Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 119

Hello all. Just a reminder that the June 2013 backlog reduction drive is about to start. For those mbrs of the project looking for a way of contributing to the encyclopaedia pls consider signing up. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clear this up: That's in less than nine about ten hours hours time, right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it began on June 1? In 10 hours' time (UTC) it will only be May 31. Cdtew (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the project page says "The drive starts at 00:00 UTC on 31 May..." and I have no definite idea if that's midnight tonight or tomorrow night. Not really significant, just wondering.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well I guess I need clarification too...so the June backlog drive begins in May? Must be to give an unfair competitive advantage to all these Aussies...(kidding!) Cdtew (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick question: If I improve a stub to B-class, would it count in the contest? (Or does this only cover start and C-class articles?) Wild Wolf (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that it only covers start and C-class articles. You could list the others in the monthly contest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Another question, I just improved HMS Woolwich (F80) to B-class, but I failed to notice that it wasn't even tagged for MilHist, only WP:Ships. So I presume that it's not eligible for the contest?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry gents, I agree that timing is confusing ("0:00" isn't used in many militaries for this very reason). I copied and pasted from the last drive without checking - self administering upper cut. Will amend immediately. Anotherclown (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Benghazi attack is currently being discussed at talk: 2012 Benghazi attack. It occurs to me, that we are missing a disambiguation page, considering the various attacks concerning Benghazi over the decades. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, just a reminder that

Found a unreferenced article on what doesn't appear to be a notable US soldier. So I've AFD'd it (discussion here) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been slowly working on the article

As to the title of the second article, the Japanese occupied and managed Sarawak, Brunei, Labuan, and British North Borneo under a single IJA command. The southern portion of Borneo, formerly Dutch, was administered seperately by the IJN. From the perspective of writing about the occupation much of the information overlaps the national boundaries and combining it into a discussion of the area a whole would be both more logical and easier to write about.

Do any of you have any thoughts or guidance for me on the above.

Was there anything very important that more relates the administration of two territories, say Malaya and North Borneo, that does not apply to others? If not, information that overlaps fits in an overview of Japanese occupation. That said, there's no problem with it duplicating somewhat on more specific articles, which must after all stand-alone. The split makes sense to me. CMD (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Apart from both area's falling within present day Malaysia (Brunei excluded) and both being occupied by the Japanese, there is sufficient to differentiate them. Northern Borneo was important to Japan's war effort particularly because of oil. The military units occupying the country were different and nature of the occupation - while similar in some aspects is different in others. Allied prisoners were kept in camps in northern Borneo, while those from the Malayan peninsula were kept at Singapore. Liberation of northern Borneo began with an Allied invasion, whereas the peninsula was only liberated on the Japanese surrender.

talk

) 05:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if you split them, it wouldn't be hard to recreate the overview article if it becomes desirable at any point. CMD (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CMD - I'll wait a few days before doing so, in case anyone else wishes to comment.

talk

) 21:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is continuing on the articles talk page.

talk

) 00:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've raised concerns over the neutrality of this article and the relevance of some of its content, but the editor responsible for writing it appears to prefer to edit war than discuss these issues. Views from other editors would be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There are significant copyvio/plagiarism issues with the article as well - much of it is copied from the news articles it cites. It'll probably need to be nuked and recreated. Parsecboy (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this to my intention. I am concerned regarding the article's creator, as he appears to be engaged in advocacy, as he/she stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military:

I want public and medias to know from the article, what only their voice could turn the bureaucrats cold hearts.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As the AfD has failed, I am staring a discussion how to fix POV issues in the article, please see

Talk:Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military#POV issue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 19:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame it can't be pulled from mainspace and relegated to a sandbox until it's in something close to reasonable shape. Intothatdarkness 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The article urban warfare is in need of an overhaul. There is currently a section called Close-quarters battle which does not have one citation despite requests for them being present for months. I have placed links to a third party article on the talk page in a section called Second Battle of Fallujah that could be used to create an section similar to the others in the article such as the section called First Chechen War, but I would prefer it if someone who knows more about Second Fallujah and or urban warfare and has more interest than I were to write it. -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I am seeking assistance from members of the project in reviewing the GA "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathians Basin". I think this article could be further developed with your involvement. Thank you for assistance. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Following on from last year's WWI editathon at the British Library, we've organised another one for 29 June. We're aiming to make some of the newly-scanned (and public-domain!) Europeana books available on the day - this is several thousand volumes of history, contemporary politics, official documents, etc. They're going to be published online, but not until either late 2013 or early 2014, so this is a chance to work with them early.

(The exact list of material that will be available is still in flux - I'm trying to nail it down - but should include a significant number of unit histories, among other things.)

There'll be a public talk introducing the collection in the morning, followed by an afternoon session where people will be able to get copies of some of the material and work with it - writing articles, datamining, cropping images for Commons, or anything else. All welcome - Wikipedians or not. Please sign up if you're interested! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I am working towards overall improvements to the Treaty of Versailles article. The following is from the territorial changes section. I have not been able to find any information that backs it up, yet it does not seem prudent to just delete it since it does add some background context. Can anyone confirm if the overall points are correct and at the same time provide some inline citations to support the paragraph?

"Germany′s borders in 1919 had been established nearly 50 years earlier, at

Regards,EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would think that any history of the Thirty Years' War would give support to Sweden (Pomerania) and Poland (Silesia). For other Polish holdings incorporated into the Kingdom of Prussia, the same would apply to a history of the Seven Years' War.

