User talk:Gavbadger

Question on bases, and other things

I was just watching the Colbert Report when I realized that the update of the template might create an interesting issue. Previously, we have either slapped the pages with the airport and structure templates, and then called it a day. Sometimes there would be disagreement about what should be there, but no one was harmed. Now, we have the ability to slap one tag on the page, which is fine for installations that own the runways, but what do you think we should do for Air Guard bases and other installations which are co-located at the installation, but do not operate the installations outright? Should we create a guideline that explains this, because I see no reason why Mansfield Lahm Air National Guard Base should have runway information, while that information is already located on the airport civilian page, and thus would be redundant. @Bwmoll3:, you might also might want to chime in here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem replicating the airfield information on the Air National Guard base page. However if it's deemed redundant, a hatnote that simply states see: ABCD International Airport for airfield information works for me. Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bwmoll3 however I think we need an extra opinion do you know any one who majorly edit U.S. Air Guard bases or military installations? Gavbadger (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Brent does most of it, although a lot of people do snippets here and there. I used to be one of those people in the early days, but now I'm focused on splitting off pages from civilian articles (although I did expand Loring AFB in 2012 to pretty good standards). I suppose we could bring this to MILHIST and see what they want to do. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

5 Regiment Army Air Corps

Sorry about that, didn't realize it was a redirect. Hamish59 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize. the "thank" button is significant for me. Gavbadger (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Question from Foxsch

Gavbadger Hi. I am hoping that this is the correct method of dropping you a line to pose some puzzlers but I cannot be certain, being such a newcomer to the editor versions of wikipedia. My question(s): I have been adding suggested amendments to talk pages of articles. Recently checking back through the (silent) responses, I realised that portal and project pages also have a form of article watchlists. An example: I have added a suggestion to a talk page. I am reticent to adjust the article, as I have suggested on the talk page, a/ because I am not sure that directly editing a page is advisable without confirmation from a third-party that the edit is acceptable, and b/ I now realise that project/portal articles talks, discussions can also feature on relevant portal/project pages, in this example . Should I edit the appropriate portal/project 'announcement and tasks' areas to highlight the discussions I have raised on talk pages to attract confirmations of accurate edits and further discussion, or is it advisable to go ahead with the edit and watch out for further discussion? Many thanks in advance Foxsch (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Foxsch, if you wish to update the article you may if have a reliable reference to go with it, those sort of the articles which were used by the Americans during the Second World War overseas were mainly created by an editor who created them with the American related info and never touched them again. If you wish to start to a discussion about a individual article the best course of action would be to create a section on the article talk page, leave it for 1-2 days and if no answers take it to the relevant Wikipedia project like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history since the WikiProject talk pages are regularly edited and it would be considerately more viewed. Gavbadger (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly clear Gavbadger, thank you. Foxsch (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ensign in Tidworth Camp article

Hi - I have toned down the ensign in the infobox in the Tidworth Camp article that I am working on. I note that according to Template talk:Infobox military installation the ensign is "optional" not mandatory. There are few things on wiki where it is mandatory to include it (other than references!). I just think it is a bit garish - just an opinion. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but don't touch any of the Royal Air Force articles with a RAF ensign at the top of the infobox without going to the aviation or military history project talk page and discussing the change otherwise I will just revert you. Gavbadger (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. My own view is that the RAF ensigns and navy ensigns look fine - they are not quite so garish as the army red. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

contributions?

My father-in-law was stationed at Danby Beacon and elsewhere supporting radar (particularly GEE) during wwII. He might have persona pictures of staff personnel that you'd want for your collection. If so, please drop me an email and tell me how we can send info to you... or I can send you his email address if you want to email directly.

