Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

ADM Bloggs RAN ?

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

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

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

Example: Chief of the Defence Force (Australia)

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

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

I'm not sure what the issue is. Are you asking about the use of abbreviations? All I would say is: why use CAPITALS for abbrevs? They aren't A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S like AVM and there is no need for the two to be the same. The ADF seems to love doing this, even more than the average military, but it's totally unnecessary and sticks out like a sore thumb, because no-one else does it that way, not even the Aust. Defence Dept. Cheers, Grant ;-) 14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From my POV, the issue is: "Why is the 'RAN' there? It isn't a rank or award, and the ADM at the front already says that they're a naval officer, so, AFAICT, it adds no value. So why is it there? And, why is it there for only some admirals?"

No, I'm not asking about the use of abbreviations.

Restating in a way I hope is clearer: Sometimes "RAN" appears, but with no consistency. Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pd, I meant there is no need here for ranks to be consistently either "Title case." (Adm.) or "ACRONYM" (ADM), which is possibly a motivation behind the ADF house style. Cheers, Grant | Talk 02:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grant, In answer to why use CAPITALS for abbrevs?, my response is: "Good question, I don't know why they've chosen to do it that way."

In response to They aren't acronyms like AVM: I agree that "ADM" isn't, but "RAN" is. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the adding of the service is fairly standard in British and Commonwealth forces particularly when the chance that more than one force is operating together. I dont think it an official part of rank/name but it is common. I dont think that in the pages you indicate it is needed because presumable the Australian Army or Navy dont have Admirals. But as User:Pdfpdf indicated it is more commonly used with Captain which can be more ambiguous. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MilborneOne. That throws a bit of light on the issue.Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe commonwealth citizens can serve in the British armed forces, so you could conceivably have an Australian citizen who was an admiral, but in the RN, not RAN. The lines between RN/RAN/RCN etc were considerably more blurred in the past as well so for wartime admirals it could be a useful distinction. David Underdown (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. (See Chief of Navy (Australia)) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(New question): I wonder why the army and the air force don't do this too? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You will find the distinction when you have mixed aircrew together in say Bomber Command in the Second World War, you might have RNZAF plus RAAF plus RSAF alongside RAF personnel. It depends on the usefulness of making the distinction. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The British Army (and probably Commonwealth armies) equivalent is to use the Regiment or Corps in that position: Colonel Strait-Gaiters DSO, Barsetshire Fusiliers, or Captain Trucker, RASC. They are commissioned into a particualr regiment, and the seniority of the regiment determines precedence between officers of equal rank, so you need to know the regiment before you know who is senior. Generals theoretically no longer belong to a regiment, so they would stop using the regimental title; perhaps the same applies by extension to admirals? Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'm not aware of that happening formally in the ADF - Yes, certain groups believe they are superior to certain other groups, but I'm not aware of any formal seniority ... Pdfpdf (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In actual fact, it's the date of promotion to the current rank that's important, not the seniority of the regiment. Hence Chard taking command in Zulu because his date of promotion to lieutenant was slightly earlier than Bromhead's. Colonels, Brigadiers and Generals no longer belong to their regiment, and in very formal lists it is customary to put Colonel J Strait-Gaiters, late Barsetshire Fusiliers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency ?

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

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

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

An "RN" suffix is very common when referring to Royal Navy officers, though whether thee is any rule as to its usage I don't know. I have always read it as meaning "of the Royal Navy", used when there might be any doubt about the rank; it would distinguish not only common Army ranks, but also the Merchant Navy, foreign navies and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (for which the suffix RNVR is used). Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. Being "very common" rather than "standard" explains the inconsistency of usage.

Thank you all - I now have my answers. Most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The RN suffix is not used for Officers above 1 Star; Commodore, Adm etc.

The RNVR doesn't exist any more, RN Reserve Officers are styled RN.

Retired RN Officers remain on the retired list and therefore continue to be styled RN.

Similarly RM Officers retain the suffix after retirement.

ALR (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the use of ", RAN" (note the comma) after naval ranks is directed by the Australian Defence Force Publication 102 (Manual of Service Writing). I will confirm the exact wording of the direction and provide it here shortly (hopefully today). Having said that, I am now not sure if Admiral's get the ", RAN" or not... will confirm PalawanOz (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

For example:

Commander I.M. Coral, DSC, RAN

Note that as in the above example, for naval officers the letters RAN are preceded by a comma after the family name and any postnominals.

