Talk:List of flying aces from Greece

Redundant?
I am baffled by the proposed deletion because I do not understand the reasoning behind it. One cannot know a list contains only a single item until one compiles it. Likewise, the reader cannot know it is redundant until they have read it. As it is, this single-item list serves as an entry link into the niche of biographies of World War I flying aces, as well as a link to an under-appreciated aviation pioneer.

As it is, I have searched the deletions process page and have found no listing of redundancy as a reason for deletion of a list. In fact, I found no deletion process listing for lists. However, if I can be shown proof that redundancy is a valid ground for deletion, I will consent to it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Redundant" in this case means that there is no grounds for a list: there was ever only one recorded Greek air ace in WWI, and that was Moraitinis. A list of one is no list, by definition. Just as one-article categories are redundant and get deleted, the same applies to lists. Constantine  ✍  16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I checked my Webster's dictionary, and list is defined as a series of items, so you are indeed correct. I have created two other single-item "lists" recently; if you are going to delete one, you should get them all. They are (in addition to this "list"):

List of World War I flying aces from Estonia

List of World War I aces from Fiji

BTW, is there anything in the WP standards/MOSs/notices/general bumf regarding redundancy? Curious George wants to know....

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * These lists should all be merged into a List of World War I aces by country, and the countries with larger number of aces have sublists, and mains on their sections, while the short lists remain on the main list. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

List of World War I flying aces already exists as a list of lists; from there, one can go link to one of nine shorter lists. While these nine lists are based on the aces' tallied aerial victories, one of the columns in the lists gives nationality. I have no idea how these lists could be sorted out by nationality. However, I have been tinkering with short national lists, with an eye toward figuring a practical way to split out 393 German aces, 597 British (and Commonwealth) aces, and a mere 182 French aces into national lists. I can't say I am getting any kind of encouragement from the process. Looks like grunt work.

And there are other considerations. Do I split the Germans into their four national air forces?...but then what of the aces of German naval aviation? Do the Commonwealth countries get their separate (two or more item) lists broken out from the Brits? How about the Irish, Scots, and Welch? And thank heavens the French are simpler...except for the Lafayette Escadrille and/or the French Legionnaires who turned to aviation. And Austria-Hungary being extinct, should I now break out the Hungarian, Czech, Austrian, and Polish aces who served in A-H aviation? And, oh, some Poles flew for the Germans, too. And there was the Austro-Hungarian who flew for Italy. Good simple Italy...that has no reliable ace statistics to mention.

In other words, this is a dark and murky swamp. Someone else has already started the national breakout lists, with Canadians and Russians. I thought it might be time to carry through.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the reason why that list is not one list is because a single list caused a lot of problems (see the talk pages, and archives); loading times were insane, didn't load on some systems, the long load times caused timeout errors, and the size of the list caused load size errors. Otherwise, a sortable table could be used to sort by country instead of by kill. There could be transclusion limit errors with a single list as well. As for what to do... large aces countries can exist on single lists. British should be separated into component commonwealth countries. Unless you want to build lists as by service instead of by nationality. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware (or do not remember) any specific guideline to the effect of deleting one-item lists, but it is certainly a) common sense and b) it parallels the established practice with categories (which is why I mentioned it earlier). Now, to the issue at hand, in cases like Greece or Fiji, I don't really see a problem with keeping the handful of pilots in the main List of World War I flying aces. There could easily be a new "aces by country" section, the big nations (Germany, A-H, Britain etc) should link to their own lists via, and the smaller ones have their aces listed right there. As for sorting, IMO perhaps the best solution would be to use nationality as the chief factor: the Poles for instance fought with A-H, but if they fought as part of a distinct Polish legion etc, then I'd add them in a list of Polish aces under a header "fought with A-H", and link this list from the main A-H page. Similarly for the Lafayette Escadrille, its members belong to the US aces of World War I. Constantine  ✍  10:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should move this discussion to the main WT:MILHIST page, since we're pretty well along with an idea to create a parallel set of lists to the aces by kill list that currently exists. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger/new article
If this name were added to List of World War II aces from Greece, the result would be List of flying aces from Greece.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not? It's a good proposal. Constantine  ✍  19:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So if I bury this single ace's name among a bunch of others from another war to obscure it, it's a good proposal? But if I turn out a tidy informative little single item list, it's a bad proposal?

