![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What does run counter to Wiki guidelines is memorializing 4 deaths and including trivia.
Wikipedia is not a site for memorializing ( WP:NOT#MEMORIAL). A very similar article, WP:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, was recently nominated for deletion on the basis of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL.
Wikipedia is also not for trivia ( WP:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup). Eg. the trivia fact that the Skyreach Centre was filled to capacity, the trivia fact that the souvenir programme was 28-pages, the trivia fact that the Mayor of Edmonton was there, the trivia fact that there was a mention made by the Queen, the trivia fact that some highway was renamed, etc.
That trivia accounts for fully half of the "Specifics" section and one-third of all the text outside of the actual tables. That is completely out of proportion.
70.50.9.134 ( talk) 16:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
First, thanks to everyone that has continued to keep this table updated. When I first created it in 2006, the number of dead was much lower. I think it's very important that we keep this page up. Second, I think this page most certainly needs expansion. I haven't been around editing Wikipedia lately do to RL, but I would like to take part in expanding this page. Primarily, I believe we need to talk more about non-fatality casualties. "In war there are non unwounded soldiers." -b ( talk) 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
With the addition of another person to this list today, the question popped into my head: as this page is about casualties in Afghanistan, do deaths caused by non-combat factors qualify for inclusion? My understanding of the word "casualty" is that it refers to a person killed as a result of a specific mission, whereas death by natural causes, murder, or accident, while possibly occuring during a mission or in the region where a mission is taking place, are not actually caused by said mission, and therefore not casualties. Am I incorrect in this reading? Should we change the title of the page? Or, should we pare down the list accordingly? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I prefer having the year included in the date column the way we had it before. That way a reader can see at a glance when a given casualty occurred without having to scroll back up to the top of the table to see which year it occurred in. Perhaps for users with extra large screens this might be less of a problem, but I have a modest-sized screen and more and more people are also accessing Wikipedia through laptops, netbooks, tablet PC's, PDA's, iPhones, cellphones, and other devices with modest screen sizes.
Restoring the year in the date doesn't change the width of the column or change the dimensions of the tables at all (as can be seen in this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan&oldid=282284333)
Do other editors here have a preference on this? 76.68.250.162 ( talk) 04:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
CTV reports that while Private Sébastien Courcy from a fall during a "Counterinsurgency mission", it also says "It is not clear whether Courcy was involved in a firefight at the time." DND says he was "killed in action", although I'm not sure what the Canadian DND's definition of KIA encompasses. So, for the time being, i'm going to move him over to the 'accidents and non-combat causes' total. My question is: If he did in fact die from a fall while under fire, would he go back to the 'hostile circumstances' total? I ask because falls, and friendly fire (which often happens under hostile circumstances, but also from accidental discharges and F-16s dropping bombs on training exercises) are both counted under 'accidents and non-hostile circumstances'. I'd tend towards the opinion that for simplicity, the hostile circumstances includes things like enemy fire, IEDs, land mines, etc. while the 'accidental and non hostile' catches other causes of death. Thoughts? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 02:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Now it's reported that the fall was the result of a blast from a landmine or IED. should we just count this under that total? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 23:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently added a header for the Overview paragraph so that it was easy to "edit" that section without waiting for the entire page to load. It is not quite as nice having the Table of Contents above it, but given that it is updated with every casualty, it seemed silly to not make the change. However, we may want to put some introductory information above the ToC, things that will not need to be updated.
Question:
For another update, I was thinking we should use bullets to organize the sentences that break down the number of combat / non-combat casualties and their respective types. This will make it easier to update and will also make it easier for anyone doing research/presentations to find that information. What do people think about that idea? andrewpullin ( talk) 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] Okay, I made the chart. However, I think the lead is now too short, per WP:LEAD. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
When looking at the first chart of fatalities, all six friendly-fire incidents are listed as non-hostile. However in the case of pte. Robert Costall his circumstance is listed as having died while fighting in combat. So shouldn’t the friendly-fire be listed as 1 hostile and 5 non-hostile instead? — jfry3 ( talk) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Tried adding the names and some details of the latest fallen, but I keep getting one more column. I tried cutting/pasting the previous entry with three names, changing the information in the new section, but to no avail. Milnews.ca ( talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the proper abbreviation for 5 Combat Engineer Regiment/5e Régiment du genie de combat would be? Would it be 5e RGC? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes the abbreviation is 5 RGC No one in the armed forces refers to them as 5 CER. It might even be considered an insult.-- MBizon ( talk) 06:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Does any one know if the CODs for Jérémie Ouellet (11 March 2008) and Brendan Anthony Downey (4 July 2008) were ever released? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 05:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the Wiki to add Sgt. John W. Faught, with that I have created the "2010" section and updated the statistics at the top of the page (Deaths by Rank and Death by Type of Death). With this I also updated the "Death by Rank" section to lowest rank to highest and updated the links to ensure it points to the correct wiki. Medic48 ( talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have updated the Wiki to add Pte. Tyler W. Todd, with that I have updated the Private to 28 and Killed by IEDs to 86. Medic48 ( talk) 21:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I have entered in Col. Geoff Parker as our 145 casualty. I also replaced the Fatalities by Rank summary from the specifics section with a table in the statistics section to make it more visually useful. I made a handful of other changes to complement my principle modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.34.23 ( talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The references for claiming Major Mendes committed suicide are weak. One is an opinion piece which implies but does not state that she committed suicide, the other is a one-line statement in a newspaper, with nothing to support it. As far as I'm aware there has never been an official finding on Major Mendes' death. In the absence of anything more solid, could we list it as a possible suicide rather than an established fact? Madgenberyl ( talk) 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What does run counter to Wiki guidelines is memorializing 4 deaths and including trivia.
