User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/July

A-10 reassess
You say that, but the reassess has been open for over a month and the article has only gotten worse. All context for the requirements of the A-X and by extension of the A-10 was removed as were most mentions of the aircraft it replaced, which was also the aircraft A-X designs were measured against. Does the article even have any discussion of cas tactics, their history as it relates to the A-10 and how the A-10 contributed to the evolution of cas tactics? I'm not asking for a multivolume work. A paragraph would do.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

William L. Uanna
I noticed that you have commenced a community reassessment of a different article. Given your expertise in such matters you may want to examine the one pertaining to this article cited above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pitching in on the article as well. It has needed a lot of work and I can only spend a certain amount of time on the article. Given the statements I have seen concerning that article I wonder if perhaps trivial and excessive details are a systemic issue among the military articles. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe your observation is correct; you can check out Special mentions—GA/FA articles on my userpage for a sampling. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Similar situation (insistence on excessive detail) in McCarthyism. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Verlorene Siege

 * , thank you very much! K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. All the best,  Mini  apolis  01:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

AfD On Military Globalisation
Hi K.e. Just a heads up, but it may be worth while revisting the debate. There has been a drastic and positive series of edits which satisfy my concerns. Obviously you have your own opinions, but take a look at the new version. Regards mate Irondome (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I responded on the AfD page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

re: Theo Saevecke
Thanks for the links, suggests notability, so I removed my prod. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * thank you -- much appreciated! K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Book fyi...
"Valhalla's Warriors: A History of the Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front 1941-1945" by Terry Goldsworthy and put out by Dog Ear Publishing - a self publisher company. Without getting into a big discussion about it; lets just say there are much better RS books out there on the subject. Both Obenritter and myself plan to replace it where we come across it. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip; I will be on the lookout for it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Spotted one already: in the company of various Waffen-SS admirers and "gurus", such as Gordon Williamson, James S. Lucas, Marc J. Rikmenspoel, etc. In 6th SS Mountain Division Nord. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

List of equipment used by the Wehrmacht
I see where you moved the listing of weapons and equipment of the German Armed Forces in WWII from the Wehrmacht article to this (linked above) list article. Looking at the overview section therein, it seems redundant to the list of the article which follows it. Thoughts? Kierzek (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I was mostly looking for a location to place the list, vs outright removing it. If it needs to be trimmed in the new location, I would not object :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

AFD
K.e. - I know you have been nominating certain articles of Knight's Cross winners for deletion arguing GNG. I commented on one I came across. Do you have a running list of them? Kierzek (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Since not so subtle threat to "take [my] conduct to ANI and request that the community sanction [me] for it" I've not nominated any new ones. :-) But I did follow through on the suggestions about a potential RfC and had some good discussions. This was an especially insightful one: User_talk:Hydronium_Hydroxide. I'm still formulating this potential RfC/discussion topic, as it's a complex one. I've reached out to both editors (Jim Sweeney and Doc Yako) who created the bulk of such articles (see examples at User:K.e.coffman), for more background, but neither have edited since. So I probably won't hear back from them in foreseeable future.


 * In general, you can see the AfDs I started or participated in via this handy AfD tracker. Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Kurt Knispel
Awards: unneeded unreliable propaganda material? - Not at all, he is certainly no nazi hero! judging by your previous edits of this page you clearly have something against this guy though. Marking it for deletion because of lack of information, but continually deleting any provided - now that is nazi censorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.237.59 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the Wehrmachtbericht is propaganda material and is inherently unreliable, while also being a WP:primary source. It's not suitable for an encyclopedia, which requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources to establish notability.


 * Wikipedia works to an academic standard and copy/pasting material from sources that can be found online does not match this standard. Your contribution has been reverted by another editor due to a copyright violation: link. Please have a look at WP:COPYVIO, WP:RS, and WP:V. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you interested in the false, stg-44 centric history of the assault rifle?
I've noticed that you pay close attention to ww2 apocrypha. Are you interested in the StG-44 myth? Editors are pushing that myth very hard on the assault rifle page, that the stg-44 developed by hitler's wunderwaffen project was the first assault rifle and the father of all ARs that came after it. The article which seems to be more of a dumping ground for some of the worst war propaganda of the mid 20th century seems to be half hitler's katana myth and half kalishnakov myth, where wiki gun project editors take in the beautiful and moving story soviet PR smiths spun about a wounded farmer-soldier being the champion of the entire world, neglecting all factual basis or any restraint on the part of the PR team. Thought I'd give you a head's up.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I had actually read the Assault rifle article recently (after the Dallas shooting) and I was struck by non-encyclopedic elements, such as the amount of overciting:


 * The result was the Sturmgewehr 44, which the Germans produced in large numbers; approximately half a million were made.  It fired a new and revolutionary intermediate powered cartridge, the 7.92×33mm Kurz.  This new cartridge was developed by shortening the standard 7.92×57mm Mauser round and giving it a lighter 125-grain bullet, that limited range but allowed for more controllable automatic fire.


