. It is itself an explanation of "the most suitable Fokker type", and it should be enclosed in a pair of commas. The first comma is after "Fokker type". The second comma should come after "(military designation A.III)", but Soundofmusicals removed it. It's got to be put back. Also, the adjective clause "of which A.16/15...became the prototype of the E.I." represents extra information – information that is not necessary to understand, or identify, "the M.5K (military designation A.III)", so we call it a non-restrictive (i.e., non-limiting, non-identifying) adjective clause. Non-restrictive adjective clauses are always preceded by a comma. So, we have two reasons why there should be a comma after "(military designation A.III)": (a) it's the second comma in a pair of commas surrounding an appositive phrase, and (b) it precedes a non-restrictive adjective clause beginning with "of which". So, the sentence should be punctuated as follows:

• The device was fitted to the most suitable Fokker type, the M.5K (military designation A.III), of which A.16/15 assigned to Otto Parschau became the prototype of the E.I.

Also, if there was only one "A.16/15", we would write:

• of which A.16/15, [which was] assigned to Otto Parschau, became.... (where the phrase "assigned to Otto Parschau" is a reduced/shortened non-restrictive adjective clause that is just adding a piece of extra information), so needs to be set off with a pair of commas or a pair of dashes).

If there were more than one "A.16/15s", and one of them was assigned to Otto Parschau, and we want to focus on that one, we would write:

• of which the A.16/15 [which/that was] assigned to Otto Parschau became... (where the phrase "assigned to Otto Parschau" is a reduced/shortened restrictive adjective clause – one that is essential to understanding what A.16/15 was – so requires no commas). It all depends upon what you mean.

9) In this group of edits, I think most of the added commas are correct. There are one or two that I do not think are necessary, and I am going to remove them in an edit, which I think is the easiest way for me to point them out.

I hope this has helped, and that the two of you can go back to collaborating on topics in which you clearly share an interest. If you come up against against a disagreement that you cannot seem to resolve, feel free to leave a question for me (I'll try to make my replies more concise if I can) or one of the other coordinators at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, or the very helpful and knowledgeable editor, Rothorpe. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest; I fear that explaining your reasons for adding commas to conjunctions misses the point. I think that if writer feels a need to put a comma next to a conjunction, they ought to to rewrite the sentence. It seems to me that, like lots of people, you are trying to adapt an informal conversational style of communication to prose. I think it's best to treat spoken and written English as dialects with separate rules. In this article, there are two incompatible prose styles and I think that there can be no compromise, one has to go. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Keith, sorry, but it's you who "miss the point" - it's not a matter of "flowery prose" versus "succinct" writing, nor is it a matter of "colloquial" versus "formal" language - at this point we're just discussing commas, and I would appreciate your keeping to the subject - time enough to talk of other things (like my "flowery" style?) elsewhere and at another time. To be perfectly frank your rule that you "can't have a comma before a conjunction" just isn't so. Corinne, who I suspect knows more about the formal rules of English syntax and punctuation than either of us, just told you so. In fact many necessary commas (in perfectly well written prose) happen to come before conjunctions. Several people have commented on this now - including some of the folk who thought I was a bit premature with my arbitration request - and not one of them agreed with you. Just pick a book from your bookcase (make sure it's a well written one) and read a page or two looking out for commas before conjunctions. So everyone else is wrong and you're right? No shame in being wrong; I am, quite often, goodness knows. Just get over it and get on to something else.

@Corinne sorry for the above. I came here to report on my latest edit to the Fokker Scourge article. I have made several of the edits you suggested, including restoring some of Keith's that only went because he bundled them with deleted commas. I have actually rewritten the "OKL" paragraph altogether, as it was a little murky. If you feel it still needs some work then please let me know. Hopefully it is now at least a bit easier to understand for a non-aviation enthusiast. You did not specify the "one or two [restored commas] that you do not think are necessary" so I am not able to tackle these - by all means either do them yourself or give me a few clues. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

