Talk:Military designation of days and hours

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Military designation of days and hours. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/iib_iji/iib_iji.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/huber2/huber2.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091108082044/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf

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) 23:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military designation of days and hours. 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/20050513214255/http://www.jdtc.jfcom.mil/DeploymentGlossary/terms%20e-h.htm to http://www.jdtc.jfcom.mil/DeploymentGlossary/terms%20e-h.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050513214323/http://www.jdtc.jfcom.mil/DeploymentGlossary/terms%20m-p.htm to http://www.jdtc.jfcom.mil/DeploymentGlossary/terms%20m-p.htm

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) 05:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability

 * This article has been tagged "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" since February 2024. It was the subject of AFD (Articles_for_deletion/Military_designation_of_days_and_hours) that was closed as "No consensus". The rationale of the closer was "something" should happen with this content but there is no consensus on what that is."
 * I have been having health issues for a while so Wikipedia time is spotty and I was unable to follow up with this. I hold great respect for the closer but think on a personal appeal I might have argued for a reassessment of opinion. I would certainly have a reasonable rationale on an appeal because the actual rationale for "No consensus" might have been there was not enough participation as it was relisted twice with no further comments.
 * A review of the AFD shows three !votes for "Delete" and one for "Keep". Under any normal AFD that would be considered a consensus for "Delete" if in agreement with policies and guidelines.
 * The Nom added a comment "Although I am the nom here, I keep thinkng (sic) that this might be saved through listification perhaps?". This raises doubts about the AFD and could have been (or should have been) withdrawn by the Nom. This might have been a justifiable reasoning for a technical close.
 * The Nom !vote did not reference any policies or guidelines just indirectly by mentioning "poorly referenced list" and "mess of military trivia". The one "Keep" !vote "Sure it needs (massive) improvement, but it's a collection of hard to find definitions, not all of which appear (yet) under the corresponding standalone entries" could have been a good argument for "Delete".
 * The two remaining "Delete" !votes (including mine) does mention policy WP:NOTDICT that incidentally is also the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary ([[WP:NOT]), "Usage, slang, or idiom guides".
 * The Nomination was actually justified because there is no single source that mentions the "list" and the sources on the article are mostly a collection of dictionary or glossary terms. This means the list is actually a synthesis and not notable per WP:LISTCRIT and further explained WP:CSC.. It is certainly, as sourced, an "indiscriminate list". The majority of references are WP:primary and two seemingly independent, www.ibiblio.org and www.militaryhistoryonline.com, do not support the list.
 * I do not feel like getting too deep but would use the above rationale to support "Delete" if presented again. For the sake of it notifying involved editors, and .  (Nom) also mentioned Transwikify.  --  Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Otr500 Perhaps you could AfD this again, with the rationale above? I fear not much will be achieved through discussion here, but we can of course wait a few days. I hope you will feel better soon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reply: I am in no hurry. In fact, by age and nature I am either slow or just always behind. The AFD was the 29th of February. I didn't add to the comments that the only "keep" !vote was the author of the article. Unless someone has just found Wikipedia this week it is pretty well-known that a Wikipedia author rarely will not be biased. This means that the majority of the time they (whomever) will !vote to keep "their" article, as it is certainly considered notable "to them". If someone found a source that included "the list" then that would change the equation. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)