Thanks... jrsnyder@pobox.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.151.140.191 (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the late reply. The easiest way would be you to upload them yourself to [[1]] where a large amount of images are sourced from for Wikipedia then tell me or someone else or you could add the pictures into Wikipedia. Gavbadger (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RAF Chelveston

Apologies for the edit with the |controlledby =. I'm new at this and saw that controlled by being used at other 8th air force bases, and just thought it looked a lot better inside the box as the others were. Actually, those graphics at the top of the infobox seem to be a bit of a clutter, and would look better inside as well somewhere. Just a thought Connor P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor7617 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, we do limit the number of files in the top of the infobox to four but most of the time it's only three which are well spaced, I've also added a belated welcome message to your talk page since it appears you've never had one it gives some good info on various bits and bobs. Gavbadger (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I was an editor here like 10 years ago but went off to do other things. I just dabble a bit here.. don't do a lot of heavy editing. Just like to use wikipedia for looking things up and dabble here in some things that I enjoy. I found that the Imperial War Museum released a massive amount of material on the American World War II presence in the UK recently; was going though the materiel and was going though to boost up the existing articles here. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I just add photos that are useful and catalog them in commons. Although I do make some occasional edits.

Question: it looks like you're an admin. Is it OK if I go back and standardize the infoboxes? Some are ariports. some are military installations. some are structures. Is there a standard template? Also some of the aireal photos are quite low in contrast. The IWM collection has some really nice and clear ones taken by the RAF and USAAF during the war that would look much better. Chevelston is one I replaced for example.

Again, ty for the welcome :) Connor7617 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I just helped build the new military structure template, the new template is called Template:Infobox military installation a good example is at RAF Alconbury. Gavbadger (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Bassingbourn

You're welcome and ty :) Connor7617 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Apply for Autopatrolled Rights?

Hello, just wanted to say that you have been doing a great job creating articles related to the RAF, but you might want to apply for Autopatrolled rights so you don't spam the new pages feed. Thanks! Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No it's ok thanks, I was only filling in the gaps for the British Naval Air Squadron template and I can't see myself doing anything similar for many years. Gavbadger (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

167 Catering

Hello, on behalf of 167 Catering Support Regitment RLC we would be greatful if you could delete this page, as it no longer valid.

Thank you.

Hello, instead of deleting the article, it would be much better to update it and add a history section. Gavbadger (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

We have lots of new friends

BBC

Good Day,

Thank you for your message. I have an issue with the attribution of the message which begins We have lots of new friends on the Falklands conflict page.

I worked for Cable and Wireless as an Engineer at the time and was the one who typed the message. It's always been wrong on Wiki. I am trying to put it right more for my children than anything.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6514011.stm

mentions this is this a suitable citation.

Grateful for any help or assistance you can give.

Kind regards

Charles KeenleysideCharlesk1953 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay, I've been working on Royal Air Force aircraft ferrying units making multiple edits on a single article so I didn't notice the message alert.

The BBC news article doesn't have any relevant times or anything more than "The newsroom had Argentine claims, but nothing else apart from a laconic message from the Cable and Wireless station on the Falklands - "we have a lot of new friends"." which doesn't help much.

I have found this though [2], the website isn't reliable but it does say "this text is taken from Marshall Cavendish’s comprehensive compendium, ‘The Falklands War’" so I'm looking through bookshop websites to see if they have any online sneak peeks to see if any books have your name but I'm not having much luck, Amazon are normally really good but not this time unfortunately.

Gavbadger (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Friendly talk page stalker, I wouldn't rely on The Falklands War: A Day By Day Account From Invasion To Victory by Marshall Cavendish. Following the war Marshall Cavendish produced a 14 part, get it weekly compendium, describing the war day by day. To be frank, its crap, really shoddy journalism and full of mistakes. The content of the article didn't match the source, so it has been copy edited to reflect the source. I have tried a few sources eg the Official History by Lawrence Freedman but no luck so far. WCM_email 21:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WCM, I had look through about 12 different books on Amazon using the book preview and couldn't find anything. Although the only preview they showed most of the time was just the history of the falklands going back hundreds of years and the same general maps of the falklands. Gavbadger (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got quite a few books, I'll try and spend some time tomorrow and see if I can dig something up. WCM_email 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled right