We've discussed this on and off for ages and the only conclusion I've reached is that you can't write. Regrets Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see you have given up ad hominem.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a description of a fact not an insult; you can't. What did you think you were doing when you tried to get other editors to gang up? Keith-264 (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not I (or you) can write good English is not relevant to this discussion, which is about correct punctuation. For what it's worth I think we both write at least as clearly as the average Wiki editor, for what that's worth. The "fact" that you don't like me very much IS ad hominem, anyway. Like who cares? I'm almost at the stage when insults from you are sounding like compliments. By the way, I studiously avoided "ganging up" (or giving the impression of so doing) - the other editors who have responded have done so purely on their interest on the subject, none of them are "mates" of mine. Turns out I tried the wrong way to settle things - "Arbitration" is, as I know now only as a last resort. You're supposed to be able to demonstrate that you've been fighting and edit warring and all kinds of sh*t which is exactly what I have been trying to avoid. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Keith-264, I don't know where you got the idea that commas are not to be used before conjunctions. Here are just a few links to support what I said above, that a comma is used after an independent clause that is followed by a coordinating conjunction ("and", "but", "or", etc.) and another independent clause, and there are other instances where a comma might precede a coordinating conjunction.

Grammar Book
The Punctuation Guide See in particular the sections "The listing comma" and "Commas based on sentence structure".
Grammarly Note the examples of the incorrect addition of commas in the section "Comma Between Two Verbs in a Compound Predicate". The section "Comma with an Appositive" is interesting, as is the section "Comma Between Coordinate Adjectives". See the sections "Comma Before But", "Comma Before And", "Commas with Lists", and "Serial Comma (Oxford Comma)".
Oxford Dictionaries

It really doesn't contribute to a cooperative relationship among editors to say to someone that they can't write, unless it's really bad and they are messing up WP articles that others have to spend time cleaning up, and in that case, you can get help from admins to address the issue, but I don't think that's the case here. If you are objective, I think you'll admit Soundofmusicals has contributed a lot to WP articles. I think a more productive approach would be to try one of these:

• Explain why you think a certain wording or punctuation is inappropriate and suggest alternate wording. If you think it would help, provide a link to a relevant passage in an on-line guide to writing or even a Wikipedia article such as English grammar, Punctuation of English, Comma, Apostrophe, Relative clauses, or the WP Manual of Style.
• Ask another editor for a second opinion.
• Leave it alone; if it's obviously wrong, or poorly written, someone else will come along and fix it at some point.

You both seem to have an interest in a topic that is not one of the most common, so your efforts to write and improve these articles are needed. I wish you both all the best.  – Corinne (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and trouble but I don't find it helpful for someone to act as a self-appointed judge. Might I suggest that if you come back you mention whether you are applying AmEng or BritEng criteria? I infer that you're an American, which means that some of your judgements are not germane. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What a relief to be discussing things relevant to the article again!

The meaning here is that the high command of the German army were disturbed that they were losing one or two aircraft to French Morane Ls and British Gun Busses because the bounders were carrying machine guns. The new classes of (machine gun armed aircraft) they were pushing to address this situation included the new "C" class aircraft, with a gun in back seat, and the equally new "K" class ("K" for "Kampf" or however you spell it) with guns fore and aft. All this is before there was, strictly speaking, any such thing as a fighter. German sources are pretty unanimous is claiming the Fokker Eindecker as the "first fighter", but this is what happened, rather than what was planned.

Now do we get all this into that paragraph? I'm not quite sure the link between the sentence about what the OHL were initiating and the description of how they did it is clear. As for substituting "escort duties" for "fighter-like" ones - the original point of the "aggressive" bit was that they (the crews of the C and K class aircraft) were also actually going for their opponents - a number of famous fighter pilots got their first victory flying a "C". As you may remember, even Richthofen had a go in a "K" for a while, in his book he calls them "large battle planes". If we are going to add something to "escort" duties (true but just a little beside the point) then do we want to re-add something to restore the "agressive" bit? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Last two changes

Liked the Supermarine one - nearly wanted to do something similar myself but didn't want to be shot down for being too prolix - other one starting to get too detailed and long-winded (which you of all people don't want). The "K"s (and at first the "C"s, before they started to achieve the status of standard equipment for the FFAs) were indeed issued in "ones and twos" to reconnaissance units (as indeed were the Fokkers!) - but how relevant is this HERE? This whole section is a brief background to the subject of the article. Different sources take several (partly contradictory) approaches - ideally we might want to distinguish the "C"s - several of them piloted by people who were among the Fokker aces, and the "K"s - which really WERE a dead loss, even as escorts. But all of this can only make the article longer.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph!

