Talk:Fokker Scourge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fokker Scourge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 14 July 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

@Jan olieslagers: [1] "The old spellings were copied without verification from French language sources who had total disregard for what they considered a worthless patois. Actual correct names have more encyclopedical value." The old spellings were and still are English usage, which does not conform to arguments within Belgium about naming. "Belgium: Native English names for places should be used, but the local language's name if there isn't one. The Brussels naming conventions should be used for articles related to Brussels. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your argument is valid about the city of Mechelen, historically "Mechlin" in English. "Thourout" however is not an old English spelling, it is an incorrect French one, blindly copied by someone too lazy to check the sources. Or is there any other source, verifyably not related to this ancestry, and preferrably older, for the spelling "Thourout"? Feel free to refer. It seems likely to me that, like this author, many others copied the error without checking. If none, I will refer to "the local language's name if there isn't one" as I did. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can you dismiss referencing to Wiki articles as original research. I must say, though, that the change you made to the mention of Torhout in the article is more or less acceptable, even if it keeps to the gibberish incorrect French name, bracketed. I should like to, likewise, swap the bracketed correct local names with the less incorrect wikilinks Roulers and Cortemarck, which only lead to redirects; what do you say? (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are POV pushing which is unWiki and making untenable claims about the motives of strangers. Check on some English language sources instead of making vapid assertions. I suggest that you start with

Edmonds, J. E.; Falls, C. B.; Wynne, G. C. (1948). Military Operations: France and Belgium, 7th June – 10th November: Messines and Third Ypres (Passchendaele). History of the Great War based on Official Documents by Direction of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Vol. II (1st ed.). London: HMSO. OCLC 769477027.

The English have been using different spellings of Flanders place names since the C17th. Keith-264 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to tell me about the often funny and sometimes illogical use and abuse of the English language by its primary users :) I do not have access to the book mentioned, and it is not relevant anyway since I asked for a reference from before WW1, this book is from 1948. But the Torhout matter has been settled more or less to my satisfaction, so we can as well close that subdiscussion. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tamper with my edits. Keith-264 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ought not to tamper with what you write here on the talk page, and if I did it must have been by accident, and I do apologise. On the other hand I see no reason why I should not improve on your edits in the article body, and I do consider wikilinking to redirects as "less than perfect" to be polite, and I think I can and should modify the wikilinks so as to point directy to the articles concerned. That is, if you do not do so yourself, as you already neatly did for Torhout. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to "correct" redirects, and indeed you really shouldn't be doing that. As for "No need to tell me about the often funny and sometimes illogical use and abuse of the English language by its primary users" I think that is a clear statement of extreme bad-faith on your part. You should not be editing the English-language Wikipedia if that is your attitude to the language and its native speakers. DuncanHill (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, some people do not like to be reminded of their oddities. It is obvious I have stepped on some delicate toes, which was not my purpose, though. Be assured, dear colleague contributors, I will not be attacking your fortress of self-satisfaction again. Still, nobody is going to tell me what I can edit and what not, or what I should do and what not. And I'll be warning my friends and relatives not to trust wikipedia blindly, not even the english-language edition. Cheers, and keep up the good work - but perhaps reconsider your definition of "good work". Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan olieslagers: I asked you not to tamper with my edits (here), stop it. As for you arguing, I note that you have quite a few critical edits on your talk page. I suggest that you try to learn from them rather than digging deeper. I find that English Wiki is fairly trustworthy where the subject doesn't advert to the interests of the US empire so I tell people that they should read such articles with caution. Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And who do you think you are, to tell me "stop it"? Wikipedia is not your private playground, neither do you have even the slightest authority to tell me what and where and how. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not tamper with my edits, don't do it again. See here [2] Keith-264 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]