Just so you know (if you have not already been pinged), I nominated you for the Autopatrol user right here. I figure you might have some use for it, since you have created so many pages, and military articles are not controversial for the most part. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Gavbadger, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Op Granby

I think I used these sites

http://www.orbat.info/history/historical/uk/gulforbat1990.html

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/BritishForcesinvolvedinOperationGranby.cfm

http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/gwtxt_ch8.html

you can add the links.Phd8511 (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Barnbow munitions factory page

I'm not sure if you'are the person to pass this on to but the above page claims that "Barnbow was Britain's top shell factory between 1914 and 1918, and by the end of the war on 11 November 1918, a total of 566,000 tons of ammunition had been shipped overseas." Chilwell filling factory's memorial quotes over 1 million tons filled so maybe a small edit is in order.

Mark Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.242.223 (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No 1 Radio School

Gavbadger,

I appreciate that you have taken an interest in the school and your concern is noted.

The changes I have made are legitimate. I am updating the page to reflect the current situation at the school, in a more official capacity.

I am at present, updating the page on behalf of the schools Officer Commanding, so will be making more changes in the not so distant future. The information that will be placed on the page will be relevant, and will not be harmful in any respect.

Again, thanks for your concern.

gbinfi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbinfi (talk • contribs) 13:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Wikipedia does not allow any original research (see Wikipedia:No original research) so you will need reliable independent references for all information you add (see Wikipedia:Verifiability).

Good Luck

Gavbadger (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

RNAS Lee - On -Solent

Surely this name is out of date and we should update it to the new name and update info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.147.21 (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, see Talk:RNAS Lee-on-Solent (HMS Daedalus). Gavbadger (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Got a query

You do RAF units, and appear to keep current with AFM. Can you winkle out anywhere an up-to-date unit list for 38 Group? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Afraid not sorry, the IP editor for the article appears to have some sort of personal connection though. Gavbadger (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Strike that, the IP has provided a current list of units, and this site has a better description of the group than the RAF at present!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian Naval Aviation

Thanks for all your hard work on the AVMF. Unfortunately AFM is not reliable in this area - a better source can be seen in the extensive pages of Michael Holm, drawing on many Russian sources [3] and Sources. I've made amendments to the 100 and 279 OKIAP listings in line with that information. Tally Ho!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

According to AFM, 100 OKIAP is a brand new two squadron regiment established on 1 December 2015 at Yeisk. How recent is the information in your links? Gavbadger (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks in the sources the latest is 2013 also according to the sources link you provided it seems the person uses forums as references. Has they been a discussion on how reliable this website is? Gavbadger (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you kindly please e-mail me through the emailthisuser function, Gavbadger, please? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not happy to disclose my personal email address by using that function. What is the subject of the matter you wish to talk to me about? Gavbadger (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's always possible to create another e-mail address to handle such issues. I would like to talk about the reliability of the sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's about the reliability of a source surely the matter should be discussed openly on the appropriate project talk page and not hidden away, however if the emailthisuser function has to be used about anything to do with the Russians then I'd rather have nothing to do with it. Gavbadger (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. I have the highest confidence in the sites and methods used by Michael Holm. It's not about hiding the discussion away, it's about preserving my anonymity by not disclosing my credentials in this matter. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge of No. 8 Flight AAC / No. 658 Squadron AAC

Hi, I was wondering why you merged 8 Flight ACC into 658 Squadron AAC. These are two different AAC units. 658 Squadron AAC has its own history . I would have kept the 8 Flight article stating that it had been disbanded/re-designated as 658 Sqn. 658 Sqn was re-raised after it had been disbanded on 1 April 2009 when it was then part of the 7 Regiment AAC (Volunteers). The 658 Squadron AAC article history section should only be on the 658 in the AAC. At present it has the history of No. 8 Independent Reconnaissance Flight AAC and 8 Flight AAC and also has a section for history of the 658 Sqn ACC. Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Classic British Jets Collection