 * The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word "Sturmgewehr" (which translates to "assault rifle"), as the new name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44.


 * Strange phrasing on StG 44:


 * By all accounts, the StG 44 fulfilled its role admirably, particularly on the Eastern Front, offering a greatly increased volume of fire compared to standard infantry rifles. However, it came too late to have a significant effect on the outcome of the war. (So which was it: "performed admirably" or "came too late"?)


 * Or the usual trope of "brutal Russian winter":


 * "It was also found to be exceptionally reliable in the extreme cold of the Russian winter."


 * I'm not well versed in firearms, but I will have a look for the obvious mythology stuff. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The StG-44 article is a fairly good starting point. The german rifle program seems to have started with the vollmer M35 in ~1935, then Walther independently produced a machine carbine (MK).  After those two, the german military initiated the Machine Carbine program, which drew 3 contestents, one from Haenel, one from Walther, and I think a third?  But looking back through history, the US military was developing 6mm high velocity ammunition as early as 1895, and had developed the winchester 1907 select-fire self-loading rifle.  One of the big myths seems to be the idea that ww1 was trench centric throughout the entire war, and that ww2 warfare was revolutionary, when, in fact, the warfare used in ww2 was pioneered near the end of ww1 by pretty much every country.  Germany developed "sturmtruppen" tactics at the end of ww1, and, as I understand it, warfare in ww1 had moved away from the walking fire concepts from the start of ww1.  In france, for instance, their army investigated the Ribeyrolle CM 1918, and were generally satisfied but wanted it to have better accuracy at ~400m.  The AR article says that the german army developed the revolutionary concept of a Ribeyrolle CM 1918 type rifle with accurate fire up to ~400m in ~1944.  Basically the entire article seems to come down to pop-history.  Another important point is the StG-44's influence on the AK-47.  It does seem to have influenced the AK-47, but it's influence seems to be overstated.  There do seem to be sources that say that russia liked the 7.92 kurz cartridge's performance and decided to base the AK-47, along with the several other similar projects that had been started earlier and later in russia along similar lines around a cartridge with similar performance to the 7.92 kurz, but how much of an influence was that really?  There also seems to be the general idea that the AK-47 might have adopted the StG-44's over the barrel gas system, although I don't know how well that's supported, but it seems like the StG-44 didn't have a great influence on the broad strokes of the russian rifle development, rather the most that can be said is that russian rifle development was moving in several directions at the time which eventually coalesced around the ak-47, which was widely adopted roughly in the late '50s.  Another big lie is that the automatic mode on the stg-44 was only for emergency use.  It was mostly a semi-automatic weapon.  This idea that it was used as a machine gun doesn't seem to be supported.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Siegfried Grabert

 * This is not really a wikipedia matter; wikipedia deals with published secondary sources, rather than archival material. I'm not exactly sure what I am being asked to do. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Siegfried Grabert

 * The link you provided appears a bit sketchy. The article appears to quote from Wikipedia and the source is marginal. I don't think it's worth including just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A note about your comment on Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)
Hi K.e.coffman. Just so you know, I've moved your comment from the talk page to the corresponding Wikipedia namespace page since Village pump talk pages are usually reserved for discussions about the Village pump itself. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I was not sure where to place the notice and put it on Talk page, in case the main page was reserved for policy formulation. Hope this works! K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