In early 1915, as aerial warfare developed, the Allies (especially the French) were ahead of the Germans in the fitting of machine guns to aircraft. The first aircraft used with some success as fighters included the British Vickers F.B.5 (Vickers Gunbus) and the French Morane-Saulnier L. The number of aircraft operating over the Western Front in 1914 and 1915 was small compared to later years and air warfare was in its infancy, but the German Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, army high command) had already ordered the development of machine-gun-armed aircraft to counter the armed aircraft of the Allies. The new "C" class armed two-seaters and twin-engined "K" (later "G") class aircraft such as the AEG G.II were attached in ones and twos to Feldflieger-Abteilungen (artillery-observation and reconnaissance detachments) to escort unarmed aircraft.

This paragraph is an important little introduction. I really think this version "will do", in spite of the heavy weather we've been making of it. There is nothing whatever in it that is "flowery", "ungrammatical", or "informal". It conveys the intended meaning. Above all - it contained no over-long or convoluted sentences that "need" breaking up.

To summarise - it has these "thoughts":

• 1. The French and British had already armed some aircraft with machine guns.
• 2. The Germans (before the Fokkers came out) were already responding to this with armed aircraft of their own.

Each thought is now expressed clearly - especially the rather more complex second thought.

Before you revert it, Keith, could you just read this para through, as a paragraph. No objection to your further refining it - provided it still means the same thing, and is demonstrably "better" in style. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That lead!

The very last thing I want is for this controversy to last any longer, so I have have tried to minimise alterations here - adding clarification (and, incidentally, the main fact about the Eindekkers). If cutting the "surprise" adrift from the "psychological effect" is to be set in stone as a "better order", then the resulting confusion is probably best met by cutting one or the other out. "Plain language" dictates it is the "surprise" that should remain. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Infancies

The "split and spice" of sentences in the "Early air warfare" section unfortunately divides the intended thought, losing part of the intended meaning, on the other hand I think I can see what was bothering Keith here, and I have made my own edit - effectively cutting out a repetition of the "infancy" idea. Is this better? -Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if you are an ingenious hoaxer because each of your edits is worse than the last. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If some of my edits could be improved (as they could well be, on occasion, and I'm trying very hard to keep my changes as "minimalist" as possible, and not to disturb your sincere efforts unless it seems really necessary) then tell me what exactly is wrong, and suggest a positive change. I long since gave up worrying about your ridiculous personal remarks, in fact they have become so VERY predictable they are worth a chuckle or two - but with the best will in the world they are simply not very helpful. The usual style for RAF squadrons is to use "No." or "Number" before the number - thus we generally talk about (e.g.) "No. 666 Squadron". Just look at the articles for the RAF squadrons, or "go read a book", if you don't understand this for some reason. You seem to like to follow rigid rules - what about a rule that when we link anything we keep as close to the actual name of the article concerned as possible? Makes sense. As for "first must be followed by a singular" surely "the first of" is pretty meaningless except before a plural!

If my wording strikes you as too "wordy" or whatever, by all means suggest a viable alternative (I have accepted dozens of your changes as either genuine improvements or at least acceptable alternatives) - but please make sure that it means the same thing as the text you are changing, and in fact that it makes some kind of sense. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We've been at this for nearly two years and I've run out of patience.Keith-264 (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - but whether you are patient or not has no bearing on the case. Get your paytience back - and then return to rationality, or we'll nevcer get anywhere. "No. 7 sqadron RAF" is the usual form for presenting the name of an RAF squadron in the Airforce itself, in books on the subject, and in every article in Wikipedia on such a squadron (and, incidentally the vast majority of mentions of squadrons within other articles (although we do seem to drop the "No." now and then, apparently for variety). This has rather less than nothing to do with "using WIkipedia as a source", and even less to do with your (or my) patience. I challenge you to find one with a record of constructive edits of WWI aviation articles who agress with you. I challenge you to present one argument why the normal format already established needs to be overturned in this case. IF you are right, and IF this is a matter worth arguing over there are literally hundreds of entries in dozens of articles that will need changing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

[1] Wiki is not a source.Keith-264 (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You are as aware as I am of the fatuousness of this argument. Our dispute over the format of the presentation of the name of an RFC squadron has nothing to do with "fact" requiring verification, and simply points out what has remained pretty standard style over a great many articles. I suggest that your desire to set a new and variant style for this article is at best just a little bit silly. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Keeping to their own side of the lines.

