Talk:Green beret (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

*sigh*

We are not DABing the term "Green beret" but "Green Berets" so the headgear WP:PT doesn't make sense. Try to google "Green Berets". I got bored after viewing 5 pages of the US Army. Dominant WP:PT

DABs don't have images

MOS:DAB

This is a Disambiguation, not a list of everyone who has ever worn a green beret. DAB not List. You can create that article if you wish: List of persons wearing Green Berets

--Hutcher (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful stats:
  • "green berets" american OR "US Army" -british -french -austalian 157,000
  • "green berets" -american -"US Army" british -french -australian 43,000
  • "green berets" -american -"US Army" -british french -australian 28,000
  • "green berets" -american -"US Army" -british -french australian 11,100
--JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Green Berets being redirected to American special forces (copied from UK Wikipedians notice board)

(This discussion started at the UK Wikipedians Notice Board, which is clearly the wrong place for it, so as suggested by JHunterJ, I'm copying it across here. GyroMagician (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Berets_%28disambiguation%29?action=historysubmit&diff=394458781&oldid=394419016

I don't know where else is best to report this to so please pass it on, I found this via the

WP:BIAS project link. I thought about the admin board but I am guessing that is for more serious stuff than just disputed articles? But yeah, I came back and this guy just keeps doing it like he expects to sneak it in then hope no one notices it's been changed... --12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.14.248 (talk
)

Disputes like this can normally be sorted out by counting google hits:
So the main use of the term Green berets would appear to be the American term, as the disambig page suggests. -- roleplayer 12:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the best place to bring this up is where it was brought up, and where 87.194.14.248 was directed earlier in one of the reversions' edit summary:
Talk:Green Berets (disambiguation)
, rather than assuming bad faith and beginning a potential canvas campaign (at least, I don't see 87.194.14.248's corresponding alert to a U.S. group). Other stats:
  • "green berets" american OR "US Army" -british -french -austalian 157,000
  • "green berets" -american -"US Army" british -french -australian 43,000
  • "green berets" -american -"US Army" -british french -australian 28,000
  • "green berets" -american -"US Army" -british -french australian 11,100
--JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the US Green Berets have more hits than the other three, but I don't think that is the question. This is a disambiguation page, and the other two armies (the French still need to be added) are being moved to the very bottom of the page under 'see also', rather than being listed at the top as one might expect. I propose reverting to the first linked version, but re-ordering the 'In the Military' list to reflect the google hits (unless someone has another argument as to why a different force should have the first spot). GyroMagician (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd have thought that as the page is called
Green Berets then list all other meanings underneath? Which is not how it was laid out in 87.194.14.248's version. -- roleplayer 13:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
GyroMagician, could you bring this up on the disambiguation page's
Talk:Green Berets (disambiguation)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, you're right, this is the wrong place for the discussion - I'll copy my comment across. GyroMagician (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End of copy - let the discussion continue... GyroMagician (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the British nor the Australian forces mention "green beret" in the lead. The French commandos article does, but the relative prominence of the US forces makes the redirect to the US forces as primary usage reasonable. Rd232 talk 13:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe I've mis-understood what is being proposed here. Is the proposal to redirect
Special Forces (United States Army) (as is currently the case), or is the proposal about the form of the disambig. page, as given in the diff above? GyroMagician (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No the discussion at the UK Wikipedians notice board was about the order of how things are listed on the disambig page itself. -- roleplayer 14:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd handle these this way:
  • British Commandos
    to See also. The article mentions the headgear, but has nothing about the commandos being known as or referred to as "Green Berets".
  • Naval commandos (France)
    to See also. They're known as "bérets verts", not "Green Berets".
  • Australian commandos not included on this page. No mention of "green beret" on the article.
Or if the articles can be expanded (with sources or whatever as determined at those pages) to cover this topic, then at that point include the articles in the list. (I believe the anon-IPs request was to have the disambiguation page be the target of "Green Berets".) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you there. The distinction is either being known as the Green Berets or wearing green berets as part of the uniform. If anyone can locate references that the British or Australian commandos were ever called the Green Berets then they should be moved up from the "see also" section. I think the French should definitely be included above "see also" as I think it is reasonable to assume someone may search for the English translation of their nickname. -- roleplayer 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several books Commando: The Illustrated History of Britain's Green Berets, ROYAL MARINE COMMANDOS: Britain's Green Berets Who Dares Wins: The Green Beret Way to Conquer Fear and Succeed which mention the term in the title, so there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that the term is uses unofficially to describe UK Commando's. --Salix (talk): 15:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make the addition of the information to the
WP:V. It still needs to be added there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe it would be helpful to add a note on those pages, suggesting they include a direct reference to Green Berets if such exists, rather than simply moving them to 'see also' here? I find it slightly disingenuous to suggest this is about being called Green Berets, rather than simply wearing one. GyroMagician (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all disingenuous. Disambiguation pages disambiguate topics that may be ambiguous with the title -- that are known as or referred to by the name. They are not lists of topics that simply related to the title. See
WP:MOSDAB. A list article of groups that wear green berets could be created, if encyclopedically useful, but it would be a list article, not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
That's exactly what I meant. Certainly British commandos, and probably the others listed as well (I'm no expert here!), are well known as 'Green Berets' - or we wouldn't be having this conversation. In case it is not absolutely obvious, I am not supporting a list of everyone who has ever worn a green beret. I understand what a disambig page is for - exactly what it had been used to do here. GyroMagician (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching, and tend to agree that the US Green Berets seems to be primary usage. For example, here is a British newspaper, the Telegraph, using the term for the US forces without specifying US. [1] I think both French and British should be in the "may also refer to". --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what this is leading to, to having them in the may also refer to section rather than see also. References for verifiability can very easily be added to British commandos article now that we have the above links. -- roleplayer 17:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note on the talk pages at