assessment of 'Robert M. Citino '
I have responded to your request to reassess 'Robert M. Citno'. I believe it has the correct assessment now. The article seems to be little more than a list of awards, and a list of books. There is nothing about his personal life. Since I am reviewing for the 'Biography Project', I find a serious deficiency there. I am very dubious of your citation of 'ratemyprofessor', which is not a controlled source, by which I mean anyone can play, any number of times. You don't even have to be his student. --Vicedomino (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e. have a look at this: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/441453
 * Kierzek (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you; I added this a few citations to the article. I'll see if I can find more info elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources and Vons...
After your responses (or rather lack thereof) in the article Frances Cress Welsing, I decided to have a peek at your other edits. It seems to me your criteria for what is and what isn't a reliable source is, shall we say, whimsical at best. In the article Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen you also removed quite a lot of "von"s you considered "unneccesary". You do hopefully realize that the "von" is actually part of his name, that the giy is named "von Richthofen", just as the "van" is part of van Beethovens name and this will be rectified soon. That is to say, I really do expect you to reinsert all of them, unless you have a very good reason (a policy, guideline or somesuch) to mutilate names. You not being familiar with German names is not a good reason. I am posting this here, since you have a less than perfect track record of actually responding to concerns raised. Kleuske (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You are right; I should have responded sooner. But as can be seen from the thread, it was taking a lot of back & forth on the thread to get to the bottom of the concern: Talk:Frances_Cress_Welsing. I also was not sure what the motivation was behind the desire to reinstate the content; pls see this discussion on the revert of the material that you re-added in a related article: Talk:Melanin_theory.


 * On the "von" issue, please see: Talk:Operation_Goodwood. The convention on WP is not to use von; this is in line with the usage in recent historiography.


 * I hope this addresses your concerns. In the future, if it appears that I'm stalling please feel free to submit the disagreements to Third opinion; I would abide by their recommendation. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ummm.... I read your comments on that page and apart from reference to a single edit, there's not much of a consensus there. Consensus takes more than one person, or two, after all. Moreover, checking for some appropriate pages I did not find much in the way of guidelines except WikiProject Germany, which states: "Wikipedia spells out names and does not employ German abbreviation systems whose significance is not understood in English, e.g. "v." for von." According to the German article (de:Adelsprädikat) the "von" is a part of the family name since 1919 (when nobility was officially abolished). As an illustration,the families "Mannstein" and "von Mannstein" have nothing to doi with each-other. To be sure, and to gain some consensus one way or the other, I'll post this to the appropriate WikiProject. I'll post a link later on. Until such time, I respectfully disagree. Kleuske (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Tjuus, Kleuske (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, On the "von"-front the news is that the german wiki strongly prefers 'von So-and-so' and the opinion was shared that en.wp should ultimately conform to this. I strongly agree with that. If, however, I were to insist on a proper surname, that surname would be  Freiherr von Richthoven, since 1919, Art 109 of the Weimar Constitution. I agree that that would be a bit much all through the article.
 * The encyclopedia.com question has also been resolved, and it cost me a facepalm moment, I admit. "The actual source is 'Contemporary Black Biography', a journal published since 1992 by Gale." (Someguy1221). The work, according to google scholar is cited as a reference and seems to be reliable. Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

GAR
I'm sympathetic to your goals with that GAR (and aware of the reversionism that lead to it), but not sure that using GAR as a way to twist a wikiproject's arm will be very productive. The FA process would clean up the same problems, and they appear convinced this is destined for FA. But, I'm not going to argue to death about it. I made my points, both regarding the article and the process. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the MilHist distinction between GA and A-class is confusing. I was not aware of the MHACR (A-Class appraisal) until it was posted about just now. But yes, it was an interesting test case which resulted in comments such as: "This source is fine"; "I think the lede is excellent"; "The more detail the better"; "No, this is important"; "I suggest you have a look at some other military biographical articles and educate yourself, because you are way off base with this"; "You would need to establish that Gordon Williamson is not reliable"; "I strongly disagree. I personally prefer the German version"; "It has been accepted by consensus of the Milhist A-Class reviewers, so I wouldn't touch it"; "...this GAR has been a complete waste of the valuable time of a number of experienced editors"; "this is arrant nonsense" [my comments], and more :-). There are dozens of similarly flawed articles, such as Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, Otto Kittel, Kurt Welter, and others, which are GA or A-Class.

Other reverts, such as:
 * "It is pretty clear you edits of this type are opposed, stop. Justify them on talk in each case". In Heinrich von Vietinghoff.
 * "it is pretty clear from the current GAR that these deletions are not in consensus in the Milhist community regarding these bios". In Erich-Heinrich Clößner.
 * "That is not how we do military biographies on en WP". In Fridolin von Senger und Etterlin.

