Talk:Frederick Birks

Encyclopaedic purpose

 * Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.
 * Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.

1) The icons have been added to this and other pages for a number of reasons. Two that I can quickly think of are:
 * They inform the reader of what the recipients medal ribbons look like, so that if/when they see the ribbons, they are able to identify what they are, and what they mean.
 * The text can indeed tell you what the ribbons look like, but why? An image of the ribbons and accompanying explanatory text does a far superior job in describing the ribbons than just text. After all: Q: Why are the ribbons worn? A: They quickly communicate a lot of information that it would take the proberbial "thousand words" to otherwise communicate.

2) "Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction" - Not applicable. They are not there for decoration; they are there to convey information in a more efficient manner than text alone would convey the information.

3) "Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout." - These icons "have a useful purpose in providing visual cues".

4) "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader." - Not applicable. These icons provide "additional useful information".

5) "Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration." - They do. Refer to 1) and 3) above.

In summary, I fail to see how "this particular section is in violation of MOS: Images and WP:MOSICON", and you have provided NO specific evidence to support your assertion. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They are purely decorative, PDF. What, exactly, do they convey that is encyclopedic and useful? What colour they are? What height and width they are? They are decorative, and provide no useful further information that isn't decorative - all they show is colour and size, which I fail to see as encyclopedic or improving the reader's understanding of the article, the medal, or the recipient. Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "They are purely decorative, PDF. What, exactly, do they convey that is encyclopedic and useful?"
 * The icons have been added to this and other pages for a number of reasons. Two that I can quickly think of are:
 * They inform the reader of what the recipients medal ribbons look like, so that if/when they see the ribbons, they are able to identify what they are, and what they mean.
 * The text can indeed tell you what the ribbons look like, but why? An image of the ribbons and accompanying explanatory text does a far superior job in describing the ribbons than just text. After all: Q: Why are the ribbons worn? A: They quickly communicate a lot of information that it would take the proberbial "thousand words" to otherwise communicate.
 * "What height and width they are?" - Why do you ask?
 * "They are decorative, and provide no useful further information that isn't decorative - all they show is colour and size, which I fail to see as encyclopedic or improving the reader's understanding of the article, the medal, or the recipient." - Already addressed above. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm frankly tired of this wikilawyering. I've given my reasons for opposing the addition of the medal ribbons, and frankly don't care a whit if you think they're opinions of not. You would appear to be the only one here supporting them, against at least three others. Should WP:Consensus solidify, which I believe it may already have, on this page, please obey it. That's all I have to say. Skinny87 (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the rational of consensus by Skinny, the images of the medal ribbons should be removed from this article and the mention of Birks' medal entitlement converted into prose. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response1
 * Dear Skinny69: Please advise who died and made you supreme arbiter of Wikipedia. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'm frankly tired of this wikilawyering." - Am I supposed to care about your physical state and your opinions? Please explain why it was necessary for you to have made that statement, and why or if you feel it is necessary for me to respond to it. Unless you provide a reason why I should, please be advised that I don't care. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "I've given my reasons for opposing the addition of the medal ribbons, and frankly don't care a whit if you think they're opinions of not." - I don't THINK they are opinions. They ARE opinions. Unlike you, I DO know the difference between fact and opinion. And if you want to be arrogant about it, (which clearly you do), "frankly [I] don't care a whit" what you think. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "You would appear to be the only one here supporting them, against at least three others."
 * Ah ha! NOW we get to the point! (At last!! What was all that other rhubarb above about?)
 * So please correct me and clarify things if I am wrong, (NOTE: I am politely asking you to do something), but it seems that your justification has NOTHING to do with Manners, Good Faith, the MOS, or logic; it would appear that as far as you are concerned, the ONLY considerations are the facts that 1) "You don't like it", and that 2) you have one or two other colleagues who also "don't like it".
 * So please, don't try to drown me in "wikilawyering" that the quoted bit of MOS says you are right. It doesn't. I have demonstrated that it doesn't, and none of you or your colleagues have attempted to do anything other than repeat "I don't like it". Just be honest and admit that there are more of you with your opinion than there are of me with my opinion, and that logic and the MOS are irrelevant. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "please obey it. That's all I have to say." - I find it EXTREMELY difficult to respond to that without being profain. Never-the-less, I will rally to the challenge!
 * a) "please obey it." - I have NO intention of "OBEYing". However, I will observe it, for the moment ...
 * b) "That's all I have to say." - Well sunshine, it AIN'T "all I have to say". "Stay tuned for the next installment." --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response2
 * "You are right, of course, Pdf, that "I don't like it" is not a reason to remove something"
 * Dear Bryce:It would seem that both you and I are wrong. It would seem that: if there are more of "you" than there are of "them", then "We don't like it" is a perfectly acceptable justification to do whatever you please. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have come into this discussion late, and its implications are a good deal wider than this article alone, but it seems to make sense to start here. There have been a number of lively discussions re. the display of medals in military bios, particularly&mdash;but not only&mdash;in relation to Australian subjects. The most recent that Pdf and I were involved in is here.  Unfortunately no-one else weighed in after me, as if we'd achieved a reasonably firm consensus at the Oz task force level I would have pushed the discussion out to MilHist Bio or still further.  In any case, my tome there still expresses my perspective on this issue and, based on that, I think a show/hide of Birks' medals would be a reasonable compromise here, similar to what I implemented at Haywood S. Hansell and Frederick Scherger.  This should negate concerns re. in-your-face overbalance in the article presentation, and as the award of the campaign medals as well as the decorations for bravery are cited, there's no OR issue.  For the record, Skinny, although it looks like only Pdf advocated display of the medals here, he is certainly not the only one espousing that point of view, so while the numbers may have been against him on this talk page, it's not as simple as that MilHist-wide.  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't to know that, although my next suggestion would have been to push this to MILHIST as a whole. Still, a show/hide box would seem to be an ideal compromise. Skinny87 (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a fair compromise in principal, though I do also think it may still impinge on MOS: Images and WP:MOSICON in that we are relying on images over text to convey information, and the images are decoration. That said, however, if consensus is to go with the box, than I will stick with it. However, if this is to be adopted project-wide, then I think strict guidelines should be imposed upon it, so that only verifiable material to reliable sources is added&mdash;then again, isn't that one of Wikipedia's goals in general? That is a discussion for elsewhere, though. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Well, I wasn't to know that" - Hmmm. Interesting response. Skinny87: I would be interested to know if, and how, it would have made any difference to your behaviour if you had known? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll weigh in - I've had discussions with several people here in the fairly recent past over this issue and I suspect I'll have several more. We are human and we communicate effectively through visualisation as well as speech and text. Images of medal ribbons not only communicate to visitors what the person has done, it also communicates that their bravery was recognised (pretty much the reason for medals in the first place). More than that, it provides an accessible way for average Australian's to actually see a representation of what a person's medal ribbons would have looked like.