Hi gavbadger, thank you for your welcome, I’m alittle confused at your message re conflict of interest, my edits have only been to provide users an accurate picture of what the current status is at Bruntingthorpe/Cold war Jets Collection and particularly the Classic British Jets Collection which is one of several aviation preservation groups based a Bruntingthorpe. My only interest is proving users better info and hopefully encourage them to visit Bruntingthorpe and support the aircraft/volunteers based there preserving the aircraft for the future.

Kind regards Mark Classic British Jets Collection (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mark, the message was just really a welcome and information on a Wikipedia policy that you can't have a single username which different people from your group can use, so if your username was something like "Mark at Classic British Jets Collection", "Jay at Classic British Jets Collection" or "Jay at CBJC" it would be fine. Wikipedia just wants a single person to operate a single account. I've just had a quick look at your sandbox and noticed you haven't add any references yet and you would need to do so if you decide to the publish the page on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Citing sources may be of help. I've personally visited the site a few years back: toured the Guppy and met the horse. Gavbadger (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

1989 Portuguese Army order of battle

Just checking with you if 1989 Portuguese Army order of battle is also a copyright violation? Look at the reference.

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, you better check with User:Buckshot06 before you continue. Gavbadger (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.Sammartinlai (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your view on List of British Army Regiments (1800)

Is it acceptable or shoud it go for an AfD?

Asking since you deal more with army historical stuff.

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME re Iraqi Air Force squadrons

I've got hold of another gold-standard source which you will see I've referenced at No. 3 Squadron IqAF and List of Iraqi Air Force aircraft squadrons. Both several books by Tom Cooper, and this Israeli intelligence analyst Malovany make clear that Iraqi squadrons were designated by ordinals (3rd) rather than cardinals (No. 3) in line with Commonwealth practice. In line with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME I believe we should reflect that, and thus I am going to move them to '3rd Squadron' rather than 'No. 3 Squadron'. Since you were the original creator though and put some hard work into creating the articles in the first place, I thought I would drop a courtesy note to you. Hope that's all clear. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, completely understand and agree. Gavbadger (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Move of Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division

Given that Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division is a GA, and that the naming has been dicussed on its talk page, albiet with no clear consensus and some time ago, and there there was no move proposal that I can see, i am not going nto delete 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, and do a move. Please start a move discussion, I would think on Talk:Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division. If there is consensus for a move, or at least afte a week or moe no opposition, then you might try again. Until then G6 speedy delete declined. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The same applies to Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division another undiscussed move. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, i didn't notice the rating and the naming discussion. Apologies. Gavbadger (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Royal Air Force Radio & Signals units

There are many references to Lake 1999 in there, but you didn't give the full citation. Would you mind adding it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

RAF Training Units Navbox

I just tried setting it out with Child groups and lists. I think it makes the different groups of units clearer but what do you think? I believe the colour of the sub groups can be turned off. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

RAF Butzweilerhof

Sorry, I hadn't read your request properly. I missed that you'd checked the same Halley as I did. I honestly did not intend to embarrass you or show you up. As I found three references, on re-reading, I was keen for you to know there was no malice in my reply on the Military WikiProject talk page. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, yeah that's no problem, i completely forgot about the "Index of Locations" for Halley. I only checked the two squadron pages. While you're here I also found "Base Y-75 Frankfurt". It has no references and i have no idea on it. Any ideas what's the best course for it? Gavbadger (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, no sorry. I cannot find any references in other books apart from Lake, which doesn't mention the base by name. It has the feel of Kelly's Garden, in that it was very transient. I would vote for having the information placed on the relevant squadron pages and redirect, if any references can be found.... Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No. 4054 Anti-Aircraft Flight RAF Regiment