I have concerns about "owned" in this statement, as well as using the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1848 to 1871 would be the applicable dates) rather than Austria (being wishy washy to include the period before 1801 when Austria upgraded from archduchy to empire). You can see, too by the redirect that there really wasn't an "Austro-Hungarian Empire". The nation was comprised of the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary). I have similar concerns in using Lithuania as opposed to the

Thanks for the tips in regards in ways to tweak the text, there are numerous problems like that throughout the article. Although I think I have removed most as I have worked my way through the my draft of the article. I shall see what I can find in the next few days regarding your research tips. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone help me write a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El_dos_de_mayo_de_1808_en_Madrid.jpg caption for a picture of the day blurb? Reiftyr (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That image (File:El dos de mayo de 1808 en Madrid.jpg) is used in several articles. I suggest either use the Lead from The Second of May 1808 or the caption with that image in The Third of May 1808. Maybe some text from both if you can fit it together. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just creat it in Template:POTD/2013-06-23. Any suggestion and enhancement are welcome. And I'm in doubt to primary link it to The Second of May 1808 or Dos de Mayo Uprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reiftyr (talk • contribs) 07:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I wanted to let you know that the GOCE is going to be running a copy editing blitz from June 16–22, during which we're going to try to {{copy edit}} as many tagged Military History articles as possible. If anyone here is interested, you're welcome to sign up and help us try to clear out all 85 such tagged articles. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Globalization, with assistance from Outlines WikiProject, has drafted an Outline of globalization. We welcome your input, additions, and comments. Meclee (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Recently, I've been in discussion with another user concerning the assessment of the "American Civil War" and it's assessment which is in WikiProject United States. Of course this user is not having the assessment included, he has been collaborating with other users which remain unknown to me. I am here to see if this assessment should be assessed since it involves WikiProject Military History and it's subgroup "American Civil War". This is up for discussion. Adamdaley (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I am the other user he is referring too so I just wanted to add a couple comments. I am in the process of removing the categories and the parameters for the ACW/ARW/USMIL importance so those won't be a problem in the next couple days (assuming someone with admin rights implements the changes to Template:WikiProject United States I have done in the sandbox since I certainly cannot be trusted with such an important tool).

With regards to the assessment cats my apologies for making extra work for your project. That was not my intent and the assessment shouldn't be needed for the WPUS project banner, just the WPMILHIST one. The WPUS banner doesn't have logic to support the b-class assessment so I don't know why that would even be an issue. If it would be better, I could change the importance categories for the WPUS template to something else so that it doesn't conflict with yours. I suppose we could also add functionality to the WPUS template for the B-class checklist as well but I would prefer not doing that just for one or 2 projects. Even if they are very active that still leaves a lot of others that aren't so active. As I mentioned to Adam, my intention was not to make more work for this project, I had the naive hopes that more would be interested in collaborating with the WPUS project but unfortunately that was a huge failed assumption on y part. Just let me know what you would like me to do.

talk

) 03:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess no one else has anything to add? I thought I would at least opening it up for discussion to get other people's opinion, thoughts and whatever else. Adamdaley (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm kinda surprised myself no one else had anything to add.

talk

) 16:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I read this thread sometime after it was posted, and it made absolutely no sense to me. Clearly there has been a discussion elsewhere, between you two, but Adam's OP did not really provide any background or context that helps make sense of the issue. If no one else has commented, perhaps they had similar trouble deciphering what kind of opinion is being asked for. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What I was trying to say that articles that were related to the American Civil War, could also be assessed (importance, Low, etc) with within WikiProject United States, which back when was part of our subgroup "American Civil War". Something has clearly been done with this "importance" of American Civil War. (I don't know how many other users who were aware of this assessment, but I have known about it for a long time, a couple of years). Now it seems there has been a slight change with this importance assessment and the American Civil War Table that is assessed on our subpage, to not include the importance. Doesn't matter. Not many people understand or get what I mean anyway. Only matters that I understand what I mean. Adamdaley (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is every general notable? Why this guy?!Da5id403 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:MILPEOPLE gives guidance on the notability of military people. Dormskirk (talk

) 23:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

They're all notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, Mr. Da5id403's complaint may have something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Ray Fry. See User talk:Da5id403#Request for Comment on Afd: Robert Fry (Serial killer). It's not apparent that there's anything illicit about the connection, just pointing it out. Cdtew (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the connection too. The title of this post certainly isn't neutral! - BilCat (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I started the article

Note that Convergence zone is about weather, but the term is used more widely, notably sonar and aerial gunnery. Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page there, with the reader directed to one of several topics.

Please feel free to improve this new article. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you're talking about the process, & not (strictly) the point of aim, I'd say "harmonization". Good idea for a page, whatever it's called. :D Rupert Giles ^{oh, Jack...} 09:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Would suggest trying to stay away from 'convergence zone' in addition, as it is also used in regard to the acoustics of submarine sonars (cf

Hunt for Red October and others are examples). Buckshot06 (talk)

23:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Harmonising" (or "harmonization", that's fine) is the term I've seen most often in connection with this subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like harmonizing/harmonising has the most support. Does anyone know which group was the first to consider this problem? Perhaps the article should change from its US English style to UK English, if the first 'harmonisers' were European. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Given Flight was still using "harmonization" (though not without also using "harmonisation") into the 1960s, I hav no problem with the older (British) English spelling being used. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have moved the article to Gun harmonisation; now it will be in UK English. Thanks for all of your feedback! Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am planning on creating a new page about the WW2 Oceanian Theatre which is largely ignored, but should it instead be named as the Australian Theatre similiar to the American Theatre?--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the South West Pacific theatre of World War II already exist as an over-article for what happened in the Oceania region during WWII? If not, what articles and events would potentially be covered under such an article? As far as I'm aware, there is no "Oceanian" or "Australian" theatre detailed by sources that is distinct from the South West Pacific theatre, or its contained campaigns (such as the Phillipines or New Guinea campaigns): the closest I've seen is the modern linking of fairly unrelated events into a "battle for Australia". -- saberwyn 12:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've not heard of such terms being used either. Are there references in

WP:RS that cover the events of this period in such a manner? If not IMO the current articles in this area are probably sufficient. Anotherclown (talk

) 12:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my revert of your edit to South-East Asian theatre of World War II it was a mistake. I was thinking of the theatre under South East Asia Command not earlier under the American-British-Dutch-Australian Command.

