Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce Digby-Worsley

Bruce Digby-Worsley

 * ... that WWI British flying ace Bruce Digby-Worsley scored the majority of his aerial victories against the Fokker D.VII (pictured)?
 * Comment: Started on 29 March 2012 in user space, moved to article space on 30 March 2012, so using that date. Thank you.

Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Self nom at 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Congrats on your 5th DYK yesterday, ACP2011. QPQ reviews, please. --PFHLai (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that at the time this article was nominated, the nominator only had three DYK credits. QPQ is not necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Anne (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, variety of refs. Hook interesting and hook ref verified. However, in the book I am able to view online, I see quite a few descriptions which are closely paraphrased if not quoted verbatim:
 * Book: "destroyed two Albatros D.V aircraft over Messines" Article: "destroying two Albatros D.V aircraft over Messines"
 * Book actually states: "destroyed two Albatros D Vs over Messines"
 * Book: "Digby-Worsley rejoined Conn to down a Fokker D VIII out of control on the 5th" Article: "His twelfth took place on 5 September 1918, when a Fokker D.VII was sent out of control northeast of Armentières, Nord, France"
 * I don't seen what you find objectionable with this.
 * Book: "On the 20th they sent a Fokker down out of control" Article: "on 20 September 1918, Digby-Worsley racked up another double, sending one Fokker D.VII out of control over Quesnoy, France"
 * Again, I don't know what is found objectionable.
 * Book: "Scottish-born Capt Charles Findlay was credited with 14 victories" Article: "Findlay, a Scottish flying ace credited with 14 aerial victories"
 * Don't know what is objectionable.
 * Book: "Lt Kenneth B Conn became the leading ace of No 88 Sqdn with 20 victories" Article: "Conn, a Canadian who was the leading ace of No. 88 Squadron with 20 victories"
 * close, but couldn't change it much except perhaps to say top ace...
 * I recommend that you think of different ways to cite the material, and also take another look at the information you gleaned from the offline sources to make sure there are no copyright violations. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by different ways of citing the material. I used the Wikipedia template to make sure that I did the citing correctly. Also, I'm not sure if you're familiar with articles on aces and the terminology used to describe their victories, etc. There are specific terms that are used consistently and by all authors. Therefore, I didn't have leeway to make up new terms for "destroyed", "destroyed in flames", and "sent out of control". Those are specific terms that have to be used and are used by all authors. Also, I can't make up where the planes went down. The city that is listed is the city that I have to record. Similarly, the aircraft that is taken down is a specific type and that also can't be changed. In addition, the terms "ace", "flying ace", or "leading ace" are used, without making up another word. Also, the phrase "credited with # of aerial victories" is a term used by all authors describing aces. Articles on flying aces are somewhat of a different category because there is a set terminology that is expected to be used, so one would absolutely expect that phrases in one sentence would be similar to those found in another. I know it can be somewhat boring, but it's standard terminology that is expected. Thank you Anne (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If Yoninah (talk) would refer to Aerial victory standards of World War I, it would become apparent that certain categories of victories were codified as part of the information upon which the source texts are based. For instance, an enemy plane "driven down" is not the same as one "driven down out of control"; the former was not credited as a victory, but the latter was. Thus, changing the name of the category as is recommended above is essentially recommending falsification of information.

Similarly, aircraft models were designated via a nomenclature system. The only possible change might be to give a slang equivalent for the official model name, but that is scarcely encylopedic, and deprives the reader of essential information.

Finally, if the impoverished vocabulary available leads to unavoidable similarity of language between source and WP article, fair use doctrine does allow limited quotations without violating copyright. I might note that I checked my copy of the text in question, and see no such use of quotations in this article, nor do I see an over-dependence on a single source.

I have inserted a See also in the article, so that a scrupulous reader can view the aerial victory standards. That may help avoid any further confusion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you for the "see also" to aerial victory standards, Georgejdorner, that was very helpful. OK, this is ready to go. Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)