I have cut a clause about the German air superiority as redundant (a bit obvious actually) - and rearranged another to bring relevant clauses together. Hope this is not too "eccentric" for you. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Royal Aircraft Factory (Putnam's British aircraft) by Paul R. Hare

Does anyone have a copy for cite 55? Sadly Amazon doesn't have a peekaboo for it. Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Petebutt I think I repaired the effect of my edit conflict and I'll step aside for a while to avoid another one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There are (according to the index to the work in question) references to C. G. Grey's attacks on the Royal Aircraft Factory on pages 29, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 56, 57, 70, 72, 82, 84, 85, 86, 93, 95, 105 and 139. "Numerous entries" is of course far to vague for a specific reference, and I am grateful to "the learned gentleman" for pointing this out. On actually having a look at page 29, I find this passage:

"Alone among contemporary Aviation Journals, The Aero, which was then edited by C G Grey, chose to be singularly unimpressed with the announcement, describing the decision [for the Balloon Factory to widen its activities to "aeroplaning"] as 'more War Office folly. The journal suggested that any area less suitable for aeroplaning than the Aldershot district had yet to be discovered...

Notwithstanding my original vague entry - which was meant to cover the whole of C G Greey's "anti-factory" activities - this quote would seem to be suitable verification for the text:

C. G. Grey had orchestrated a campaign against the RAFact in the pages of The Aeroplane, going back to its period as the Balloon Factory, well before it had produced any heavier-than-air aircraft.

I have altered the reference to refer specifically to P.29, and hope this meets with satisfaction. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Incipient edit war about No. being part of the official name of an RAF squadron.

AND - just to repeat - whether or not this part of the MOS - the fact that in every other article it remains the style in which we present the name of an RAF/RFC squadron. If you disagree - by all means present a reason why this article must differ in style from every other article in Wikipedia that mentions an RAF squadron, or, alternatively, why every other article needs changing - because we really do need to be as consistent as we well can be in matters of style. "Wikipedia can't reference itself" is no argument at all - as I said elsewhere it is thoroughly foolish and fatuous. We are not referencing anything - just maintaining a consistent house style.

To quote Petebutte

The correct full title is No. 1 Squadron RAF. This should be used for the first use in the text and thereafter use the accepted abbreviation, in this case, 1 Sqn. So in the first use - No. 1 Squadron RAF, thereafter just 1 Sqn.

I hope this will clear it up for you!! Your protagonist is entirely wrong to say the No. is incorrect, it is part of the OFFICIAL name of any RAF squadron!!

Please accept that you (like me) are capable of making a mistake? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand all the hoohah here. It stands to reason that first usage of a military unit's name should be its official one, to allow linkage to the article on that unit. Any other usage means that the responsible editor is opting for creation of possibly unneeded redirects for the sake of linkage.
• First usage of an official name is also consistent with the WP practice of only allowing abbreviations or acronyms after their introduction by full explanatory name--i.e., [Royal Flying Corps] (RFC).
• I do not see any reason for deviation from these practices.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. Are we trying to get on the list of stupidestleast useful edit wars?