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

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

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

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

I would think that it is appropriate, and reasonably visually pleasing, to have the full list of postnominals (including 'RAN') in the first line of a biography article - as that is usually the only place we show the full list. However I believe it would also be appropriate in some lists (eg, Chief of the Defence Force (Australia). PalawanOz (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But we don't show the full list of postnoms, as I've said. It's against Wikipedia policy to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to find the policy you mention - indeed, the style guide here would seem to indicate that they should be included. PalawanOz (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the section above the one you cited: "Postnominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name". We include some postnoms, but not all by any means. I believe that since postnoms indicating a service are not issued to indicate any form of achievement but just an affiliation they should not be included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My position is that the the Wiki Manual of Style permits the use of post-nominals (in the situations described above), and the Australian standard (as per the ADFP102) is to include the "RAN", so for Australian naval officers, I would see it as appropriate to include it. I wouldn't extend this to RN or other services without seeing their standards documented. PalawanOz (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the RN (etc) is actually part of the rank designation when used officially. It is used even without decorations etc - see eg the Royal Navy website where officers are referred to as Captain X, RN or even in full as Commander X, Royal Navy [[1]]. I also suspect that naval officers would regard this as correct and would be mildly offended by its omission - perhaps one would confirm? The website appears to confirm the the suffix is not used for officers of flag rank (admirals). I know this practice has a long tradition - I know of an episode of the Goon Show (1950's) poking fun at the RN suffix of naval officers.Cyclopaedic (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we are not obliged to use every standard mandated by service manuals. The London Gazette, incidentally, does not usually use the RN suffix. I very much doubt that any RN officer would be offended by its omission unless he was incredibly pretentious (in which case he would probably be offended by our omission of his academic degrees too!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can recall, Gazette entries are invariably listed under the name of the service (and regiment or corps where appropriate), so a postnominal would be superfluous. David Underdown (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but the statement above was that it is always used, whether superfluous or not and that it would be incorrect not to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it appears that the Gazette does use (or has used) them when necessary, see [2] David Underdown (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but not consistently. My argument is not that they aren't used - they definitely are - but that they are not obligatory. Not that it would be binding on us even if they were obligatory within a service environment - we differ from outside "rules" in many areas, not least in the fact that we don't list postnominals for academic degrees. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well in all honesty they shouldn't use RN Rtd, because they're not. RN Officers are placed on the retired list, the difference is subtle but present. I don't know of any ex RN who would style themselves Rtd. With respect to the RN poinst, many RNR continue to describe themselves as such, but that changed about 2 years ago and they should now style themselves RN. Reserves ID cards are now exactly the same as RN, and the uniform no longer has any distinction.

My DS at JSCSC discussed it at length at one stage.

ALR (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that officers are placed on the retired list when they leave the service, but when their reserve liability is up they are removed from the retired list and are indeed fully retired. I admit I didn't know about the RNR changing their nomenclature, but as you say it only happened a couple of years ago it wouldn't apply to many articles on Wikipedia anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done some nosing around on this, apparently the RN reserve commitment doesn't expire but retired officers are unlikely to be recalled after the 60th birthday. So RN Officers don't actually retire.

Anyway, notwithstanding the spat below my own view is that we should follow the appropriate service conventions. I really don't get the WP attitude of we don't have to adhere to anyone elses conventions so we'll do our own thing.

ALR (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems somewhat strange then that numerous officers are listed in the London Gazette as RN(Retd)![3]-- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, there is an inconsistency. The RN appearsw to take the view that it's Officers don't actually retire, so I'm more prepared to take their position on HMs employees.

fwiw that wording above was taken from the letter that Second Sea Lord sends out when an Officer is transferred to the Retired List.

Frankly I've never met anyone who has described himself, or herself, as RN (Rtd), always RN where the postnom is used.

ALR (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian Naval Officers - ADM Bloggs, RAN

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

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

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

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

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

I should point out though - this is only the Australian standard...

Yes, that's why I put in a sub-section heading to separate this from the preceeding discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

British sub-branch

the conversation here also branched into British ranks, which would require their own standard to be quoted (although, I am pretty sure it would somewhere, given that you see it on official correspondence so much, including from the USN).

• The most common use of RN is to distinguish between army and navy captains.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not be that easy; the British are not given to codifying and writing down their traditions, nor to publishing sensitive military secrets like guidance on how to address officers! Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking of which, I like the old British adage that the army and navy have traditions, but the RAF has habits :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" — A B Cunningham (or should that be A B Cunningham, RN?). Cyclopaedic (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dirty habits, bunch of chavs IMHO.