I grew up in Townsville and despite being a cadet from 13 and in the Army Reserve from 17, it was last year before I visited the AWM or actually saw a VC. That said, I know the interest that children and teens may have in militaria and our military history. I am a parent myself and regard fostering this interest and encouraging the same as an important goal. Children and teenagers are not interested in plain-text (nor are the majority of adults), it does not speak to them and it most certainly does not excite them (if it did, why so many developments with images on the web?). While there may be some academic thrill in preserving plain-text, that is not what wikipedia has evolved into.

The goal must be to improve knowledge of, and interest in, military history. Cringing away from "showing" representations of medal ribbons - especially when so dearly earned - is unworthy of the level of intelligence I see here. If it were possible to promote military history without the use of "crass" images, wouldn't museums be filled with portraits of individuals with a written outline of what medals they had been awarded? There'd be no need to purchase VC's in order to get visitors would there?

Aaron1975 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Burial place
I've now cited the changed burial place to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. From the CWGC's cemetery page, most of those buried at Perth Cemetery were initially buried elsewhere, and relocated there after the war, which is probably the source of the confusion. That said, teh only mention of Aussies is some buried in ZONNEBEKE, not Zillebeke. David Underdown (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frederick Birks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525050434/http://www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8080/showPerson?pid=23232 to http://www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8080/showPerson?pid=23232
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525050434/http://www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8080/showPerson?pid=23232 to http://www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8080/showPerson?pid=23232

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)