Talk:Port Howard

Untitled
Attractions include a ford ? - or should that be fort ? 213.51.209.230 10:45, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a ford - perhaps not the most exciting attraction, but true. Warofdreams 11:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Union Jack ?
There are different statements about the flag on the coffin - the other article Engagement at Many Branch Point says there was no Union Jack --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've noticed this incongruity. It's extremely problematic. The Brits say he was so heroic that the Argentines procured a Union Jack, and the Argentines say that some petty people refused them one. Who's to say? Maybe this contradiction should be noted. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Port Howard. 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/20120728105037/http://www.falklands.info/background/listedb.html to http://www.falklands.info/background/listedb.html
 * Added tag to http://www.infanteria.ejercito.mil.ar/nueva/unidades/RegimientodeInfanteriaMecanizado5/caidos.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526055504/http://hmscardiff.co.uk/rop.aspx to http://hmscardiff.co.uk/rop.aspx

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) 09:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Undoing a revert: see WP:EXPABBR (NGSFO)
I'm reverting a revert. I tried the reverter's talk page, but it says he's no longer a user [''Ed.: See next post, where I clarified what I saw on the talk page and both admitted and explained my error. Despite my error, I used the article's talk page and pinged WCM and provided a full explanation and cited authoritative sources; there's no requirement to additionally post on a user's page.'']. I changed the expansion of NGSFO from title case to sentence case. Many people are confused on this point: Just because something makes an acronym, the thing itself is NOT capitalized unless it is a proper noun. The expansion does NOT get capitalized. This is a common example of over-capitalization of terminology that is specific to an industry or subject of study (e.g., military, business)—people who are embedded in those communities tend to capitalize terms that are important to their fields, often terms that have acronyms or initialisms made out of them. (Edit for emphasis: See WP:EXPABBR, which is pretty definitive on the issue at hand.) Holy (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The reverter,, reverted my edit and gave a short explanation ("it's an acronym, which is capitalised") in the edit comment. Then I went to his talk page to alert him that I was going to change it back, and saw the header "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia," which I mis-interpreted as being a notice that he was not available on his talk page. So, I reverted his reversion AND left a detailed comment above on the talk page and in the edit comment. After this, Wee Curry Monster reverted the edit a SECOND time with no explanation except "you are wrong it is capitalised" and (ironically) accused me of edit warring and told me to "take it to talk" (which I had already done and he had not done!). He or she also did not even comment on the talk page or make any real counterargument or cite any policy or style standard. I think I have followed procedure here and provided a solid explanation which has not been refuted. I'll leave this here for discussion for a few days and then make the original change again, based on the result. Thank you. Holy (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See also [] and MOS:MILTERMS. Note that the style of industry-specific literature does not supersede Wikipedia's MOS. There's a great article on Wikipedia about this, but I can't find it now. Holy (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My page doesn't say I'm no longer a user, it never has, I also gave you an informative edit summary. Per WP:BRD you should have discussed matters and were edit warring with a second revert.  The high dudgeon and finger pointing isn't helpful.
 * You're simply wrong, it's should be treated as a proper noun as it is effectively a job title, it's also an acronym. If you continue to revert I will simply take this to WP:3RRNB. WCM email 15:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's lower case. The MoS is painfully clear on this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for further comment on this specific case supporting it being lower case. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Mmm, the discussion didn't appear that clear cut to me and being ex-military it's always capitalised. However, the suggestion of not using the acronym as unnecessary seemed the better compromise. WCM email 09:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that Sturmvogel sums it up quite well. I also liked Buckshot's suggestion. As SV indicates, many professions and areas have a habit of capitalising things that are important to them, but their style guides do not necessarily translate into Wikipedia's. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you going to comment on the proposal to rewrite without the acronym, it is unnecessary. WCM email 11:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi WCM, was that addressed to me? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes WCM email 12:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On the MilHist thread I wrote "In the specific case in which it is used in the article I wondered why it is necessary to give the acronym, as the term is not used again". Above I wrote "I also liked Buckshot's suggestion", which was "No need for the acronym, as the term is only used once. Simply 'Howard was suspected of being a forward observer for naval gunfire support' or some such". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WCM, you have stated multiple times a few arguments which simply are incorrect, in accordance with Wikipedia's (and most of the world's) style standards: (1) You stated that the term should be capitalized simply because it is an acronym. WP:EXPABBR states, "Do not apply initial capitals in a full term that is a common noun phrase, just because capitals are used in its abbreviation." This is a nearly universal standard in English-language style guides; it's not a quirk of Wikipedia. (2) You stated that it should be capitalized because it's a job title. Again, universally, style standards, including Wikipedia's, direct that job titles NOT be capitalized. Do you capitalize police officer, hall monitor, operations officer, fire marshal, mayor, election official, etc., just because they're job titles? MOS:JOBTITLES states, "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically." You're ex-military? I'm current military, over 30 years total. I'm an editor for a defense contractor. I see over-capitalization in both professions all the time. People just love to capitalize job titles used generically and other common nouns that are unique or important to their fields. This really couldn't be a much more clear-cut case. The MoS is abundantly clear on this. I sympathize with your confusion as I see it all the time. But our experience isn't the guide; the MoS is. Holy (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The suggestion to omit the acronym seems good to me. But otherwise, the expansion should not be capitalized, as explained above in WP:EXPABBR and WP:JOBTITLES. These are backed up by WP:SPECIALSTYLE, which is what HolyT was looking for when he perfectly summarized it: "the style of industry-specific literature does not supersede Wikipedia's MOS." The military just loves to overcapitalize, while Wikipedia's style is that "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence" (not expansions of acronyms), Chris the speller   yack  13:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In this case I agree that the acronym could be omitted as unnecessary. Military acronyms are capitalised, always have been and always will be. I am still a reservist and I too work for a defence contractor as a technical specialist; one of the biggest in the world.  Personally I think you're doing our readers a great disservice in the editing you're doing; they're clued up enough to recognise a military acronym.  Slavishly applying a WP:MOS as a rulebook is simply FUBAR. WCM email 19:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was talking about lower case for the expansion, not the acronym. Chris the speller   yack  22:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case, I believe the rulebook produces a better article, and following it is a service to readers. For one thing, articles about military installations aren't just for military readers, so even if military people aren't bothered by pervasive capitalization, using the same style in military articles as in the rest of the encylopedia makes sense.  Wikipedia's basic philosophy to be conservative in capitalization is there because capitalized words are harder to read than noncapitalized ones and proper nouns are harder to read than common nouns.  Both are jarring and interrupt the flow of a sentence.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Military positions are always a gray area for me when it comes to capitalization. For someone coming from a military family and background, I can see where WCM email is coming from when wanting to capitalize forward observer for naval gunfire support. However, I do have to remind myself that, Wikipedia is not a military website, and less than 1% of the world's population are going to understand military jargon and acronyms as I do. Even some military follow the standardized Associated Press style guide the majority of the time. In this case, is forward observer for naval gunfire support a singular post? Or is it a position multiple soldiers can be assigned as? Is it a prestigious position? You can't be sure. This isn't a position like the Chief of Staff of the Army or the Chief of Naval Operations which are clear distinguishable positions and titles. In this case, I would have to agree with Holy (talk) and Chris the speller   yack  in that we should follow the guidelines as laid forth via WP:EXPABBR, WP:JOBTITLES, MOS:MILTERMS. Neovu79 (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)