Talk:Special Forces (United States Army) to try to bring in a few more comments here. I did not include the other (non-military) uses of Green Berets - if you think they should also be alerted, please contact them. GyroMagician (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The first use of the Green Beret was by British Commandos during the Second World War (same with the maroon beret for parachute forces) since then almost every other military in the world has copied there use for commando, special forces or airborne forces. British Commandos are never called the Green Beret{s} its an item of head wear in the commando forces. which identifies those having passed the commando course. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me what is being discussed here. We have an article
Special Forces (United States Army) which has a hatnote to Green Berets (disambiguation)
. Google searches can be confusing because they are not going to differentiate between Green Berets (capitals designating organisation) "The Green Berets are an elite.." and green betrets designating headgear "Today 10 Royal Marines were allowed to don their new green berets". If what you want to do is alter the dab page to something like this:

The

Green Berets
are a special unit of troops in the United States Army.

Green Berets may also refer to:

See also
  • Tales of the Green Beret, a daily comic strip and American comic book
  • Green beret, was the headgear of the British Commandos of World War II. Certain military organisations still wear green berets because they have regimental or unit histories that form a connection with the British Commandos of World War II.#
  • Military beret, for all military units that wear green and other coloured berets.
then I would support that. But I think the current page arrangement is about right.--
talk) 10:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not entirely comfortable with
Green Berets at the top and is only a single letter out from the name of this disambig page. Unless this disambig page is supposed to be a Green Berets exclusive disambig (which I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with either). Ranger Steve Talk 11:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not too sure about the direction of
Green berets either, given that they are only single letters or capitalisation's away from the main articles. If Green Beret remains as a redirect to this disambig page, then I think Green beret should probably be first on the list of "may also refer to". Green berets should probably come here too. Ranger Steve Talk 11:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
How about changing the redirect of "Green Beret" to
talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that a capitalisation of one of two words shouldn't see people being taken to such different articles. I imagine that a fair few people typing the term into the search bar will capitalise both Green and Beret when looking for the headgear - at least as many people as will type green berets into the search bar looking for the American Special Forces article. They're too similar and I think it would be generally better all round to have Green Beret and Green berets redirect to this disambig page. Ranger Steve Talk 08:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here - I never capitalise my searches, and I think Google and friends generally ignore case. Wikipedia pages do follow grammatical capitalisation, but I don't think most readers expect
Green Berets
to point to different locations.
As
Green Berets to redirect to this disambiguation page, with US Special Forces listed as the first item. GyroMagician (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It does not make sense to have an article called
talk) 10:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think anyone's suggesting that
Green Berets here, but if we were to do so I'd say we should redirect Green beret as well, making this a general page for all uses of the term, and changing Green beret to Green beret (headwear). Just a thought. Ranger Steve Talk 13:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"Green Berets" and "green beret" have primary topics, and should not go directly to a disambiguation page. "Green Beret" likely has a primary topic as well, since readers typing the capital B would be looking for the same info as "Green Berets". "Green berets" could be targeted at the headwear or to the disambiguation -- I'd opt for the headwear and possibly expand the hatnote there to provide a link to the
Green Berets target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a little confusing, don't you think, when