ALR (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect ALR, your "O" doesn't sound very "H"! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Watch it, ALR! I used to be a chav in a cadet squadron at school; got my RAF marksman's badge; wore itchy blue-grey battledress (allegedly made from horse blankets); and built vast amounts of character. We had to swear (if I remember correctly) rather quaintly, "on my honour, to do my duty to God and my Sovereign Lady, the Queen, and to my country and my flag". --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodness gracious! That brings back some memories that I didn't realise I still had! I promise to do my best to do my duty to god and the queen, to keep the law of the wolf cub pack, and to do a good turn for somebody every day. I wonder how long ago pre-teens stopped reciting that! Pdfpdf (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

They still do: "I promise that I will do my best To do my duty to God and to the Queen, To help other people And to keep the Cub Scout Law" Cyclopaedic (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if they still stand around in a large circle and yell "Dyb, dyb, dyb. We'll dob dob dob."? (When you only have daughters, you lose touch with these sorts of things.) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder why they call them Cub Scouts, and not Scout Cubs ... I imagine these are questions for a different page. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sir is usually a good bet if s/he is senior. Mate if s/he is equivalent :)

ALR (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I used to have to ring the House of Lords from time to time professionally at one stage. The flunkeys there would always address you as "My Lord" on the phone, just to be on the safe side :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to Australia

Re your Q2 - the simple answer is that with a thousand different editors, you get a thousand different styles of writing. Also - the use of it isn't as simple as "see a name, add RAN"... rather, it would be appropriate to use it in an opening sentence when you give the full list of post-nominal honours ("RADM I.C. Bloggs, VC, OBE, RAN")- but thereafter, the individual would be referred to as "Bloggs", or "RADM Bloggs". I would use it in lists in a similar way (ie, if "VC" is shown, then "RAN" as well). THe only other time I would use it in lists is if there was a reason to differentiate for some reason - eg, the Chief of Navy (Australia) list, to show that some of the bosses were RN. I guess the last usage could be up for discussion though. PalawanOz (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, but ...

Have a look at: Chief of Navy (Australia), Admiral (Australia), Anthony Synnot, VCDF, Chief of Navy (Australia), John Augustine Collins, Roy Dowling, David John Shackleton. This was a list I constructed in 2 or 3 minutes. If I did a serious search, I suggest I would find dozens. Not having the ", RAN" suffix is considerably more common in WP. Does this suggest that a wholesale search and destroy repair effort is necessary? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Search and insert? I would suggest yes :) PalawanOz (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Grunt. (I was hoping you'd propose a solution that was less work ... :-( Pdfpdf (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Persistent desire to change the topic

The whole point is that the Royal Australian Navy is not in any way different with its use of postnominals. They are used in Britain and other countries as well in exactly the same way, are probably listed somewhere in service manuals in those countries, and there is no reason why discussion should be restricted to the RAN. The point is not whether the use of postnominals is mandated by the RAN or any other service, but whether Wikipedia should use them, an entirely different issue. I'm simply perplexed as to why you would think that simply because a service manual says they should be used in service documents this means that Wikipedia is duty-bound to use them also. We are neither an RAN document nor beholden in any way to the RAN. I have seen this argument that we should follow the government line used many times before and it is almost never considered to hold water. Wikipedia makes its own decisions about style and content. If consensus (and not the opinions of a handful of people as so far) is behind using them then I and other editors will follow that consensus, but I'm afraid I do not consider that the Australian government (or any other government) has made the decision for us and it therefore should not be questioned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find the I don't agree so we don't have consensus to do things your way argument isn't entirely helpful. It would be helpful to have some informed comment from the MOS geeks, although personally I'm sceptical of how informed that might be; given the simplistic approach taken in other policy-land pages.

ALR (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think we should follow the service conventions of the service which the individual belongs to. Realistically we're only talking about one mention in any article.