Leave the silly "No." in. There's no harm, and it may help. Okay, maybe if we repeat a dozen times in one section we can shorten it, but it's not more accurate even then. In fact, when I saw it without the "No.", I wondered if it was some different unit. The style at the time included it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to be helpful? You might try harder to be civil if you want to be taken seriously. Just a thought.Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh? What's not civil? I did say this would be a stupid edit war. Is this seriously the most important thing we have to work on here? And how does that reply make it more civil? We're better than this. Please, let's just discuss the article, not the editors. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed the word that might be offending. Hopefully we can leave it at that. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Keith OK here it is in talk! The lead paragraphs (version Lord knows what) are very highly polished and basically the version you wanted yourself a few days ago. Your latest changes do nothing but render the text LESS "plain and succinct". In view of your frequently expressed desire to get away from my "flowery" style they are a complete contradiction. Earnestly suggest it is high time you let this be for a few days - and then came HERE (to the talk page) BEFORE you do any more changes to perfectly satisfactory article text. And actually READ the arguments here before dismissing what anyone else has to say with ridiculous slogans. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You've broken 3RR, you shouldn't do that.Keith-264 (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, If you're going to come here (good!) at least answer the things people have been saying. And seriously - READ the lead before you revert it yet again - it is honestly pretty good (as much as anything because of YOUR attention to it over the last two years!) and has the qualities you aspire to (brevity and plainness) as well as the ones I think are at least as important (clarity and readability). We don't need links to the British and French air services in the lead - there is now a single link to the RFC at an appropriate juncture, and we can actually do without a link to the French air service altogether - in spite of probably suffering higher casualties the French really didn't have a "Fokker Scourge" in the same way as the British - their part in the story is mainly coming up with the Nieuport Scout! Worse - those additions make the text a good deal harder to follow for someone reading it for the first time. The "first time reader" with perhaps little or no prior knowledge of the subject, is here (as everywhere on Wikipedia) the most important person and the one most deserving of consideration. I was in a filthy "early Monday morning" mood last time I was here - but I would be hypocritical if I pretended to be "sorry"! I am still profoundly disappointed that the sensible and friendly Keith-264, who has done so much to help shape this article, seems to have been replaced by a stubborn, intransigent and horribly unfriendly person. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have returned the article to its last best state, which is literate, legible and makes sense, pls lay off the reverts as your into 3rr and more now. Keith-264 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Watch your edit summaries! "Reverting vandalism or test edit" is not-constructive in a situation which comes from difference of opinion. (Also looks foolish if it actually introduces a typo) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind HIM Graeme, although, alas, he seems at times to have reasons for being here other than improving the article (!) I think we have (albeit with much wasted effort) hammered out between us rather a good article here. In fact, while we're all here - what about a GA nomination? Probably shouldn't come from me, as the article's author? -Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A new lead?

Tempted to plug this one in for comment - but will stick it here first in view of the contention it may cause - suggest replacing the first two paragraphs of text with the following:

The Fokker Scourge (or Fokker Scare) was a period during the First World War from August 1915 to early 1916, when the Fokker Eindecker fighters of the Imperial German Flying Corps (Die Fliegertruppen) provided a degree of air superiority over poorly armed allied types.

The Fokker was the first service aircraft to be fitted with a machine gun synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller, and it was this factor, togther with the surprise of its introduction, that was the major cause of its success.

This is basically a slightly "cleaned up" variation of what I originally wrote (or should have written perhaps?) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully this one will be stable at last - although it is a shame that "poorly armed" (in context, two highly relevant and informative words) have to go because they are not someone's favourite parts of speech. Thanks to someone else for re-adding "without striking the propeller" (which I foolishly cut - assuming from the edit summary it was about Garros). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry folks - just can't leave well enough alone!

I have gone through several sections of this article with a little "tweak-brush". Among other things I've switched the pikkies of the Nieuport and the DH.2 to better relate to the text, something I've been meaning to do for a long time. Deliberately left the lead alone - the only bit I am concerned about now is the last four words: "led to its success". We want to say that (the factors described) were the MAIN things - "led to" seems a bit bare, and doesn't convey the full nuance. After all the fuss I'd rather someone else (preferably Keith) fixed this. Otherwise let's just leave it as it is - we DO need a bit of stability at this point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

OK Keith - nothing much wrong with that lot. I've restored "in an effort to keep the synchroniser secret" - the only reason for this is that of course they didn't keep the secret at all - in fact one of our best sources remarks that there was really "no secret to keep". If you can recast the sentence so it doesn't lose this nuance by all means. A couple of places where you cut a comma "because it came before a conjunction" still grated - I took your advice and recast the prose instead of risking more controversy. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Word edit suite

I've just copied the article into Word and checked the punctuation, grammar and syntax. So far so good (somewhat to my surprise) ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Word grammar/syntax checker is if anything a little TOO mild. Just to balance things I've tried Grammarly, which is far too "fussy". It did point out a redundant full stop, a repeated word ("were were") and a couple of instances of confused syntax. I corrected these, anyway, but I had to leave a good many other suggested changes (some of which were pretty daft) in the "ignore" basket. I STILL would like to reinsert a few of your excised commas, but I'm trying to avoid getting into a kerfuffle over this if I can avoid it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Definition of synchronisation gear

This needs to be totally clear, and above all unambiguous. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Or, and this case better still, not attempted - since we do define it more precisely in the lead! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

