Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 131

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133→Archive 135

The Greco-Italian war is currently being re-written finally!

The Greco-Italian war is currently being re-written finally! We are asking for more editors to get involved to help improve it! So please take an interest and help out Enigma and Keith in the editing process!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.202.8 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Would a coordinator mind scrutinising the recent edits of 92.234.202.8 with a view to dictating consequences please?Keith-264 (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 12/06

Draft:Brigadier Rohitha Neil Akmeemana. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Moro Crater massacre merger discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:First Battle of Bud Dajo#Merge proposal. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, after your posting here, when I run my pointer over this project on my Watchlist, that Farm Fresh eye.png you put here jumps up and is major creepy. We already believe governments and their military spy on us, now it looks like this project is also. Yuck! — Maile (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: I did not mean to creep anyone out.It is part of the Please see template. Perhaps that template can be edited to use a different image?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: I've updated {{please see}} for you, you can now use |noimage=yes to turn off that eye icon thing -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, thank you for responding so quickly. I've left a comment over at the template talk page. Besides the spy-creep reflex, it also makes a person think malware might be present. Let's hope they change images to something less spooky. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Absurd Casualties Figures

Unfortunately partisan editors believe there is something to be gained by adding false casualty figures to WWI and WW2 articles (and other wars too no doubt). It appears they believe that they can somehow turn lost wars from the past into victories. Actually, the only way one benefits from Wikipedia, both losers and victors, is to have true knowledge of the past.

Take for example the Brusilov Offensive. The English version of Wiki says the Russians suffered losses of ~1.4 M, and the Axis ~0.75M, roughly a ratio of 2:1.

The Russian version [[1]] says Russian losses ~0.5M and Axis losses ~1.5M, roughly a ratio of 1:3.

So the two versions of Wiki (reflecting biases of editors) are off by a factor of 6. This is great disservice to our readers and also to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who spend their time trying to make Wikipedia better.

I have tried to correct a few articles, but unfortunately partisans have a lot more energy and time than I do :(

Maybe this Task Force can come up a new protocol for reporting losses in articles. Maybe casualty figures should be agreed upon by a panel, and should not be allowed to be changed by single editors. Also there could be more collaboration between editors of Wiki version of involved countries.

Best Wishes,

JS (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

PS Given that the October 2010 version (before an editor rampage) of the English article said "Professor Graydon A. Tunstall of the University of South Florida called the Brusilov Offensive of 1916 the worst crisis of World War I for Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente's greatest victory." I am more inclined to believe Russian Wiki on this one.

What do the reliable sources say? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
That's part of the problem. When challenged the partisans produce "reliable sources" to support their figures. Apparently, in this world there are not only partisan editors but also partisan authors who write "reliable" books. Also, these books are often inaccessible (not available or in foreign languages) that makes in not possible to check claims. The result is that different parts of Wikipedia have wildly contradictory information which is a disservice to its readers and the majority of its editors. I think to improve the situation a new set of policies need to be devised. JS (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Not really, what is needed is use of WP's dispute resolution options, like a RfC (which is what I would suggest). It seems to me that Dowling's Brusilov Offensive, published in 2008 and positively reviewed in Central European History the following year would have to be the base source for a WP article, as it is just about the only recent major work published by a university press on the subject. Dowling is a military academic specialising in modern German and Russian history. Not sure you'll find too many others working in English with the depth of research on this topic. The CEH review mentions that prior to Dowling's book, the Brusilov Offensive was really only dealt by single chapters in Churchill's The Unknown War (1931) and Norman Stone's The Eastern Front (1975). Sounds like a ringing endorsement of Dowling to me, and I'd be looking for Dowling's figures to be given precedence. Good luck with it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
That's true but the book is rather slight and is certainly not the last word on the offensive, a certain caution is recommended.

A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg Empire (2015) Geoffrey Wawro might be worth a look but he leans rather heavily on Dowling.Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker and Keith, thanks for your replies and suggestions. Brusilov Offensive is just an example, unfortunately such a discrepancy can be found in multiple articles in WWI and WWII. JS (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The effect of the Brusilov offensive on Verdun could do with sourcing, with possible qualification re other work on the Western Front to reduce the pressure at Verdun. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mount Trebeshinë

Would some kind soul show me how to add the location on the map here Mount Trebeshinë to Battle of Trebeshina the map here? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Keith-264, it's the same map. Two different infoboxes. The Infobox mountain picks up the coordinates and places map dot/mark and dot/mark label on it. The Infobox military conflict does not. Perhaps it's because you used the coord template. Please look at Battle of San Patricio and the style of coordinates in the infobox.— Maile (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Bugger, I was hoping to avoid that; thanksKeith-264 (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Did it as a locator map as suggested and used another one at the top.Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Glad you got it straightened out. — Maile (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bijeljina massacre#Request for comment

Could interested editors consider commenting on the above RfC regarding the use of witness testimony? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Indigo Publications for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indigo Publications is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Publications until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Indigo Publications publishes Intelligence Online as well as other intelligence-related newsletters. The question is not whether Intelligence Online or other Indigo Publications properties can be used as sources, but whether they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement over how to present different reliable sources regarding the number of Medal of Honors awarded

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Medal of Honor#Number of Medal of Honor awards. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"S.A."