There are a number of articles about the region during World War II most of them in the following category:

• Category:Pacific theatre of World War II

See specifically:

• South-East Asian theatre of World War II, American-British-Dutch-Australian Command, South East Asia Command
• Indian Ocean raid
• South West Pacific theatre of World War II South West Pacific Area
• There are also lots of individual battle articles.

What exactly do you mean by "WW2 Oceanian Theatre" and under which command did it come? -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26 has created this article at

Air raids on Australia, 1942–43 or FA-level Axis naval activity in Australian waters article. Nick-D (talk

) 01:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't want people promoting the idea that there was a de jure Australian Theatre except in 1996-2004 (and why is it using American spelling?) Do you want to create an AfD or should I? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok here is my problem with what you are saying, if there was no Australian Theater of war then HOW ON EARTH can there be justification for the similarly named article American Theater???? As far as I'm concerned there were no real attacks made against America in WW2, Australia on the other hand has well documented naval and aerial battles that took place in Australia. So tell me if yoou want to get rid of my article than you are a hypocrite unless you remove the American one as well!!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, Collingwood, no need to get defensive here -- I'm pretty sure both Nick and Hawkeye are Aussies themselves. Regardless, the existence of an article similar to the one you'd like to make isn't dispositive as to whether a new article should be created. There are articles created every day on Wikipedia that likely shouldn't be standalone articles, and instead should be redirects, combined with other articles, or just plain deleted. Cdtew (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The US military established an actual 'American Theater' during the war, and this continues to be used to classify the region by historians when discussing military deployments and operations (see [6] and [7], for instance). There was not an equivalent 'theater' around Australia (which formed part of the South West Pacific Area once it was established in 1942, with there being no single command structure before this time - the RAN, Army and RAAF each had their own military districts, with the Navy's Australia Station forming part of the British system of command zones), and post-war historians have not used the term 'Australian Theatre' as far as I'm aware. Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And the battles in this "American Theater" were what??? The Great LA Raid?? No one even died in that.. The Fire Balloon attacks?? Merely started a forest fire... My point is that you are making it seem like the American Theater was of more importance than what was going on in Australia, "The Australian Theater". I remember when I tried to add information to the Battle for Australia page and you refused citing the fact that it is a historiographical term. BY THAT LOGIC SO THE AMERICAN THEATER WAS A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL TERM AS WELL AS NO BATTLES TOOK PLACE THERE.--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No answer huh??--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

To quote Sgt. Hulka from the movie

reliable sources that say otherwise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk

) 05:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that last time I was in a discussion with you on a topic related to this you also abused me and were blocked, I don't propose to continue this discussion - I was hopeful that you'd calmed down on the basis of your recent editing, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As an Australian, I've also never heard of an "Australian Theatre". I always thought the "South-West Pacific Theatre" covered the lot, as it is synonymous with the South West Pacific Area command of MacArthur, with the Allied sea, land and air commands below him. The "American Theatre" comparison is, with respect, an

WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Peacemaker67 (send... over

) 07:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick I apologised for that already??? Are you still going on about that??? Now answer my question--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Rather than go on about Nick seemingly not wanting to answer you, how about you address Sturm's request to "please provide links to
  reliable sources that say [Oceanian Theatre or Australian Theatre]"? That would finish this even quicker. — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 07:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I will as soon as you give me references that talk of an American Theater, then we can discuss--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• 1, 2, or most anything here. Your turn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26 your comments above really aren't helping your cause. Clearly there are refs to support the fact that the term "American Theater" is valid but of course that is largely irrelevant anyway. You proposed, and then created, an article against consensus about a topic that is already covered in other articles, using a name that no other editor has heard of (including quite a few fairly experienced Australian editors). You need to provide sources to support this or accept the fact that this article's lifespan is limited. Anotherclown (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Great to see another member who actually WANTS to debate this. Thankyou! Regarding those two links, both do reference the "American Theater" HOWEVER, no recorded battles took place in America, nor any major attacks. The Atlantic war wasn't aimed at America but more to stop the shipping lines to Britain to starve them out. And on the West coast of America the only real attack was a bunch of fire balloons which caused little to no damage. What does this mean??

• It means that the so called "American Theater" is a HISTORIOGRAPHICAL term. (Meaning they percieved a threat but no threat eventuated)

--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And the term you are promoting? Sources, please? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26. Why do you keep raising the issue of the American Theater when this discussion is about the supposed existence of an Australian Theatre? Again pls provide refs to show this term has been used in reliable sources (this is the third time I have asked this now). Has any historian used this term? It doesn't seem that way at the moment . Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Australian Theater nominated for deletion here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't swear at me again Crisco, I am not promoting any term. If the "Battle for Australia" is considered historiographical (Battle for Australia is the basis for "Australian Theater")