I see a lot of emphasis on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as you pointed out: "this is how we do things" and "this has been established by consensus", resulting in articles that look similar to the Strachwitz one. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * [sigh] Just the very idea of "the MILHIST community" is very troubling, per WP:OWN, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:FACTION. There's always a danger of this with wikiprojects (and I say that as someone who's started several, and is working on two more), the more so the larger they are and the more they engage in their own internal, insular processes.  These cannot be allowed to interfere with standard, community wide, formal processes like GA.  However, I'm not sure how to address this without it disrupting GA itself.  ArbCom and ANI are total WP:DRAMA, and usually not successful unless there's a clear pattern of verbal abuse and other policy-breaking.  If it doesn't rise to that level, we may really have to let FA fix it, eventually.  You edit a lot of these articles yourself and seem to be a MILHIST participant, so working on the problem from the inside at WT:MILHIST is also worth pursuing, if it can be done in a way that doesn't just lead to flame-warring.  There's also the possibility of an RfC on the issue (generally, not a particular article), which I would host at WP:VPPOL for broad input.  Not sure what else to advise.  I have already garnered enough tagteams of "enemies" from various wikiprojects (mostly those who don't think WP:MOS should apply to "their" articles); I don't need to add to that collection, so I'm not sure how much I'd want to get involved in this.  PS: Minor request – could you please use  instead of  (or any quote template wrapper that uses it) for non-quotations?  It's actually an abuse of semantic markup to use the latter for anything other than actual quotations. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have tried to engage with MilHist community in the past, and some of these relationships are great. I have previously raised the issue of MilHist FA/GA articles in the April MilHist FA/GA discussion. The results were inconclusive, with some editors noting "Problem is that if we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty", while the same editor whose reverts are referenced above called me a "campaigner", writing: "This whole process has been dubious. You have now created what is effectively an attack page on Kurowski..."


 * I'm actually pleased with the Franz Kurowski article (that indeed I had to create to have something to point ppl to) -- I believe that it's comprehensive and covers the topic well :-). This source is so incredibly bad, it's almost laughable: here's a sample of his writing. But yet some editors defended it... BTW, the main source on Strachwitz (with 160 citations) is from the same publisher that issued Kurowski's works on highly decorated Wehrmacht soldiers. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you're not entirely alone in raising the issues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you have any suggestions on how to close on the GAR discussion? Should I ask for a close at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Or start an RfC with the question: “Should this article be delisted as a Good Article?”


 * It does not appear that further discussions would resolve this issue since the opinions appear to be polar opposites, Further, I was somewhat disturbed to see this discussion between MilHist coordinators, in which editors (presumably myself, as I’m mentioned by user name later) are described by PeaceMaker as representing "a problem of the very hard line anti-Nazi de WP (German wikipedia) now being aggressively pushed here by a few editors, to the detriment of numerous articles." Nobody steps in and says: "Hey, cool it, man." Instead, another editor chimes in: "I've also had encounters with the diehard anti-Nazis, to my chagrin". Yes, Virginia, there are areas on Wikipedia where the term “anti-Nazi” is used pejoratively.


 * I can’t say that I’m particularly “anti-Nazi” (not that there’s anything wrong with it :-) ). If anything, I’m anti-military fancruft, which is tedious but harmless most of the time. But in cases where editors bring in and defend the use of right-wing sources, combined with copy/paste-happy Waffen-SS romancers who add material they find on dubious web sites and forums, this does turn into “Nazi fancruft”. (As another editor eloquently put it: "This is a GAR for a 10,000+ word essay full of Nazi WP:FANCRUFT that apparently meets the GA criteria of a wikiproject with its own set of rules for what's encyclopedic.")


 * Other comments have been somewhat off colour lately, such as the one in reference to a German High Command communique issued following the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising: "In this case it may have included euphemisms for criminal actions, but it may equally have been referring to bravery in combat against armed fighters of the Home Army". Indeed, Himmler’s notorious Bandenkampf ("Bandit-fighting") Chief personally stormed barricades, instead of directing murder and pillage. This is taking the white washing a bit too far.


 * What’s odd is that this discourse is coming from an administrator who should be well versed in policy and be the champion of a neutral point of view and civility. Combined with what I can only describe as a pattern of bullying behaviour ("I suggest you stop, otherwise I will take your conduct to ANI"; etc), the notion of a “MilHist community” / “us” / “en Wiki" (at least as defined by PeaceMaker) becomes rather problematic. Not sure how to deal with this, since military history is where my interests lay. That’s in part why I’ve been editing in the fringe theories area; you can at least count on diverse participation.