Please, please stop creating redirects for tiny, tiny, RAF subunits and flights like this that will never likely in 50 years even have enough data for an article, because there's not enough mention of them in WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Much much better just to create the list articles, and leave the data there; or put the data in a higher-unit or base article, like I am doing wherever I find an OTU that never moved bases. 2861 LAA Regiment RAF Regt would be a good article, worth creating, that could have mention of every subordinate flight that got merged into it. A regiment is much more likely to have had things written about it than a shortlived LAA flight. Creating large numbers of redirects that don't provide much more data at the referred page does not add to the encyclopedic value of the site, much; it just creates redirects that we have to categorize and administer.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Southend Airport

Thanks for your efforts at editing Southend airport. I am wondering whether listing every single RAF unit that was at Southend at some point might be going too far for most readers of the Southend airport page. By all means discuss the presence of the RAF at Southend, but perhaps we could list just the units which spent a significant amount of time at an airfield rather than a brief presence ? It would at least ensure that the info provided is notable. There is a huge amount of military aviation history info (as well as other info about Southend airport, eg all about the terminal construction process) that could be provided... unfortunately wikipedia's generalist nature means it can't hold all the specialist details. Pmbma (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Dear Gavbadger you created a redirect for the 55th Independent Helicopter Regiment on 22 May 2016, but it only pointed to Korenovsk, no doubt what was reported as the regiment's base at the time. There was no data added about the regiment to the Korenovsk article. There is much more data on the regiment available at 4th Air and Air Defence Forces Army. The regiment is now fighting in Ukraine, and our watchers there have added it to the order of battle at Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I have just linked the redirect. It would be much better if there was actually an article attached to the redirect, which could be set up, even as a simple one line stub, with the information available at https://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/ovp/55ovp.htm.

A similar page at https://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/ovp/487ovp.htm is also available if you could create a starter article for 487th Independent Helicopter Regiment, which you set up in the same manner on 2 May 2016. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have also just found ru:Кореновск (аэродром), an article for the Korenovsk air base that the regiment used. Copying the first couple of sentences and G-Translating them would create a stub article for the Korenovsk air base. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Gavbadger

Thank you for creating Operation Orbital.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

A reference problem at Westland Wessex

Hi, in this edit you introduced an sfn reference "Marshall 1990", unfortunately you didn't define the reference. I suspect it will be Marshall, Chris (1990). The World's Great Military Helicopters. New York City: Gallery Books. ISBN 0-8317-9679-0. but do not have it to check. If you could check this and fix the article that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

RAF Edzell - location

Hello @Gavbadger, I've edited your recent changes to RAF Edzell, specifically the location. I've used the location of Edzell Woods which lies immediately adjacent to the former airfield and was the location for housing on the base. These changes are all consistent with the wider location of Aberdeenshire. Obviously the fact that the base shares the name of the nearby village in a neghbouring county has slightly complicated matters but I believe the above change should provide sufficient clarity that all can agree on. Would be happy to discuss further if you have other thoughts on the matter. Regards, Stroness (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Stroness, I didn't use Edzell Woods as the location as like you've said as it was the location of the housing on base, due to the fact that the placename of Edzell Woods didn't exist when Edzell was in operation. If someone was searching for the base they would likely search for just Edzell. I also used RAF Alconbury as an example for the location, since the location in that article is noted as Huntingdon, since the new development that is built on top of the site is called Alconbury Weald and didn't exist when the base was in operation. Gavbadger (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Slavgorod (air base) and Michael Holm's site