Green Berets goes to yet another location? (I confused myself trying to write that!) GyroMagician (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Not for the readers, most of whom will arrive at the intended destination and the others of whom can use the hatnotes and dab pages to get there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you really don't think that such minor differences in links are confusing, then there's not really much point in me continuing the discussion. I'll leave it up to you. GyroMagician (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can just assume that this isn't confusing for readers. GyroMagician and I have already pointed out several reasons why it can be. Can you elaborate on how tis isn't confusing? I think its a mess personally. Ranger Steve Talk 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've point out several theories, but nothing in practice. Are there any actual readers who are having trouble getting to the sought articles? Capitalization and number differences lead to different articles (or common articles) elsewhere in WP, with the same theoretical confusion but no (or little) practical confusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to make a distinction between the search and the link.
talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Several issues have been pointed out; just saying that the reader won't be confused doesn't solve or disprove anything. Sorry but I can't reconcile an argument like Green Beret likely has a primary topic as well, since readers typing the capital B would be looking for the same info as Green Berets in the same comment as the suggestion that people typing Green berets could be targeted at the headwear or to the disambiguation as if in some way there is an obvious distinction in search habits here. In my opinion these terms are far too similar to each other to be heading to different articles. Can you provide some similar examples of capitalisation and plurals without the same confusion (and I mean single letter differences with two or more primary topics)? Ranger Steve Talk 22:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red meat, Red Meat, Iron Maiden, Iron maiden (no primary). I'll dig up my singular/plural examples soonish. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer; singular and capitalisation issues with 2 primary topics. I don't doubt that there are plently of no problem independent examples. Ranger Steve Talk 07:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's what you believe is required, I am instead content with having everything redirect to the primary topic (the article on the U.S. Army Special Forces), but I don't believe that that reduction in confusion is a net benefit to the readership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is in the phrase "other uses".
green berets in a slightly different context. Hence, confusion. GyroMagician (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree. "green beret" is an article of clothing, "Green Beret" is a type of soldier named after the article of clothing, "iron maiden" is an instrument of torture, "Iron Maiden" is a band named after the instrument. Different topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Merging 2 answers into one comment to try and keep some order) I believe what GyroMagician means is that

green berets, which obviously makes for a bit more confusion that Iron Maiden (who hopefully don't wear iron maidens!). Per the higher up comment, I still think these comments have equal weight - as you yourself believed yesterday. Ranger Steve Talk 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. We appear to have hit an impasse. This is unfortunate, because the current situation is a mess. GyroMagician (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a mess, but as I mentioned, unmessing it would involve what? Targeting a single article (the primary topic) from all four titles "Green Berets", "Green Beret", "green beret", "green berets"? Or would two still be unmessed? "Green Berets" and "Green Beret" to one, "green beret" and "green berets" to another? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a mess but I would support changing "Green Beret" to redirect to the US special forces article and deleting
talk) 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

green beret

As people objected to my placing green beret in a see also section above perhaps a simpler solution to the problem is to move the disambiguation page to green beret (disambiguation)

Then we could have something like this:

A green beret, was the headgear of the British Commandos of World War II. Certain military organisations still wear green berets because they have regimental or unit histories that form a connection with the British Commandos of World War II.

Green Berets

The

Green Berets
are a special unit of troops in the United States Army.
Green Berets may also refer to:

See also

--

talk) 20:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Anyone got anything to say on this? --
talk) 09:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Done

talk) 05:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_beret_(disambiguation)&oldid=1202446691"