ALR (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading the much-cited ADFP102 I see that all it is talking about is the use of postnominals when addressing an envelope! This is identical to information found in any manual of style anywhere in any English-speaking country and is in no way specific to the RAN. Of course one puts a service at the end when addressing an envelope! What it is not talking about is writing an encyclopaedia, or indeed any other document. More appropriate is p127 of the document which says "at the discretion of the signatory, postnominals may be appropriate..." -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yet another digression

Please let's try to avoid "RADM Bloggs". People using abbreviations in articles is one of my pet irritants. You may know what they mean, but many people don't. Use "Rear Admiral Bloggs". And as I've said, adding "RAN" (or other service abbreviations) at the end of the postnoms is unnecessary and I for one will delete them when I see them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair call on the abbreviation comment - but I think your attitude on the postnominal issue is at odds with every authority quoted. I would suggest that the current consensus on this particular talk page is that the postnominal addition of RAN in certain circumstances is entirely appropriate. PalawanOz (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Postnominal issues aside—that seems largely a matter of different accepted styles—Necrothesp has a valid point regarding the use of "RADM". We are writing for a general audience, and should avoid using cryptic jargon merely for its own sake. It's not as though we only have space for four letters on a form or something of the sort.

(This applies to all abbreviations, incidentally, not merely those for ranks. While they can be used, it is, at a minimum, necessary to give the full version beforehand; and, here, something like "Rear Admiral (RADM) Bloggs" seems rather more trouble than it's worth.) Kirill 12:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kirill, I'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone, but what is Necrothesp's valid point regarding "RADM"?

Don't we have a rule on this, my god, there are Wiki rules on everything else. Maybe an acronym section at the bottom of each article?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We are writing for a general audience, and should avoid using cryptic jargon merely for its own sake. It's not as though we only have space for four letters on a form or something of the sort. - Well yes, but I still think my comment is valid. Viz: "Maybe many people don't know what RADM means, but those people probably wouldn't be reading articles that contain "RADM", and if they were, they would be perfectly capable of looking it up, and probably would expect to do so." Do you disagree with this statement?

♠I would say it is common practice to write a personal rank/title as is customary in that country/organization, and to either write out the acronym or abbreviation as soon as possible before use (where it makes sense) or add a separate section at the end of the article to provide this information. We don't write 'Mister' Jones, but 'Mr.' Jones; 'Doctor' Smith, but Dr. Smith; Colonel Adams, but COL Adams. This might help.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in case there is any doubt, I agree completely with: it is, at a minimum, necessary to give the full version beforehand.

and, here, something like "Rear Admiral (RADM) Bloggs" seems rather more trouble than it's worth. - Agreed!!!

Postnominal issues aside - Sorry, but what "got my back up" was the postnomial comment. If you remove my comments about postnomials, (from my POV), there isn't much left that's worth talking about.

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, true enough. So long as we don't all start randomly sprinkling articles with rank abbreviations, I'm happy. ;-) Kirill 13:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

General defence writing convention is to use something in full first time to explain the abbreviation, I rather agree with Kirrils points about it being excessive since it would only be usual to use the rank once in an article.

And just to add my peeve; RAdm, not RADM, Lt Cdr not LCDR, Lt Col not LTC. My point being, if we're going to use abbreviations then use the appropriate one for the subject.

ALR (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re point 1: I thought what I said implied I agreed. If it didn't, let's be explicit: I agree.

Re point 2: The official Australian abbreviations are RADM, LCDR and LTCOL. To quote a reliable colleague: if we're going to use abbreviations then use the appropriate one for the subject.

In other words, these things are context dependent, and maybe not obvious/unambiguous. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

No, I'm not saying that.

You appear to be.

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

Yeah, I do too.

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

Yes, that's your POV.

Indeed. But one to which I'm entitled.

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

Is this a competition?

Of course not. You made the accusation, not me.

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

The "so what" is that this topic of discussion is about the addition of "RAN" to Australian Naval Oficers titles.

My question still stands. What ADFP102 says has no bearing over what Wikipedia's style guide says.

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

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

My point is that most articles about Australian admirals on Wikipedia will be about admirals who lived and served before that particular manual was introduced and therefore what it says has no bearing on those articles.

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

No, I'm afraid not. In this particular discussion, it is a specifically Australian issue. ADFP102 only applies to Australians.

Yes, but the general issue is a wider one. There is no reason to make a special case for the use of RAN postnoms when equivalent postnoms are used in other countries and other services. That would be illogical.

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

I think that's attributable to the talking at cross purposes and the misunderstandings. I guess my my main complaint is your aggressive tone, not what I interpreted as your lack of good faith.

