Talk:Lists of World War I flying aces

message: One of the Nazis' many offenses against the Jews was a concerted attempt to deny that German Jews served honorably and often bravely in the military of the German Empire in World War I. The names of German Jewish heroes were purged from official records. For an insight into this, you might read http://people.sinclair.edu/thomasmartin/knights/index2.htm.
One specific example I would like to cite is Fritz Beckhardt. He is listed in the Jewish knights website above, and mentioned in the forum of www.http://theaerodrome.com. I have him listed with a provisional victory total of 17, and am still researching him.
In the interests of NPOV, completeness, fairness, and accuracy, I feel it is incumbent upon us to restore these names to their rightful place in this history project. If anyone has any useful references, information, thoughts, tips, or hints, please post them here.
Georgejdorner (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring Jewish Aces

message: Two lists have been merged here, with categories, and links, and sortable table. 
* List of World War I flying aces by nationality
* List of World War I flying aces by number of victories
:70.55.85.177 (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged

message: Anybody know why the some of the home country aces (Scotland, Ireland and Welsh) are all mentioned but not the English? Or why if they are UK citizens flying for the UK does it need a further discriminator? None of the other countries are divided (no Bavarian aces?) MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: English aces

message: Discriminatory listings carried over from www.theaerodrome.com have been corrected. Irish, Welsh, and Scots pilots are now NOT singled out via a note on this table. Individual bios that are reached via linkage may note more concise origins: Prussian, Irish, Bavarian, Scots, etc. as part of bio.
Georgejdorner (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say thanks to Georgejdorner for some good work on the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Situation Rectified

message: Some fine work indeed by George.  I'm just wondering about the 'catch-all' numbers of Aces by Nationality towards the bottom of the list.  There wouldn't, for example, ever be a WP article on '502 more Aces' for the UK; but that is what is suggested by the Wiki-link at present, unless I'm getting this wrong.  I do understand that this is part of a mammoth job being undertaken, principally by George, although I'd hope to contribute a bit more myself in due course. Just wondering if there's another way, so that we're not showing our workings too much in the List itself. Any suggestions? Scoop100 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in Progress

message: I never envisioned the catchalls as anything but a stopgap until the list can be split.
Georgejdorner (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Catchall is temporary solution

message: I haven't taken the time to check things like how much detail there is above on sortable lists and whether i mentioned them here bcz someone else already had. But at the time, i didn't have an example at hand. I ran across one with over 800 entries: List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008#Details.  --Jerzy•t 21:46 & 22:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sortable list example

message: List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain has a few things I think would improve this list. The "Abbreviations" section could be used here, reducing the amount of duplicate links and text. If this is fine it can easily be done with one edit from WP:AWB. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea to have both separate sub-lists and the full main list. George, you've made a good start splitting off the 5 victories list, but I'd like to make a few changes before we go and split up the whole list. I think we should follow the example of Airline codes-All. If you look at that page it is a very long list of airlines, but if you try to edit it you will see it is actually just a bunch of sublists on separate pages put together. My proposal is to have the main page List of World War I flying aces, and then many subpages :List of World War I flying aces credited with 5 victories (A-F) List of World War I flying aces credited with 5 victories (G-Q), List of World War I flying aces credited with 5 victories (R-Z), etc. (I chose those names based on other list series, and so that they will be able to stand as lists on their own.) Each list will then need some extra coding, which I can do. And we'd have to create Template:List of World War I flying aces/Page top and Template:List of World War I flying aces/Page bottom (easily already done). What do you think? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving the list

message: Its a pay access database, but I suppose its better than going to the archives in person.
culture24.org.uk announcement (archive copy).
National Archives database homepage
Regards. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Early RAF service records now online

message: I was wondering why, in the "List of World War I aces by number of victories" articles (e.g. List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories), the text "Luftstreitkräfte" is linked to Luftwaffe rather than (the dedicated article) Luftstreitkräfte. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Luftstreitkräfte links

message: The section of British confirmation methods is (even after some quiet changes):
1. FAR longer than for other nationalities.
2. Very repetitous.
3. Contains a number of generalisations that are quite questionable.
4. A lot of the "references" seem to be forum posts (!!!)
If nobody objects, I will shorten this section to a sensible summary - cut repetitous matter, qualify (further) some of the current generalisations, and weed unacceptable references. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor old Brits 

message: I had two considerations when I established the lists in question.
First, the effect of ethnic identity upon Austro-Hungarian aviation–most especially, the effect as seen by the later careers of the aces in their new nations' air forces. More sublists mean increased linkage into the biographies of the Austro-Hungarian aces and into Austro-Hungarian aviation in general.
Second, the aviation history canon provides ample history that eventually the list of United Kingdom aces will be sublisted into Irish, Scots, Welch, and British aces. It's a fixture in aviation history encyclopedias. And if its fair for the UK, why not for everyone else? In fact, I foresee that every possible ethnic sublisting is going to happen because, whether NPOV be deemed lacking or damned as dumb, national, regional, and ethnic pride is going to kick in.
We just happen to be first on the scene.
Georgejdorner (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reasoning concerning lists of Austro-Hungarian aces 

message: "Eventually" that did indeed become the "common" (=universal?) understanding. The idea that five victories made an ace was actually a French one - this was spread by vigorous postwar (i.e. 1920s and 30s) American ballyhoo and has now become pretty much the standard. But during WW1 the Germans considered an "ace" ("big gun") needed 10 victories. The British (as always in this context) were at bit vague on this question during the war itself and seem to have been inconsistent about the fifth victory marking the boundary between an ace and a non-ace. In fact Lee remarked he was "a long way short of being an ace" when he seems to have had at least 5 "solo" vitories out of a total of 11 (which included shares). This is presumeably how the system worked in at least one RFC squadron (No.46). The British, in fact, hardly used the word "ace" anyway - preferring to call their top fighter pilots "star turns".
Anyway - I have cut the sentence implying that everyone counted 5 as the measure of an ace during WW1 since this is disproved by the German example alone. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five victories defines an ace? 

message: There doesn't seem to be a comprehensive list of German aces in the list--a pretty big omission for one of the war's major combatants! someone needs to get on that ASAP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.208 (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No list of German aces? 

message: India was a British colony during WW2, so it is not right to say it only India, we need tell it British India or should mention India was a colony of Britain.Ovsek (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  India?