CE

Moved a cite to the end of a sentence and combined two v short sentences. Ran the article through the Word splendidiser again, pleasingly free of grammatical infelicities. Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Soundofmusicals: Wiki doesn't abbreviate Wikilinks the first time they're used, a later abbr is introduced in brackets. The page range 161-162, 160 shows the order in which the material is being cited, in this case something from p. 160 was used after the material from 161-162. Some of your edits included RS. Keith-264 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Especially as the reference applies to a single short sentence I think a conventional page range is better here. I have in this latest batch of edits not introduced any "new" information, or actually contradicted anything clearly cited in an RS - on the other hand we are not constrained to use the exact wording of a source (in fact this is to be avoided, copyright and all that) or present information in exactly in the same order. Most sources (no matter how reliable) contain matter that seems speculative, or even not strictly accurate - more importantly, an author's emphasis (words like "very" or "most" for instance) may be inappropriate in an encyclopedia - in a case like this we may at times legitimately differ, at least by ommission. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a page range a comma and another page reference which reflect the order of information taken from the source so leave them alone. Our text is a description of the RS so it is not for us to adjudicate. if another RS contradicts the account we can describe this. This "an author's emphasis (words like "very" or "most" for instance) may be inappropriate in an encyclopedia" is the opposite of Wiki, if that's what the author puts, it's what we describe. Keith-264 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to do this in his very words? That's copyright breach! If the matter in a single, short sentence is referred to three pages, all within a short page range, then I cannot see any possible benefit in something that is not part of citational convention. If a later reference refers to an early statement then we need a separate reference. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It. is. the. order. in. which. the. information. is. presented. Convention is bogus, something on p. 160 was described after material from pp. 161–162. If the material was mentioned in the same order as the order of the pages pp. 160–162 would be right but it wasn't so it isn't. You don't have the source so your view is pure speculation. Quite where copyvio comes from I don't know but all but two of your edits have been retrograde. Don't you remember what happened last time? Keith-264 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

What are you two doing? Keith-264 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

What are you are the new editor up to? I'm quite happy to discuss an edit at a time but if both of you intend to re-edit the article privately and paste it over the existing article you'll risk falling foul of WP:BRD. Keith-264 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussing one edit at a time will be cool - what we're doing is systematically going through the article to try to come up with something you and I can both live with. As you have guessed, I've got an old friend to join Wikipedia. He is likely to be interested in WWI aviation in particular - we had a look at this article of course, and he is going through it in his sandbox - we've agreed that he won't make any new edits of his own (for the moment) - what he is doing (I hope!) is making his own "best" version from your recent edits and mine. It is perfectly possible that neither of us will like what he comes up with very much, but it's better than us getting upset with each other, saying a lot of things we don't really mean, and getting into a tangle of undos and reverts. The first thing he noticed was the fact that this article had a lot of references - whereas the other WWI articles had few or none. I think if he does become a regular editor he will be specialising in adding references to other WWI articles (his aviation library makes mine look sick so that will be great if it comes off). Couldn't get him to agree about the reference we've been fighting over - but his first thought is that it's a very poor book to cite in this context - he says the most likely one is German Aircraft of the First World War (Gray and Thetford). When he finds his copy (I'm still looking for mine) he'll slip it in. Hopefully to his sandbox. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope he wasn't referring to me as a vandal, I'm a Britunculi of the Brigantes ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he knows what a vandal (in the Wikipedia sense) is yet. On the other hand I am a rude and profane old man and he has been doing a lot of cutting and pasting from and to MY sandbox! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

New edit Comment

@WWIReferences: Made a few alterations which I'm happy to discuss; pls note that the WWI wikilink doesn't need a pipe | because WWI anf FWW go to the same place ("do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text.") Jasta is an abbr so the full title goes first and the abbr in brackets after it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Looked in Wise last night and found some detail. Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Added table from White. Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks good - hope uncle Paul can leave it alone now and the article can become "stable" in future. It is in a whole different class from most FWW aviation articles already - there is so much else we could be concentrating on instead.