• Even though recorded attacks occurred and aerial battles

• And if my article is flagged for deletion because it means it is HYPOCRITICAL to also not delete the "American Theater" Because no attacks or battles occurred in the American Theater and attacks and battles occurred in the Australian Theater.
• See my point?--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Collingwood, just where has Crisco sworn at you? You made the same accusation at your talk page and I saw no evidence of it there either -- please enlighten us. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Anotherclown do you not understand what I'm saying?? If the Australian Theater is considered historiographical even though battles and attacks occurred there then it is hypocritical for the American theater to also not be considered historiographical because NO attacks or battles were fought there!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest no I do not. As has already been explained this argument is not a valid one. You have basically admitted that the term "Australian Theatre" is OR. No one is disputing that fighting occurred in Australian airspace and territorial waters during this period (and these events are already covered elsewhere), what is being disputed is the use of the term "Australian Theatre" to describe these events. Unless this term was used officially at the time or has been used since by historians in reliable sources (as "American Theater" clearly was and is) this has to go. We can't make terms up just because there is a similar name used for another article. Its really that simple. Anotherclown (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep completely agree with that statement anotherclown, and understand what you are saying. BUT would it not be hypocritical to not delete the American Theater too?--Collingwood26 (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, because the existence of an "American Theater" is supported by RS and an "Australian Theatre" is not (it is irrelevant how much fighting actually occurred, the only thing that matters is that the term is used in RS). That is the basis of Wikipedia. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But without any evidence of real conflict in America means that the so called "American Theater" is histriographical, is it not?--Collingwood26 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not going to discuss this any further. I have tried to help you understand but I'm not going to keep going around in circles. I've said everything I want to say. Pls re-read the discussion above if its still not clear. Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Based on how Collingwood keeps going back to the American Theater without actually responding to other concerns, it feels as if this who dispute is just to get the American Theater article deleted. Which, as is abundantly clear from the discussion here, is not happening. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• That and a clear misunderstanding of the possible notability of a "purely historiographical" term. WP:N does not say theaters need battles to be notable, but it does say that they need reporting in multiple reliable sources. That a term is "historiographical" or a neologism is not, in and of itself, indicative of no chance of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Crisco what Im saying is if the Battle for Australia is considered historiographical, then how come the american theater isnt considered the same?--Collingwood26 (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your question is not related to the notability of an article/term, nor its use or discussion in reliable sources. Those are the two major components of establishing whether an article is worth having, and may not be the same for every topic (both here may be historiographical, but that does not automatically mean that neither is notable enough for an article; just as both myself and
  Shakespeare are writers, but we aren't necessarily both notable). — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 09:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Collingwood, you seem to think American in this context=
  United States of America when there are two big continents that are named "Amrerica". The theater's geographical area extended from Newfoundland (which probably called it a theatre) to Brazil. Theaters are not normally named for nations and the American Theater wasn't. There is no parallel to your desire for a national name for a theater. As for your insistance there was no action in this theater, I'd debunk it based on personal experience, but that would be OR.--Lineagegeek (talk
  ) 00:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I know theaters aren't named for nations, and the American theater deals from North America to South America. The Australian Theater deals with the continent of Australia, not a nation. Perhaps you need to improve your geography...--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I think you need to consider dropping the

WP:STICK and moving on. There has been clear consensus against your arguments from early on, and the AfD is heading one way fast. There is plenty of work that needs to be done on the articles listed above, especially Attacks on Australia during World War II. Perhaps your energy would be best directed there? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over

) 04:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France#Until the article meets basic quality standards… CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I found the stub

I also found the moderately sized Leave (U.S. military) which reads like a section of a soldiers handbook and the stub leave (military). If the minutinae of the former was removed there would barely be a few lines left. How do editors feel about merging the one into the other? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Background

The current default output of {{KIA}} is † which looks like a Christian cross in some fonts, which has caused much confusion, and quite a few threads, over many years:

• Threads at Template talk:KIA: Template talk:KIA#Origin of symbol, Template talk:KIA#Alternate symbol, Template talk:KIA#Change to KIA, Template talk:KIA#A non-religious symbol should replace the Christian cross currently used for the KIA., Template talk:KIA#RELIGIOUS INSENSITIVITY?
• Threads elsewhere:
  Talk:Dagger (typography)#Christian Cross
  )
• A talk-namespace search for kia dagger brings up a few likely results of article talkpage disputes. More are mentioned in the threads linked above.
• A wider namespace search for kia dagger brings up a few more discussions.
• Searching for "kia cross" leads to many results, but quite a few are on unrelated topics.

The symbol is called a

The stylised version (as used in various typefaces) is more clearly meant to symbolise a Dagger (fighting weapon), as seen in the image File:Daggers.svg :

The usage of the symbol – both historically, and in modern times – as a marker for people

1. Change the default symbol to use a particular font that has a more stylised dagger (Needs testing, as many fonts aren't universally installed)
2. Change the default symbol to use an image file, instead of a typographic glyph, e.g. File:Dagger symbol.svg:
3. Change the default output to: "(KIA)" - and only use the alternate "dagger symbol" when historically-accurate, or when references dictate.

That's all I can find, to summarize. Experts: Please feel free to alter my concise overview above, as needed, so that anyone coming to the thread later on, can get the most accurate overview.

Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just had a look at its use in the infobox for Second Alamein. Can hardly spot it - but does it matter?. My opinion is, if its important that X was killed during the battle, it'll be mentioned in text, and if its really important it'll be mentioned in the lead. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The most recent article mentioned in the template's talkpage, is Battle of the Camel, a battle in 656 A.D. between two Muslim groups. The user who commented stated that it came across as offensive to Muslims. Other users have previously commented on the same issue, but also commented on the issue of whether it's historically accurate to use this "KIA" symbol in all wars/infoboxes across the centuries, or not. Again, I'm not familiar with any of the related topics, I'm just summarizing, and pointing towards further information. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My first question is what is the most common style of the dagger used in reliable sources? If it is the one that Wikipedia presently has as a default, we should continue to use that symbol. If not, why isn't Wikipedia using that most common style? If it is the most common style, then why change it? If it is because someone finds it intolerant or objectionable, would the argument for change fall under

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 09:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would question why we need the symbol at all particularly in the infobox, if the individual was that important then the fact he died in action would be in the article, so perhaps just deprecate the use of the symbol rather than mess about with it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for centralising all these discussions Quiddity. If we can reach consensus here it might be handy to have a banner at the template page linking here. It probably won't stop drive by comments though...