Wikipedia is not a site for memorializing ( WP:NOT#MEMORIAL). A very similar article, WP:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, was recently nominated for deletion on the basis of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL.
Wikipedia is also not for trivia ( WP:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup). Eg. the trivia fact that the Skyreach Centre was filled to capacity, the trivia fact that the souvenir programme was 28-pages, the trivia fact that the Mayor of Edmonton was there, the trivia fact that there was a mention made by the Queen, the trivia fact that some highway was renamed, etc.
That trivia accounts for fully half of the "Specifics" section and one-third of all the text outside of the actual tables. That is completely out of proportion.
70.50.9.134 ( talk) 16:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
First, thanks to everyone that has continued to keep this table updated. When I first created it in 2006, the number of dead was much lower. I think it's very important that we keep this page up. Second, I think this page most certainly needs expansion. I haven't been around editing Wikipedia lately do to RL, but I would like to take part in expanding this page. Primarily, I believe we need to talk more about non-fatality casualties. "In war there are non unwounded soldiers." -b ( talk) 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
With the addition of another person to this list today, the question popped into my head: as this page is about casualties in Afghanistan, do deaths caused by non-combat factors qualify for inclusion? My understanding of the word "casualty" is that it refers to a person killed as a result of a specific mission, whereas death by natural causes, murder, or accident, while possibly occuring during a mission or in the region where a mission is taking place, are not actually caused by said mission, and therefore not casualties. Am I incorrect in this reading? Should we change the title of the page? Or, should we pare down the list accordingly? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I prefer having the year included in the date column the way we had it before. That way a reader can see at a glance when a given casualty occurred without having to scroll back up to the top of the table to see which year it occurred in. Perhaps for users with extra large screens this might be less of a problem, but I have a modest-sized screen and more and more people are also accessing Wikipedia through laptops, netbooks, tablet PC's, PDA's, iPhones, cellphones, and other devices with modest screen sizes.
Restoring the year in the date doesn't change the width of the column or change the dimensions of the tables at all (as can be seen in this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan&oldid=282284333)
Do other editors here have a preference on this? 76.68.250.162 ( talk) 04:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
CTV reports that while Private Sébastien Courcy from a fall during a "Counterinsurgency mission", it also says "It is not clear whether Courcy was involved in a firefight at the time." DND says he was "killed in action", although I'm not sure what the Canadian DND's definition of KIA encompasses. So, for the time being, i'm going to move him over to the 'accidents and non-combat causes' total. My question is: If he did in fact die from a fall while under fire, would he go back to the 'hostile circumstances' total? I ask because falls, and friendly fire (which often happens under hostile circumstances, but also from accidental discharges and F-16s dropping bombs on training exercises) are both counted under 'accidents and non-hostile circumstances'. I'd tend towards the opinion that for simplicity, the hostile circumstances includes things like enemy fire, IEDs, land mines, etc. while the 'accidental and non hostile' catches other causes of death. Thoughts? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 02:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Now it's reported that the fall was the result of a blast from a landmine or IED. should we just count this under that total? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 23:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently added a header for the Overview paragraph so that it was easy to "edit" that section without waiting for the entire page to load. It is not quite as nice having the Table of Contents above it, but given that it is updated with every casualty, it seemed silly to not make the change. However, we may want to put some introductory information above the ToC, things that will not need to be updated.
Question:
For another update, I was thinking we should use bullets to organize the sentences that break down the number of combat / non-combat casualties and their respective types. This will make it easier to update and will also make it easier for anyone doing research/presentations to find that information. What do people think about that idea? andrewpullin ( talk) 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] Okay, I made the chart. However, I think the lead is now too short, per WP:LEAD. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
When looking at the first chart of fatalities, all six friendly-fire incidents are listed as non-hostile. However in the case of pte. Robert Costall his circumstance is listed as having died while fighting in combat. So shouldn’t the friendly-fire be listed as 1 hostile and 5 non-hostile instead? — jfry3 ( talk) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Tried adding the names and some details of the latest fallen, but I keep getting one more column. I tried cutting/pasting the previous entry with three names, changing the information in the new section, but to no avail. Milnews.ca ( talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the proper abbreviation for 5 Combat Engineer Regiment/5e Régiment du genie de combat would be? Would it be 5e RGC? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes the abbreviation is 5 RGC No one in the armed forces refers to them as 5 CER. It might even be considered an insult.-- MBizon ( talk) 06:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Does any one know if the CODs for Jérémie Ouellet (11 March 2008) and Brendan Anthony Downey (4 July 2008) were ever released? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 05:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the Wiki to add Sgt. John W. Faught, with that I have created the "2010" section and updated the statistics at the top of the page (Deaths by Rank and Death by Type of Death). With this I also updated the "Death by Rank" section to lowest rank to highest and updated the links to ensure it points to the correct wiki. Medic48 ( talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have updated the Wiki to add Pte. Tyler W. Todd, with that I have updated the Private to 28 and Killed by IEDs to 86. Medic48 ( talk) 21:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I have entered in Col. Geoff Parker as our 145 casualty. I also replaced the Fatalities by Rank summary from the specifics section with a table in the statistics section to make it more visually useful. I made a handful of other changes to complement my principle modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.34.23 ( talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The references for claiming Major Mendes committed suicide are weak. One is an opinion piece which implies but does not state that she committed suicide, the other is a one-line statement in a newspaper, with nothing to support it. As far as I'm aware there has never been an official finding on Major Mendes' death. In the absence of anything more solid, could we list it as a possible suicide rather than an established fact? Madgenberyl ( talk) 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)