Not that I can am going to argue a point that makes so little real difference, but First World War actually goes to a REDIRECT page that sends it to World War I, and this can be fraught. All kinds of thing can go wrong. Talking here as a software engineer (which I am) rather than an experienced Wikipedian (which I'm obviously NOT). I have been reading lots of MoS articles in an effort to get over the latter, but I'm not sure your remarks about "piping" actually apply in this instance. Given we actually want the "British" form (FWW) in the text, if we CAN link directly to the actual article (WWI) we probably should. Not that it REALLY matters, but still... As for the Jagdstaffel / Jasta bit - do we really need BOTH forms here? Assuming we do, what you have put is fine, but in this context either might do on their own? In either case we would be going direct to the article rather than a redirect if possible. But again, I'm not going to argue this one, or alter what you have put, as it is REALLY trivial. (BTW in the back-and-forthing we muddled - think this is probably what you meant. WWIReferences (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet it's what wiki wants and when I dialled FWW in it went straight to WWI. With Jasta, because it's an abbreviation Wiki wants the full one first. An aficionado might know what Jasta means but we have to write for everyone. What we think is trivial isn't always the case with Wiki. Quite happy to discuss.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Jones 2002 vs Jones 1928

It's a 1928 book - and the "new edition(s)" of 2002 doesn't alter the text (or even the typesetting) of the original (this sort of thing is called a "facsimile" edition). Anyway, using the 2002 date gives the impression it is a recent work, whereas in fact it is a near-contemporary one. (Both can be equally "reliable" depending on what we are "verifying" BUT... Hope no one minds my changing the date on these references, anyway. WWIReferences (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I know it is, hence the template having orig-year and year entries but this was discussed quite a while ago and a facs. edition is still an edition in Wiki. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

PS the isbn is for the 2002 reprint.Keith-264 (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an example of a template,

* {{cite book |ref={{harvid|Jones|2002}} |title=The War in the Air: Being the Part played in the Great War by the Royal Air Force |volume=IV |last=Jones |first=H. A. |authorlink=|year=2002 |orig-year=1934 |url=https://archive.org/details/warinairbeingsto04rale |accessdate=4 September 2016 |publisher=Clarendon Press |edition=Imperial War Museum and Naval & Military Press facs. repr. |location=London |isbn=978-1-84342-415-4}}Keith-264 (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Having the last reference in a template is rather untidy (not that it matters much). And no problems with the date of the current publication taking the principal place in the BIBLIOGRAPHY. But (with great respect to your much longer "tenure") I can't take the reversion to "2002" for (unaltered) text published in 1928 - not in the FOOTNOTE citations, anyway. References in an academic essay (or a Wikipedia article, one hopes) are mainly for the information of "the reader". Informing our reader that Jones's 1928 text is from 2002 is misleading at best, if not direct deception! I'm sure you don't want to mislead or deceive - they are certainly very much the opposite of the aims of an encyclopedia. To link my very first reference to Wikipedia policy - WP:5P5 - THERE!. WWIReferences (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A thought! is it possible to compromise here, with (let us say) "Jones 2002 (1928)" or even Jones 1928 (2002)? But I greatly prefer to just keep the 1928. WWIReferences (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Even better still, how about "2002 [1928]" - which seems to be what the template produces on the bibliographic cite line. Have taken the liberty of implementing this - how does it look to you?WWIReferences (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have changed it back as per WP:BRD this isn't a matter of individual judgment, the ISBN refers to the 2002 edition. Carrying this over to the shortened ref /ref citation duplicated an unnecessary detail. We should leave the text alone until consensus is reached. NB we are are 2RR. Template:Cite book "year: Year of source being referenced", the source is the 2002 publication as shown by the isbn.Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

[2] Dates and reprints of older publications [3] Keith-264 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Editors should be aware that older sources (especially those in the public domain) are sometimes reprinted with modern publication dates. When this occurs and the citation style being used requires it, cite both the original publication date, as well as the date of the re-publication. E.g.:

Darwin, Charles (1964) [1859]. On the Origin of Species (facsimile of 1st ed.). Harvard University Press. Keith-264 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is done automatically in the {{citation}} and {{cite book}} templates when you use the |orig-year= parameter.Keith-264 (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Franks and Hoeppner

At this point (my recent edits) the very close coincidence of essential fact arrangement, and even phrasing, clearly indicate Hoeppner as one of Franks' sources, either directly or through an intermediate text. Fascinating stuff! WWIReferences (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

You might find this interesting

• Baughen, G. (2019) [2018]. The Rise and Fall of the French Air Force: French Air Operations and Strategy 1900–1940. London: Fonthill Media. ISBN 978-1-78155-644-3. Keith-264 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