Anyway, I would prefer to see the symbol remain. It's a well known symbol that I often come across in my line of work and I think it adds to the infobox. The infobox's job is to summarise important information from within the article, and the death of a commander is often very pertinent (consider the Battle of Hastings, Battle of Bosworth Field and the Battle of Trafalgar). I don't think that KIA is a suitable alternative as it's a relatively modern term and would look out of place on the above article infoboxes. It might often be inappropriate as well. The symbol is used (appropriately in my opinion) in the Battle of the River Plate article, but Langsdorff wasn't killed in action, so using KIA would be wrong.

However, I can accept that it looks like a cross. Although I would rather not see us cleansing wikipedia of well known symbology just because it might offend people (should we remove the swastika from every article it appears in?), changing the font may be an idea. I'd prefer to stick to a font than use a manufactured icon - numbers 2 and 5 above look quite good.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, but I'm happy to go along with a consensus. I'm away for a few days now though, so won't be able to comment again till Monday. Regards, Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only non-secular Muslims, the extreme nutters that is, oppose the cross. As a "peaceful" religion, everyone else should be tolerant. But why do we only ever hear mention of Muslims? What about Sikhs or Buddhists? Or beyond that, what about atheists or other non-religious people? The fact is that the cross is symbolic of "is dead" not "died a Christian" or anything similar. We use little crosses with a poppy attached during the UK Remembrance Day services.. there is no religious implication. I think when you've got an infobox detailing a battle with a lot of officers, having (KIA) after each killed becomes cumbersome, whereas a superimposed cross is less evasive and is immediately known to mean "was killed" without any religious sentiment. I'm not a religious person, I despise organised religion, but I despise political correctness almost as much, and I see doing away with an "icon" not a "religious symbol" as yet another contrived PC motion. Islamic objections have no place on Wiki, because the icon is not being enforced for Christian reasons, it is not a headstone, rather it is used traditionally by historians. What next, do we stop wishing each other "Merry Christmas" each year because other religions don't celebrate it? Please... On an added note, I would support wrapping the html † entity with a css style tag to fix a font present on PC and Mac: Arial or Verdana, are both available and are plain. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

+1 to that Marcus said. I'm not a fan of the symbol in infoboxes, but I see no problem with it in principle. Intothatdarkness 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Test of Fonts:

1. †
2. †

Both of these improve the display, for me. I'm not sure if they work for everyone else? Please reply, if either of them still looks like the current †

Also, I've requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting that someone help advise on technical implementation, so someone might fix my examples, or provide new ones, soon. –Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well to me they look like daggers and not an underlined "t" which is definite progress in the presentation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Both look the same to me, though the use of span is the better markup, font is deprecated and not supported by HTML5. I think the template:KIA needs updating to apply an inline style such as this. I think we also need to consider making it superimposed. e.g.

1. General Smith †
2. General Brown†
3. General Jones^†

I prefer the superimposed cross as it slightly removes the icon from the main text, making it clearer that it is an aside to the name. The current practice of having it the same font size as the name is a little forceful. A superimposed icon would probably be better for people printing out Wiki pages also, as in black/white a cross the same size may appear as a "t", as styles can be overwritten. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is a consequence of using sans-serif fonts; practically all of them have a plain, cross-like dagger. In serif fonts there is much more variety in the details, but they’re all pretty dagger-like, the stem usually tapering to a point at the foot, with serifs or similar terminations to the other strokes making the ‘pommel’ and ‘guard’. (My CSS specifies a serif text font, so I’ve never noticed the problematic daggers. I will refrain from ranting about the unsuitability of sans-serif type for body text here.) Anyway for a font specification, whether done with CSS or HTML tags, “serif” ought to suffice. For something more specific, Times Roman (in its many variants) is probably the most common serif font family; Georgia and some others have been included with both Mac and Windows systems for quite a few years now, so are likely available to most readers.—Odysseus1479 05:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I don’t much care for the superscript version, #3 just above: it‘s so small that the details that would distinguish it from a plain cross tend to vanish. Even when it’s normally sized, I expect some readers won’t notice the difference on-screen.—Odysseus1479 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the added "detail" serif provides makes any major difference anyway, at higher resolutions. A superimposed dagger or cross is no bigger or smaller than a reference number. Serif or sans-serifs, it's still going to look like a cross shaped icon, it doesn't really matter if it tapers at the bottom. Personally I'm more in favour of ^† than ^† because it is more defined and means we don't have to be concerned about resolution issues, for the best part of the range, as serifs are more likely to pose an issue at extremely high resolutions, superimposed or not. Better safe than sorry. We should be making this sans-serif to keep in mind that resolutions keep getting more extreme.. I don't see how anyone copes with reading text beyond 1080p anyway, what with technology pushing monitor resolutions to 4K (even 8K?) scales, people will end up with monitors the size of a whole wall before we know it (and bad squints). We can't be expected to cover every resolution easily, from handheld mobile/tablet devices to 1080p+ screens, but at least with sans-serif you know it will more-or-less look the same across the range, where serif fonts could pose issues at lower and higher settings, because fine detail renders differently. Probably explains why most web safe fonts in use are of the plainer sans-serif varieties. The KISS principle applies here. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If, for whatever reason, the above options don't work and you want a specific style of dagger, you could make or use a free/open font with the appropriate symbol, and add a request for it to be added as a
  T
  11:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

KIA Dagger symbol - Update

1. I've updated the template based on the feedback, for which much thanks to all. If any further changes are needed, hopefully we can discuss them briefly here or there, and keep moving forward.
2. The article killed in action could really use some work, and ought to include a mention of this symbol and its modern and historic usages. If anyone can find info, that'd be awesome. It has over 3,500 incoming links.