Quite frankly, I consider this proposed deletion as pettifoggery, even if I originally agreed to it. I am in the process of breaking larger lists of names into their national constituents, and leaving out single item list results in an incomplete breakdown. As usual in these sort of nit-picking cases, I have asked for suggestions; as usual, I have gotten no response.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A single item does not a list make, . And the current WWII list of Greek Aces is only 5 items so merging makes sense. List of WWI flying aces from Greece would become a redirect to List of flying aces from Greece taking the reader direct to the item. Same could be done for any other mergers of short lists. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No matter what excuse or reason is given, rigid insistence on WP's guidelines, "rules of thumb", or consensuses is bureaucratic pettifoggery. The process is becoming more important than the product in Wikipedia. Attempts at discussion usually end in circular tail-chasing (such as advising an editor who has already admitted a single-item list is not a list that a single-item list is not a list). My attempts at gathering information by requesting consensus draw blank non-response. The flow of constant negative feedback and being ignored rather spoils the fun of writing for WP.

Wikipedia: the free-range bureaucracy. Might be time to wind up what I am working upon and find some other fun writing to create.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how moving Moraitinis to a list of Greek aces that will contain a few other names is "burying" it, or how keeping a single-item "list" just for the rather pedantic reason of having separate lists for separate nations for World War I is better. BTW, it doesn't really help with finding collaborators if you are so hostile and aggressive towards other editors. Wikipedia is a volunteer work, no one is obliged to do anything, and no one can be blamed for not supplying suggestions. You are passionate about this issue, but for others it is a very marginal matter. There's always WP:SOFIXIT, which you are already doing (and rather well), but you cannot blame others for not sharing your enthusiasm. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  18:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I had not pictured a separate World War I section just for Moraitinis. I must concede, as it sits, its okay. I retract my remarks about burying it.

As for colloborators...Ian Rose and I managed to turn Roderick Dallas into an FA. Hostility...I scroll up and fail to detect any insults or meanness in my remarks to you--or any other WP editor. If there are such I did not detect, my apologies for them. Folks often mistake my habit of probing questions for hostility; it's a quest for information, that's all. I am Curious George for real.

You have picked up on my frustration about the creeping bureaucracy that seems to be overwhelming WP. Policies and rules of thumb are calcifying into rigid rules, and following the rules of editing has become more important than quality and accuracy of writing. That doesn't translate into me blaming others for failing to share my enthusiasms. I mean, only a few of us poor suckers are passionate about writing; the rest of you get to be normal.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Believe me I know how you feel: I am practically the only regular contributor in Byzantine-related articles, and am trying to maintain WikiProject Greece up and running single-handedly. I don't know what a "normal" editor is supposed to be like, but I rather feel like an overworked one with too many things that need my attention ;)... To the issue at hand, your tone was a bit harsh and it looked (to me at least) as if you were accusing people for their non-participation. There's no need to raise the tone in a conversation over such (in the end) rather trivial things as lists. I'd also like WikiProject Greece members to participate more (read: even a little bit) in a couple of important project drives, but I cannot really complain if they choose to devote their energy elsewhere... It's their business what they do here, and the way things are, I have to be glad that they are active in WP at all. My point is, don't let frustration get to you. Trying to improve Wikipedia is a usually thankless job with only the occasional gratification and recognition. So buckle down and Keep Buggering On, as Winston would say. Constantine   ✍  23:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

table, etc
I've put the WWI detail into table form, to match the WWII information. Although it's just one name, I think visually it's better to have both sections in the same format. Also, there's quite a lot of detail in the Notes column of the WWII guys; is it worth making stub articles for them? Xyl 54 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)