Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010.

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently also under FLC review), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - You only use RSD to in pointing out the abbreviation, is there any point in having it in the article? Same with JG 3. WASt doesn't need re-abbreviating in Note 11. AKCR is also abbreviated in the lead, I hardly think it needs re-abbreviating in the notes. Afro  ( Talk ) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * CommentSupport
 * The list starts at number 58 a note could be added to the indicate that 1–57 were issued between 1940–1941 or whenever.
 * I was thinking of adding the followin text: "Listed here are the 111 recipients of 1942, ranging from sequential number 58 to 168. The 8 recipients of 1940 ranging from 1 to 7 are listed here, the 50 recipients, range 8 to 57, are listed here. The range 169 to 360, denoting the 192 recipients of 1943 can be found here. In 1944 328 men, listed as recipients 361 to 688, can be found here and the final 194 recipients of 1945 ranging from 689 to 882 are listed here." Would this address the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In note 2 handled the case in 1981 and decided: Swords yes, can this be reworded ''handled the case in 1981 and decided to award him the Swords ?
 * In note 4 According to Scherzer as Staffelkapitän of the 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 - should that not be III./Jagdgeschwader 77 ?
 * Nope, 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 is correct, it denotes the 3rd squadron, I double checked MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In note 6 and others there is no need to link the ranks they are already linked in the table
 * I was once advised to err on over-linking since the list can be sorted and one does not know what sort option the reader may have chosen. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In note 7 while Prien states who is Prien.
 * Prien is the author of Jagdgeschwader 53 A History of the "Pik As" Geschwader May 1942 – January 1944. Listed in the Bibliography section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Translate some of the more obscure German Aufklärungs-Abteilung for example.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a note reagding the nomenclature of German military terms. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I can't find anything to add or complain about. Great article. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure having two separate lists for 40-41 and for 42 is ideal. I would prefer a single 40-42 one since it would be shorter than the '43 one. Nergaal (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this general consensus? If not I would like to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm against it. I would rather split up 40-41 article on a half in order to simplify things and have tidy article for every year. Current format could make people wonder if there is some another quality reasoning behind such a breakdown besides saving some KB's or one list simply being shorter. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The merge of 1940 and 1941 was requested at the WikiProject Military A-class review. I also had preferred to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.