Dear Gavbadger I have just restored the Category:Russian Air Force bases to this page. You were absolutely right, the data on the page when you removed the category showed no indication that the RuAF had actively used the aerodrome after 1992. But when I saw what you had done, I wondered whether Michael Holm's excellent site held any more clues. So I ran a search string, "Slavgorod site:www.ww2.dk/new/" in Google, and yes, it was a training aviation regiment site for the Barnaul Higher Military Aviation School of Pilots in the Siberian Military District. B.Velikov had actually already added it to the Siberian MD page. So please consider, as you amend the Soviet/Russian airbase pages, checking Michael Holm's site in the same way. It's based off the best Russian book sources that he could source, and he has had extensive discussions with some of the book authors. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, i wasn't aware you could that. Gavbadger (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

French Air Force

How carefully did you check the reverts you have just made here? Among other things, the Brigade des pompiers de l’air is carefully referenced to an official source of 10 September 2021. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I saw a user adding a large amount of information without adding any references. The edit summary didn't mention that the information came from the French Wikipedia, which the user is required to provide copyright attribution but didn't, i would expect a user which has been editing since 2016 to do that.

Taken from Afrikanda (air base)

You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Russian Wikipedia article at ru:Африканда (аэродром); see its history for attribution.

Wikipedia:Verifiability under "Responsibility for providing citations" clearly says "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." I'm not going to add a citation needed for every single sentence or dirty up an article which gets an average of 1200 views a day with citation needed section notices.

How do you know the information from French article is actually correct? They added just 3 references for 11,172kb of data, which referenced 3 single sentences, nowhere near the bulk of information.

I gave the user a personalised note regarding the reversions, and got a snotty reply back, if the user had reverted my removals in the article with the appropiate references, everything would of been fine.

Gavbadger (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey Gavbadger. Yes, I normally mark on my edit summaries "from Ruwiki" or "from Frwiki," better still, from the actual article. To your larger point, attribution does not need to be *instant.* It does need to be provided, however. Three weeks to a month is ample time. If B.Velikov does not do so, removals are completely justified. Feel free to remind me - I will get involved. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

164th Aviation Group

Dear Gavbadger this organization was not a brigade.

The categories appropriate to it are Category:Aviation units and formations of the United States Army and Category:Groups of the United States Army.

If you have a unclear situation with an article and you cannot exactly determine which correct category it goes in, please, do not hesitate to seek my or other third party advice. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Yeah that was definitely a mistake on my behalf. I looking at two additional articles at the time, and copied it from the wrong one. Gavbadger (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox title name

There is absolutely zero requirement for an infobox name to match the article page name. As per all other Wikipedia infoboxes, the infobox title should match the full correct legal name of the entity. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

As per Template:Infobox military installation - Parameters: "name – the name of the installation or structure." and "partof – optional – the larger complex the given installation is part of, if any. For proper grammar, it may be necessary to insert "the" before the name used here" also as per the official RAF website they use RAF Akrotiri - RAF Website Gavbadger (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Also as per WP:3RR a warning "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions. " Gavbadger (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Changes to reference format

Where is the consensus for the mass changes to reference format you are making with no or misleading edit summaries - such as [[4]], [[5]] and [[6]] where you removed the forenames of authors. Where does it say that authors' first names should be replaced by initials? How do these edits comply with WP:CITEVAR.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, i believed that the the CITEVAR applied to related articles such as RAF stations not just the individual article. I will revert my edits. Re the first example: the main reason for editing the page was to add the GR.3 retirement date, i don't believe i should have to say that i removed unused infobox parameters that will never be used in that article, or i edited pointless aircraft repetitive links ([[Hawker Tempest|Hawker Tempest V]]) since the piping isn't necessary and doesn't improve the link. Otherwise i would have to include a full paragraph in every edit summary. I removed the 2001 Jefford link such their were no inline links that related to it. I prefer to make multiple edits on a single article at one time instead of tons of single edits just to inflate my edit count. Gavbadger (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2023

Delivered October 2023 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

13:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2023

Delivered November 2023 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

11:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Aviation Museum Aircraft Lists

Introduction

I saw that you had been doing some reformatting of lists of aircraft in aviation museum article. I tend to disagree with these changes, so I reverted them (AZ, SMAM, YAM). However, I didn't want to get into an edit war or cause any hard feelings, so I figured I would lay out my arguments for retaining the existing format so that we could try to develop some sort of consensus.