I wasn't aware my tone was aggressive. I put forward my opinion and you put forward yours. We merely disagree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Good points. I don't pretend to be an expert here. I'll leave it to someone who is. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Chill out time - Could I suggest a a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down? We're not talking sheep stations here folks... For the record - Necro I also found your tone aggressive, but obviously my blood wasn't up enough to respond in kind. I note your points (service transfer, currency of the ADFP102), however in the majority of cases they wont apply - and the 102 is only the most recent codification of custom, the addition of RAN has been around a lot longer than that reference. PalawanOz (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. How was "my tone aggressive"? I think you need to reread my comments and the responses they provoked, which I would regard as far more aggressive (e.g. accusations that my comments were POV - irrelevant on a talkpage in any case - and not in good faith).

I'm aware that the addition of service postnoms has been around a long time, but the constant quoting of a recent service manual to support its addition on Wikipedia and the attitude that that's "end of argument" gets us nowhere. Most sources would also require us to add academic postnoms, but we don't. We are not bound by "standards" imposed on other organisations by themselves. We are bound by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, and that we do not have. This needs to be discussed more widely than a project page, which is why I have drawn attention to the debate on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm choosing to no-longer participate in this discussion sub-thread.

I, and others, have already addressed all of your comments and questions, both specifically in response to your comments, and more generally in previous discussion; I see no point in repeating what has already been written.

If you really are confused, and really want answers to your questions, then please re-read all of what has been written above - I think you will find that it will answer all of your questions.

Farewell, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on track

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with

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

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

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

The main problem for me is that it may be difficult to understand for someone new to the subject. Forex, most of those abbreviations following the name probably won't be immediately understandable for someone without the background to understand military ranks, positions, and militaries of the world. Even if the reader is familiar with the topic, it may require some thought to realize that we're talking about one definition of an abbreviation, rather than another. JKBrooks85 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The post nominals could always be wikilinked, like: Lord Admiral Bob McBob VC RAN CDD and such. Narson (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

CDDs are a hard act to follow, but I'll try ...

I started this by saying: "I'm not sure if this is the right forum. If not, please redirect me accordingly.". I then asked a specific question about a specific Australian phenomonem that is restricted to the Royal Australian Navy.

Nobody directed me elsewhere, so I assumed I had the right forum.

A number of people were very helpful, saying things like "I don't know about the Australian situation, but this is what happens elsewhere."

Eventually, someone pointed out the Australian Defence Writing Standards (ADFP102), which, as Defence Manuals are inclined to do, goes into great detail about how different things are done in different situations, and throughout its 379 pages gives 9 examples of how the RAN postnomial is used.

Along the way, some people started talking about the general topic of postnomials, rather than the specific use of the RAN postnomial.

So, Kiril, when you ask Am I missing something obvious here?, I would respond, "Well, I don't know about missing something obvious, but you are addressing a different topic from the one I raised." Hence, I don't really agree that this is "getting back on track" - to me its more a case of "starting a new track". I suggest that at least three topics are being discussed. (For example:

1. Use of the RAN postnomial
2. Is the Australian use of the RAN postnomial different from other countries' use of their naval postnomial?
3. Use of the naval postnomial vs non-use of the service postnomial by other services
4. Use of titles in the introduction of articles vs use elsewhere in articles
5. Use of abbreviations in the introduction of articles vs use elsewhere in articles
6. When is a second use of a term "repetiton", and when is it "explanation"?
7. Postnominal use in the introduction of articles
8. Postnominal use in lists
9. and quite a few others as well.)

So, I agree with your statement:

The discussion seems to be getting pulled off on tangents a bit, so let's try to collect the threads and see what matters are actually in need of discussion at this point.

However, although I'm not sure which matters are "actually in need of discussion at this point", I have a feeling that the two you have listed are not the only ones "in need". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The wikilinks work for me, Narson. That makes it pretty clear. I just don't think we'll have too many cross-dressing Daleks, though. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; the wikilinks work for me too. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As for "Lord Bob": We don't have any Lords in Australia any more. (Just various levels of membership of the Order of Australia). And ADFP102 says "use commas" and "the RAN comes last".

So our metalic friend with the Australian accent, (were he to exist), would be: "Admiral Bob McBob, VC, CDD, AC, RAN.

And there's no repetition or ambiguity.

(Clearly, we need more CDDs to help us solve our problems.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, he could be ADM Bob McBob, VC, CDD, AC, RAN.

But were he an army officer, he would be GEN Bob McBob, VC, CDD, AC.