Hope that all works, thanks again. –Quiddity (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm opposed to the application of "serif" fonts, for the technical reasons stated in my last comment, which seem to have been ignored. I think a greater level of consensus is required before applying changes to such a widely-used template, given that only 3 or 4 people actually responded to this 5-day old thread, the change was too hastily applied. Also, please see

WP:SUPSCRIPT shows that sup/sub are directly supported and even recommended over various html entities by the MOS, despite earlier concerns. I think we need to look at other options here. Ma®©usBritish^{chat

} 10:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally agree with the use of serif fonts to make the dagger symbol clearer:

WP:FONTFAMILY

seems to be talking about using CSS directly in an article's code, and this would be an example of one of the "special templates" mentioned at the end of the second paragraph; even if the computer has no serif fonts at all, this will default back to how it has been until now (i.e. not the end of the world). Superscript seems like a reasonable compromise to me, but bold (currently on by default) for some reason actually makes it much less clear, at least on my display (is it the other way round for anyone else?):

• Normal, bold: †, non-bold: †
• Superscript, bold: ^†, non-bold: ^†

So under the new changes we should now have bold switched off by default. Also, the code should surely have the serif <span style="..."> around the entire {{#ifeq:{{{bold|}}}|||}}, though for some reason span is still being applied to the unspanned † at the moment. --

T

13:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, point by point:

Nobody had commented in 3 days, so my code update was an attempt to prevent further umbrage at other articles in the meantime.

I was taking into account the numerous comments in the threads I linked at the thread-top, so the change is based on more than just the commenters here.

The bold-normal versions and the bold-superscript versions are equally clear for me, but the non-bold-normal version is slightly less clear, and the non-bold-superscript version is the least clear.

I added the span to the unbolded dagger in the following edit, hence that is serif.

I didn't implement superscript because (a) it can negatively effect the leading in some cases and I'm not familiar with where this template is used outside of infoboxes (which would need testing), and (b) it is less clear because it is smaller.

Specific changes could be suggested at Template:KIA/sandbox if anyone wants to?

I think that's everything. Feedback welcome. –Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@Xensyria –

WP:FONTFAMILY: "Articles used to explicitly define font families for special characters, because older browsers could not automatically select an appropriate font. This is no longer dealt with by using explicit font definitions in the articles." Clearly states that use of in-line font-family is a past practice and is no longer used, it gives no exceptions. Help:Special characters#Viewing says that in-line font styling "may" works and does not encourage it. Using styling in a templates carries it forward into articles, so it is used in articles either way, because it ends up in the html source. MILHIST prides itself on being careful with regards meeting MOS standards, in order to meet higher quality, and this form of in-line serif styling is not a good practice, it doesn't give consideration to different user configurations, various screen resolutions, or printed media. Ma®©usBritish^{chat

} 13:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@Quiddity – You've stated that the serif styling is "clear for me". That only applies to you, on your machine, with your chosen browser. It does not give respect to the dozens of other configurations on different platforms. There is too much design preference being implied here, and not enough consideration for the technical limitations. Serif fonts can lose detail at different resolutions, this is a known fact. Non-serif fonts generally don't have such issues being slightly bolder. 3 days does not grant enough time for reasonable discussion to take place. It's fair enough inviting other people to comment, but discussions should be centralised so that everyone can be on the same page. Taking the majority views from one old/past discussions and ignoring another new opinions is generally considered similar to

WP:FORUMSHOP, especially when there's a conflict of interest and you make changes based on comments that only support your initial view: consensus just doesn't work that way. As much as I assume good faith in this case, I consider the change to serif potentially unstable, and one that has wide-spread effects. Again, I request you take the template back to its original state and seek further opinions and approval on this matter. The leading is a pre-set matter in Wiki's CSS, and applies to all instances of sub/sup, a couple of pixels are added to the line-spacing to prevent overlap, which is not destructive to the prose. Superimposed, it is no smaller than a reference number, and without serifs still looks like a cross, rather than a twiggy thing, bold or not. It doesn't look like a "t" and it is also friendlier for printing. I think there's too much emphasis on the "dagger" image and not on the fact that it's a notation symbol. And not enough emphasis on it being placed more suitably. Books tend to notation icons superimposed, whether it be stars, crosses, or numbers, in my experience. Why is Wiki any different? Sorry, but I think we need to refocus our efforts here, on what we're trying to achieve with this template, as it is a lost cause. Ma®©usBritish^{chat

} 13:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish:

• Serif: Serif fonts are supported by xensyria, Odysseus1479, GraemeLeggett, and myself, directly above. Serif fonts are the only way to achieve a non-cross-like symbol, unless we use an image-file.
• Superscript: Superscript was objected to by Odysseus1479 and myself (implicitly), and xensyria stated that non-bold superscript was less clear than bold superscript. (Note that
  Superimpose means something unrelated). Given that it is inherently smaller, it's safe to assume that superscript is less legible in general. Also, Superscript links usually (always?) lead to a reference on the same page, whereas the {{KIA
  }} symbol links to a completely different page.
• Spacing: The template currently (and historically) has a " " (non-breaking space) before the symbol, so your comment that "I prefer the superimposed cross as it slightly removes the icon from the main text" (as it pertains to the 2nd example you gave) isn't accurately based on the template as it stands.
• Sizing: I'd support a very minor size increase (via CSS styling), if anyone else feels that is warranted/needed, to further increase legibility/clarity.
• References regarding the contemporary and historical usage of the symbol would be great, as I requested a few times above. Partly for this discussion, but especially for the articles
  Dagger (typography)#Modern usage
  . If you can find any, great!
• Minor point: the discussion lasted 2 days, and then there was 3 days of silence. My apologies for not waiting the full week for the thread to be archived; I'm not familiar with this WikiProject's standard speed of action - all parts of Wikipedia move at different speeds, and I believe 3 days of silence to be sufficient to conclude that no new comments were forthcoming, and that preventing further insults to various cultures is important. Hence I updated the template.