Arguments (Data)

Including the year introduced, type and "developed from" information seems to be rather excessive and unnecessary detail for this type of article as this information can be found by simply clicking the internal link on each entry. As I argued in my proposal for a standardized table for aircraft manufacturer articles, the list of aircraft should be a summary of the aircraft in the collection, not a detailed breakdown. If any additional information is to be included, it should be relevant to the overall subject of the article. I could potentially see some sort of utility for year introduced and type, since they could help show relationships between aircraft, but none at all for "developed from". However, I am still inclined to argue that any details other than the model of aircraft is too much, since the goal of an aviation museum article is not to illustrate the history of aviation, but instead describe the museum.

Furthermore, the data tends to be a bit less comparable when the aircraft don't all have some sort of unifying characteristic such as being built by the same manufacturer or coming from the same time period. For instance, comparing a glider to a drone to single engine monoplane to a multirole fighter jet.

Arguments (Tables)

I know this is sort of a backwards argument coming from me, since I was the one who was arguing for standardized tables for aircraft manufacturer articles (which actually uses a similar format to your table), but in this case I am somewhat against it. (For more points, see my comments in the discussion about tables for surviving aircraft lists.) Using a table is not a bad idea, per se, but with no information other than the aircraft type, there is nothing that needs to be sorted. The only other bit of information that is worth including is the airframe identity, but given that there is not really any value in sorting it, it is not enough to justify the inclusion of a table.

Furthermore, they also don't accommodate non-sortable data well – such as notes like "replica" or "cockpit only". Yes, that can be placed in a "comments" or "notes" column, but it is less than ideal. Similarly, if this information is not available for all of the aircraft, then the section left with blank cells in the table.

Lastly, the tables both add extra whitespace and make the article significantly longer because there is no way to make them multi-column as is the case with the div col template.

Arguments (Subsections)

Generally, I would argue that the lists shouldn't be broken up into separate sections except where strictly necessary. For example, in extreme cases where the collection is excessively large as is the case with the National Museum of the United States Air Force. Even then, the sections are divided by display location, not time period – although in this case they correspond with time period. (However, I do acknowledge that when aviation museums subdivide their collections "era" is the most common choice.) As a matter of fact, breaking up the list would seem to negate some of the advantage of tables, as the inability to work across subsections would prevent the main benefit of the sort function – comparison – from being fully utilized.

On this note, how to structure aviation museum articles so that they have a uniform look is something that I've struggled with for a while. To that end, I actually created a template just the other day as a culmination of the conventions I had been developing on the subject. It also functions as a remind of the areas that can be covered when starting a new article. Although the "collection" section is only one portion of that, please feel free to take a look at it if you like.

Conclusion

I realize the reverts I did can seem combative, so I just want to say I appreciate all of the hard work that went into your edits and apologize if they gave the wrong impression. I don't want to seem unreasonable and try to keep an open mind, so if you have arguments in favor of your format, I would very much like to hear them. –Noha307 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, i've reverted my edits. Gavbadger (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate the consideration. –Noha307 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2023

Delivered December 2023 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

19:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2024

Delivered January 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2024

Delivered February 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"15 Signal Regiment (Information Support" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 15 Signal Regiment (Information Support has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § 15 Signal Regiment (Information Support until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2024

Delivered March 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Leeds Wikipedia meetup on Saturday 4th May

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.

Full details here.

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.

Jonathan Deamer (talk)

20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2024

Delivered April 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of No. 669 Squadron AAC

The article No. 669 Squadron AAC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of proven notability due to lack of references

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PercyPigUK (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of No. 672 Squadron AAC

The article No. 672 Squadron AAC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of references provided to prove notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PercyPigUK (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)