{{quote|The young new German was not an obvious choice, given the fairly marginal position he occupied in German aircraft production. Yet it was known that he had been experimenting in Schwerin with his chief mechanic, Heinrich Lübbe, to develop a synchronizing mechanism since the end of 1914. Fokker and Lübbe hoped to synchronize the revolving propeller with the gun’s firing mechanism.27 The basic principle of this idea had been the intellectual property of aviation pioneer August Euler since July 1910. In May 1912 Euler had received a patent for his invention. Apart from the Euler patent, a second patent was later issued that specifically dealt with the issue of synchronization: in July 1913 the Swiss aeronautical engineer Franz Schneider, who was the director of technology of Fokker’s Johannisthal competitor LVG, had filed an application for this. Schneider’s patent related to a system in which the machine gun’s firing mechanism would be blocked mechanically every time a propeller blade would pass in front of the gun’s barrel. The German Patent Office took a year to arrive at a judgment on this invention before granting Schneider patent rights on July 10, 1914.28 But even if aircraft engines achieved no more than 1,200 rpm in 1914, this still meant that a two-bladed propeller would need to jam a firing mechanism 2,400 times each minute. In practice no time would remain to fire the gun, and Schneider’s patent therefore appeared unusable. Yet Fokker and Lübbe recognized the potential behind the idea. Around Christmas time they set to work with a small team. Five months later they had arrived at a reasonably workable solution.

On May 19 Fokker and the other aircraft constructors arrived at Döberitz to acquaint themselves with the Garros invention. Anthony must have been pleased to note just how far away the French were from cracking the problem. After months of experimenting, however, he was about to make a breakthrough. All he needed was a compact, lightweight gun that might be fixed to a plane’s fuselage. With his usual flair he assured the army officers present at Döberitz that it would not take him long to solve the synchronization problem. With a lightweight machine gun, ammunition, and the propeller from Garros’s plane on the back seat of his car, he drove back to Schwerin. Everything was now in place for the final test.

Fokker, Lübbe, and their assistants briskly went to work. There was some urgency to their efforts, because the invention would not only be of military significance; it also reeked of money. The system the Fokker team came up with was a variation on the Schneider patent. Instead of mechanically blocking the firing mechanism itself, Fokker allowed the gun to fire constantly once the trigger was pulled. To avoid hitting the propeller, the Fokker team fitted a cam to the engine shaft that would activate an interrupter every time the propeller turned in front of the barrel. This mechanism prevented the gun from firing for a brief moment. The cam was fitted in such a position that the bullets remained away from the propeller, staying within two imaginary half circles. A comparatively simple mechanical system of connected rods transferred the cam’s impulse to the gun: they called this system the Stangensteuerung (rod drive).29

With most of the work already done, the firing trials could be conducted quickly with the gun that Fokker had brought. This was just the kind of hands-on approach in which Anthony excelled. On the little stretch of land between the factory and the lake, a fuselage was placed with both the engine and the gun mounted. But instead of using the propeller, the Fokker team fitted a wooden disk on which the outline of the propeller had been painted. In this way, the pattern of the bullets could be traced. After repeated firing tests and more than a few wooden disks, the team worked out the ideal location for fitting the cam on the engine shaft. Fokker was able to drive back with his plane in tow, two days after leaving Döberitz.30 This was the invention that would revolutionize air warfare.

• Dierikx, Marc (2018). Anthony Fokker: The Flying Dutchman who Shaped American Aviation. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Books. ISBN 978-1-58-834616-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)Keith-264 (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Interesting indeed. Appertains much more to the synchronisation article than to this one - and it follows our own version of events SO closely we might even risk accusations of "circular referencing" if we used it! Is there anything here, do you think, that adds worthwhile detail that could advantageously be incorporated into either article? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I like his description (not the prose, obviously) of the genesis of the interrupter, the other books I've looked in seem to gloss over it.Keith-264 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"Operational service" (heading)

We need a heading at this level here or virtually the whole article would be under "Background" - but this one has struck me for a long time as rather strange. It is the heading we would normally use for the operational service of a particular aircraft type rather than the interaction of several types of aircraft. Much browsing through the VERY long history of this one - the only earlier heading for this section I came up with was "Results" - which in the context of the article as it has developed is no better.

Anyway - I nearly changed the headng out of hand ("boldly", as the guidelines put it) to "Operations" (perhaps "Operational history") but thought, especially in view of our current attempts to find textual aggreement, I ought to discuss thia with you first. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Operations or Operational history would be OK by me. Keith-264 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)