If you'd like to {{

ping}} various users so that they can contribute more thoughts to this thread, then feel free. If anyone else has objections (or support) to my update, then please chime in. –Quiddity (talk

) 22:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly, I see no logic behind the need for a "non-cross-like" symbol, except from the anti-religious-icon people. Before it was a plain cross, now it's a cross with serifs.. there's no difference in the shape, just the quality of how it appears.
• Sizing is not easily implemented without fixing the font-size. This can present accessibility issues, and so is not a good idea as scaling is not always predictable. We don't need to make things any worse than they already are. I don't see why one small icon needs to have a ton of non-standard html/css wrapped round it either.. it simply adds bulk to the template, which is inefficient.
• The spacing matter isn't an issue, whether it be historical or not. Browsers change day-by-day, as can how we use html. There is no strength in using historic methods.. otherwise we could do many things "the old way" and never advance.
• Which brings me to the point that my concern this change completely ignores MOS recommendations was completely ignored, again. Funny how my strongest point on the Wiki guidelines keeps being skipped over and other irrelevant matters raised or created.
• Wikipedia:False consensus#List of 'opponents' might be worth mentioning. As the proponent of the motion to change this template you are still cherry picking views that favour your preference, whilst ignoring objections of valid technical concern. I object to the disrespectful methods being employed here.
• Your point that the KIA icon links to a different page is unsupported by any policy or guideline that implicitly requires superscripted wikilinks to be anchored is invalid. I don't intend to listen to you make rules up as you go along about how the icon should follow some unaddressed form of standardisation whilst completely ignoring the non-use of inline "font-family" CSS already covered and dissuaded by MOS. You can't pick and choose, especially when one guideline is real and the other is fantasy.
• I don't intend to jump through hoops pinging or canvassing anyone on my time, we have plenty of regulars, several coords, and a few admins at MILHIST, who visit this page, with sufficient time logged on Wiki to comment on the matter if given the chance, three days isn't adequate; the preferred process here is that you revert your edits and seek further approval, following
  accessibility
  ), it would seem that there are no answers to my points, of merit.
• This way this template appears needs addressing, yes, but this enforced manner is not the right way to go about it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll state again, that I'm interested in finding references for how this symbol has been used in the past, and in the present - and specifically whether a serif or sans-serif version is ever preferred. Also whether there are alternative symbols that we ought to be including, for historical or foreign figures -

Eg.

ק

Eg.2. Talk:Battle of Thermopylae#Symbol for .22killed.22 mentions the thanatos symbol, which leads to this book reference.

I think we'd all very much like to find military-history style guides, which comment on this directly. Does anyone know of anything?

• The only typographical reference I can find is APS style manual (though of course we don't obey external style manuals, we simply keep them in mind whilst writing our own). All other style guides that I can find are referring to the dagger in its usage as a footnote indicator, not in its usage as the "death dagger". Most examples place the dagger on the baseline (not superscript) though you didn't mention superscript in your latest reply, so perhaps you are no longer seeking that change.
• At Talk:Great American Interchange#Little crosses.3F, @Bob the Wikipedian: comments on the symbol's pre-Christian usage as a symbol for death. Maybe he can provide insight or sources for that?
• See examples of talkpage disputes:
  Talk:Operation Entebbe#KIA.3B all or nothing, Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 8#Removed KIA for Khamis Gaddaffi, Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 10#Again with the dagger.3F, Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 18#KIA symbols, Talk:Iraq War/Archive 8#KIA symbol for Zarqawi.2C others, Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)/Archive 9#KIA in Infobox
  , etc etc etc. If the default is going to keep being a cross-like symbol, and it continually causes problems, then we have to think of ways to solve that. Ideally, we will use ways that match the external world's common usage of the symbol, particularly in the fields of history and military history. It's not just Muslims that are concerned, it's also ancient greek historians, and Jewish editors, and others.
• I do not believe font-family specification will have any negative effects on accessibility, which is why I have not needlessly reverted the change to the template, which would be based solely on your hypothetical concern. We already use font-family extensively in MediaWiki:Common.css. If sizing/scaling is the only problem, then our CSS experts will be able to advise us on the best use of percentages or ems, to fit in with the current site CSS sets - we already use that extensively for various aspects of our formatting, and percentages or ems are specifically designed to provide good accessibility. (Note: I'm been active at the WP:ACCESS pages for many years, and do have a good understanding of both CSS and accessibility issues). However, I have asked for others to give input:

I've asked again at WT:MOS/Text formatting for feedback on technical issues, and repeated the request at WT:ACCESS, and I see you've asked at WT:MHCOORD, so hopefully some other editors will chime in, soon. –Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I still suggest a KIA icon be superscript, or even subscript. Font-family recommendations apply to in-line styling. CSS files can be over-written with custom CSS, but in-line css is harder to over-write, especially in terms of accessibility. You may well have worked on WP:ACCESS, I studied web design and web development at University some years ago, and am more than familiar with various HTML/XHTML/CSS practices, as well as