 * Any feedback on how to close the GAR would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined toward an RfC, advertised at WP:VPPOL, specifically because current resolution has stalled, and various editors have suggested that WP:MILHIST doing its own GARs has LOCALCONSENSUS issues. That's a neutral enough statement I would think (compared to the quote you quoted, and this other I just saw in the FRINGE discussion: " WP:MILHIST seems to be like a twilight zone of minority views on obscure military history."). It's not really just about this particular article.  It helps that you're actually a MILHIST participant; i.e., the wikiproject is not in unanimous agreement how to approach such material to begin with. The problem with WP:ANRFC is that it's severely backlogged, and I think also many respondents there would tend to lean toward the "let wikiprojects handle their own content areas" views that are not really supported by the community more broadly.  And because the current discussion has stalled, it's not clear that it would close as anything but "no consensus", i.e. default to the status quo, so no delisting and no pressure to improve the article until FAC time, eventually.  If you go the RfC route, it would be politic to phrase it as "Should this article remain listed as a Good Article?"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Would I post the RfC at WP:VPPOL directly? Alternatively, place it at Good_article_reassessment/Hyacinth_Graf_Strachwitz/1 or Talk:Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz, and advertise at WP:VPPOL? If you could clarify, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would host it at the GAR page, since it exists. The idea is to focus more editorial attention to one place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to thank you for your tireless WW2 related work. Especially given the topics. I can only wish I had half your determination and work rate. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I filed an ANI
Hey, I ultimately decided to file an ANI as I am at the edge of my patience. Quoted you there, so here is a notification. Tagteaming and hounding. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Should I post there? I've not been part in an ANI regarding a non-blocked editor, so not sure what the decorum is. Your comments are spot on -- definitely something fishy going on. Both editors have a tendency to remove maintenance templates, place "in use" signs, and then complain when you remove them, and also have challenges with grammar and spelling. I lost track of which editor is which: I received three warning messages in the course of 24 hours; and I thought they all came from the same one. :-) But my biggest concern is the acceptance of dubious / COI articles for creation, so I would support the site ban. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is OK to post :) The ANI post is actually for inviting comments! The only thing to remember is to stick to facts (and diffs), use a dispassionate tone and point out the flaws but not to indulge in personal attacks against the editor themselves (civility is the most important thing). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Intricate detail
I have to say that I love when I see you've written "removing intricate detail" in an edit summary, both in principle and the actual phrasing. I can be sure it was intricate detail that was removed and there's just something about the word choice that's very... je ne sais quoi. Maybe "eloquent" is what I'm trying to say. (I had to use the thesaurus to come up with the right word.) If there were a wikipedia version of /r/oddlysatisfying, I'd put "removing intricate detail" there. :-P I've been thinking this to myself for a little while, so wanted to share it with you. Also, I'm tempted to use it sometimes, so I'm publicly giving you credit that way people don't mistakenly think I'm the one with the silver tongue. —PermStrump ( talk )  19:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to use it :-) The less "intricate detail" in Wikipedia, the better (IMO). My other frequently used ones are:


 * "unneeded iconography": as in encountering "Horst Niemack's uniform at the Deutsches Panzermuseum"
 * "more neutral", for when it's more politic vs "POV and dubious"
 * "more neutral" also works in cases of "selective empathy" and / or "endless waves of tanks and men"
 * WP:Memorial, which I got reverted on, sigh; verbatim inscription, both in German and English, from the subject's memorial -- so in this is case the meaning was literal)
 * More of "literal memorial", with grave location given; I assume so that fans can visit?
 * non RS and not used for citations, as well as here, instead of saying These are neo-Nazi publications
 * Another good one is "Uncited since [insert year]", in this case since 2007, aka "why has no one botherd to remove this dubious content before?"


 * At least one can have fun with edit summaries. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, I like the "more neutral" one ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I first came across the template in relation to a public figure article and have used it a few times since. There are still editors who believe that adding walls of text or an excessive amount of intricate detail will lead to a better article. Just add the brackets, if the article as a whole suffers from it: Overly detailed|date=. Kierzek (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was "lol" about "'non RS and not used for citations'...instead of saying 'These are neo-Nazi publications.'" I'd been thinking one day I'd write a one sentence essay called WP:LessIsMore, but it turns out someone beat me to it. —PermStrump  ( talk )  12:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

re: Wolfgang Lüth
I don't recall reviewing this article, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here it is: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wolfgang Lüth. It's been seven years so quite some time. So you would not object to it being reassessed? K.e.coffman (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've started a community reassessment, if you'd like to participate: Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)