(i.e. no service postnomial.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2007 Top Twenty

At noon GMT today, with 63 editors participating, and 35,679 articles assessed, the Top Twenty is as follows:

1. Bedford – 5,600 2. FayssalF – 3,500 3. TomStar81 – 3,410 4. Cromdog – 2,200 5. BrokenSphere – 2,000 5. Parsival74 – 2,000 5. Roger Davies – 2,000 8 . Maralia – 1,750 9. Jacksinterweb – 1,510 10. JKBrooks85 – 1,250

11. MBK004 – 1,088 12. Raoulduke47 – 1000 13. Woodym555 – 800 14 Colputt – 760 15 Eurocopter tigre – 750 16. Askari Mark – 500 16. DSachan – 500 16. OhanaUnited – 500 16. Sniperz11 – 500 16. Welsh – 500

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France and Battle of Britain Good Article Reassessment

These two articles has been reviewed as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the articles currently don't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the articles are well-sourced in many areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the articles at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the articles' status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the articles can be improved to prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Truong Dinh now open

The A-Class review for Truong Dinh is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Yen Bai mutiny now open

The A-Class review for Yen Bai mutiny is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding articles

If an article seems to be within the project's scope, do we simply add the templates to the page or is there some 'process' to go through? I tried to find this on the project pages, but I am probably being dense and didn't spot it. Thanks. Narson (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just add the template. I think it's mentioned somewhere in WP:MHA#FAQ. Kirill 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Dreadnought now open

The peer review for Dreadnought is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

World War II

Bit of a dispute at Webley Revolver; I was under the impression that British Commonwealth oriented articles would use the terminology "Second World War" rather than World War II, which is the American term for that conflict?68.144.31.71 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Truong Dinh needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Truong Dinh; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 02:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Yen Bai mutiny needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Yen Bai mutiny; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 02:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates for military maps

I'm considering creating a few military maps for some of the battles of the Great Northern War. Is there a wikpedia military map template/style guide available for this? It would be nice if the maps I draw have a consistent look. jkl (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't one yet, we could probably create one. JKBrooks85 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for C-5 Galaxy now open

The A-Class review for C-5 Galaxy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New project award

I'm not sure how many of you might already know this, but there is now a new award available, specifically for WikiProjects, at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle#Special edition WikiProject triple crowns. Somehow, I dunno why, I think you all have probably done enough to qualify for one, if someone were to want to nominate the project for one. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed triple crown for Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons.

Thanks for mentioning that, John. This is such an active WikiProject that I wouldn't be surprised if it qualifies. So draw up a chart of how close you are and I'll see what I can do. FYI there's one WikiProject that's almost there so I've designed an award for them. It'd be fun to do another variant on a military theme. Durova^Charge! 08:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the wide selection of articles within the scope it may be best to wait and see which articles are selected to enable the project to qualify, the customize the triple crown using elements of the slected articles. For example, if we have an airplane article, a firearm article and a sub article you could create an award on those elements to show that these articles enabled the project to qualify for the triple crown award. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see much more emphasis on bottom-end awards, to encourage people to contribute. Dishing out various levels of triple crown is giving awards to people who mostly already have them. As a project, we give out far fewer awards than others. The biography and literary people often have user pages that look like Christmas trees/Hannukah bushes. I may post a reminder about general awards that are appropriate to Milhist editors later. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There actually are quite a few barnstars and other rewards out there. You can look at my own userpage to see what are probably a few too many for one person already. However, this award, as I indicated above, isn't for individuals, but rather for the WikiProjects themselves. To the best of my knowledge, it's the only award for WikiProjects out there, and I think the remarkable success of this particular project is such that it almost certainly should be one of those which receives such recognition, for PR purposes if nothing else. John Carter 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia's triple crown.

Actually WikiProject Australia just became the first project to qualify. The idea is to encourage collaborative work. Any editor who adds at least 10 line citations to a GA or an FA qualifies, so maybe this will help encourage people to be more active at your article writing drives. When the time comes I'll do my best to work in whatever design elements appeal to the editors here. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 01:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Could editors please take a look at this article and comment on its talk page? It is mostly the work of one editor and I have concerns about neutrality. It is also looking increasingly unencyclopedic and probably contains excessive detail (such as on the 1903 coup). Your opinion may differ, of course. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Roger, should this not go on the main WT:MILHIST page? Woodym555 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nested projects

The nesting feature no longer works, see here. Or am I doing something wrong? Can someone direct me to where this can be resolved. Folks at 137 10:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a carryover from the merger of the Castles WikiProject here; if you replace the {{WPCAS}} template with {{WPMILHIST}}, all the parameters will work again. Kirill 17:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)