• If your main technical concern is the inline-styling aspect, then we can possibly add a CSS class to the template and in our stylesheets. You said above "[...]the use of span is the better markup [...]" and "I think the template:KIA needs updating to apply an inline style such as this", hence I didn't understand you were objecting to this aspect. Note however, we do use inline-styling of spans extensively within broadly used templates elsewhere, eg. Template:Sidebar, Template:Small, etc. Adding classes to the main site stylesheets that are loaded for every single page, is only encouraged when it is required by a large percentage of pages. This template is only used in 3500+ instances, currently.
• The symbol does have a long history of use; but again, accurately referenced details (any references at all!) would be helpful for this discussion, and for those other templates, and for the articles about the symbol(s). In past discussions (linked at top) some editors objected to making the default display (KIA) because it is still not historically accurate, eg. @Ranger Steve:'s comments here and within this thread above.
• The other templates ({{Executed}}, {{DOW}}, {{Surrendered}} and {{POW}}) do warrant discussion, but a separate or subthread would be helpful, for other editors trying to keep up, or coming to the discussion fresh. And again in these cases, RS references for current and historical practices, would be incredibly helpful in bringing us to an informed decision. –Quiddity (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My support for span or an inline style was negated and ended when I later said, "Also, please see WP:FONTFAMILY, which, had I known this MOS guideline existed earlier, I would have mentioned." I prefer to follow the MOS very closely, for the better of articles, of MILHIST, and of Wiki itself.. it if safer in the long-run and is the only way to maintain quality standards. I'd personally mark down any article up for assessment which uses any method that contravenes the MOS or ignores WAI blatantly. I do not think Wikimedia will add unique style to the common.css for the sake of a one-character icon which sees so little use (out of all Wiki articles), and also because the cross is not used uniquely for KIA, so it wouldn't be efficient. As you say.. ~3500 is not worth the effort. Ranger Steve's comments are all generally

WP:IJDLI with very little, if any, logical reasoning behind not reverting to KIA. I see no reason why one editor should stand in the way of progress. Clearly there are substantial issues with using an icon.. design and religious riff-raff. With (KIA) there are no such issues of merit. Steve simply needs to get off his high-horse and see that the icon causes more trouble than it's worth. "KIA" is a term well known, and poses less issues. Ma®©usBritish^{chat

} 21:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where all that comes from, but I'd appreciate it if those comments were retracted or apologised for. I have no high horse - opinions have been requested and I gave mine. This is a style issue more than anything, so opinions are perfectly valid. I'm not trying to stand in the way of change - I've already pointed out on several occasions that I'm happy to go with a majority decision. I'd appreciate you not trying to besmirch other editor's views; at present your own stance could very easily be characterised in the same way you have described mine. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to characterise, or offer constrictive criticism, I am not, however, in the habit of redacting or apologising, as what is said is said. There are plenty of opinions and alternatives discussed above if you care to expand on them, or offer alternative solutions. Clearly there is a long-running set of issues with this template, specifically: religious context. Changes to the style introduce design issues. I see no reason not to switch to (KIA), given that † and "KIA" both mean "Killed in Action", the acronym is clearly the only method needed to diffuse the debate. There doesn't need to be historical references to the use of the term "KIA" to support using it in a template. We're in the 21st century now, we use contemporary terms, because people speak the current form of English. Everyone can understand the meaning of "killed in action", it has 2 parts.. "killed" dead, and "in action" in the battle which the article covers. It's a no-brainer, I fail to see the logic of any argument to the contrary. The use of † is apparently posing issues with over-sensitive religious types who fail to accept it as a notational icon and see it as some biased symbolic Christian cross. The only way to deal with that is to remove the controversial icon from the template and use a less ambiguous method. "KIA" may have other meanings in the world, as was suggested, but few are as commonplace as "killed in action", and there is going to be no reason why any other use of KIA will be confused with this in a military history article. A reader would have to be pretty dumb to think KIA meant any of the alternatives given at http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/KIA, so I think it's a moot point to suggest otherwise, and a weak argument to raise to resist the change from what seems to be a much-hated "Christian" icon to a more practical small text format, which can be wikilinked, and in the end is probably more professional. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, you have your thoughts, I've already given mine. But I see no need to demean other editors in the way you have. You say I should offer constructive criticism, but your comments about me were clearly not and added nothing to the debate. I expect better of co-ordinators. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing was demeaning about it, whatsoever. Across almost every thread on the KIA talkpage, since 2010, you have stood as the sole opponent against change to the template, contradicting all points regarding the use of the icon, resisting all options. Furthermore, you have not taken part in this lengthy discussion, which suggests that you still have no interest in seeing it changed. And all of a sudden you're here stirring up a fuss over a slight remark. For someone who claims not to have a high horse, your behaviour suggests otherwise, as this is a very defensive act. And my role as a coord is to assist the project as I see fit, so please don't invoke some kind of high order upon me and frown upon it, because it was never there to begin with. If you don't like my observation, that's your prerogative, but don't then live up to it.

WP:BAIT Ma®©usBritish^{chat

} 10:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You clearly haven't fully read my comments above where I said I'd be away for a while. I'm far from the only opponent to change, I have never contradicted anything, and I've repeatedly said I'm happy to go with a consensus but one has never been forthcoming (doesn't really look like one is now either). You might consider it a slight remark, I consider it an unnecessary insult. As it stands though, I won't be commenting further. Whilst I have plenty of time for sensible discussion, I have no time for petty insults more suited to the comments page of tabloid newspapers. This thread is already in the gutter. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hyperbolical and pretentious remarks hardly help further it either. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, both of you, but especially Marcus. It's a bloody website, and we're arguing over a text dagger. There are bigger problems to go ape about.

[majestic titan]

02:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)