The usage and primary topic of S.A. is under discussion, see talk:S.A. (corporation) and talk:S.A. for multiple discussions. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon's ship

I've created an article on the Inconstant, which Napoleon escaped from Elba in. Assistance in expanding the article is welcomed. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Mjroots, but that's the wrong ship. The brig that carried Napoleon was French brig Inconstant (1811). She was a naval vessel, also launched in 1811, that remained in French Navy service until she was broken up in 1843.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Midway

Could some expert look at Battle of Midway? This is an old FA which has "page needed" on many of the refs. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed the link to the Commemorative Air Force (formerly called the "Confederate Air Force") from the "See also" section of Military of the Confederate States of America because there is absolutely no relationship between the CSA and the CAF. Another editor has reverted twice my removal of the spurious link and challenged me to gain consensus on the talk page for the change. The former name of the CAF was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and the organization has long ago distanced themselves from the former name. The CAF, which was started in Texas, now has chapters in every region of the United States. The aircraft that they fly are mainly from WWII and have no connection to the American Civil War. There is nothing encyclopedic about linking to the CAF article from any Civil War related article, since the CSA ceased to exist in 1865 and the CAF was started in 1957. --rogerd (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you're continuing your use of non-neutral headings, and now are forum-shopping. At this point it's clear to me you're not operating in good faith on this issue. Good day. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
How is this forum shopping? In Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, it suggests going to a relevant project talk page, which is just what I did. How is this bad faith? Please calm down. It is nonsense to link an article from the American Civil War to a volunteer organization that flies vintage aircraft. --rogerd (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You haven't even r replied to my last comments on the article's talk page,.where I adressed.some of your objections that you also raised here. You continue to belittle a good faith addition of a link by repeatedly calling it nonsense. I have no problem with your disagreeing with the addition of the link, but this isn't about racism, as you seem to have implied on the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I think at this point we should step back and allow others to review and decide what is best. --rogerd (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Help from French speaker on Belgian Cyclistes Frontière (interwar/WWII unit)?

I had Cyclistes Frontière on my translation to-do list, but turns out on fr.wikipedia it's split into two separate articles about different sub-units, so I thought to start by having just one article on the concept in Belgium overall. However, I can only read French weakly, and that's what most of the books on GoogleBooks that mention them are written in. If there's an interested French speaker, can you skim GoogleBooks and pick out a few more useful facts to include in this stub? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest https://translate.google.com/ for translation purposes? While less than a perfect translator, it's workable if you have a basic knowledge of the original language. When working on some short articles on Italian naval shipyards I used it to translate the Italian wiki articles and was able to extract most of the relevant info despite having only a little French, coupled with a small amount of info from English-language sources.
I'd suggest putting up the translated and untranslated versions beside each other in separate windows so you can correct the machine translation from your own knowledge of French. The French wiki articles look relatively easy to translate, so I'd probably start there and supplement it with other French-language material if that goes well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Buckshot06 (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the French wiki topic split is preserved. There never was, to my understanding, a single unit of Cyclistes Frontière. As such, it's a bit like expecting the Foot Guards article to cover all the British guards regiments in-depth. I suggest two articles are created, using the existing C-f article as a disambiguation...—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sailing ship categories

A discussion re categorization of sailing ship articles has been started at WT:SHIPS. Opinions from members of this WP are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Bloody Marsh

It seems that an anonymous IP is deleting the modern views on the battle that I've been adding with exhaustive references to many different sources. It claims that the old works, the majority of them dating back to the early 20th century, are better despite having neglected the usage of Spanish sources. I've tried to portray both old and modern approaches to the battle through my editing of the article, but my work is being continuosly reverted by anonymous IPs.Weymar Horren (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Eurofighter Typhoon

A Request for Comments is in progress at Eurofighter Typhoon as to whether to include a paragraph comparing the radar cross-section of this aircraft to the Dassault Rafale. Please participate in the RFC if you are interested. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

several hundred tunneling companies (UK)

I've posted this before, but never saw an answer....I've been going through the backlog and have assessed a bunch of articles on the tunneling companies (WWI) that seem very redundant. Same sources, same text, and most are barely past stub class, although a few are definitely B. Shouldn't these be in a list, and the ones that have some notability broken out into their own article? auntieruth (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That's a very good solution.  Roger Davies talk 17:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
User talk:ViennaUK might be interested.Keith-264 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
deleted by auntieruth (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Help reviewing FAC

I ask you all for help with Juan Manuel de Rosas. The article is in need of reviews for its FAC. The page is here. The problem is that Rosas as well as Argentine history (with the exception of the Falklands War) as gathered little interest in here so far. If you can, take your time to review the article, please. --Lecen (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Some independent eyes on continual reverts in Attack on Pearl Harbor

A fairly small addition of the Battle of Hong Kong by User:SpeedyspeedoUser talk:Speedyspeedo to the "See also" section led to reverts by User:TrekphilerUser talk:Trekphiler who is "not seeing the connection" leading to me reverting and then making the connection in Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor#Common time for events. Too many U.S. centric eyes view the Pearl Harbor attack in isolation, partly due to the date line confusion thinking all those other events took place "the next day" rather than within just over seven hours real time. Trekphiler has now, despite efforts to demonstrate a connection, made four reverts. I have changed the links in the lead paragraphs from simple geographic links to the pages dealing with the coordinated attacks. Rather than make another revert myself I'll leave it to other eyes to decide. Because there is too often an isolated view of events on that one morning across the Pacific my personal view is that we need to make links to the overall picture very obvious. For one thing, I've read too many accounts of the feeling in those message centers as reports came in rapid succession of attacks across such a wide ocean front and the dismay, confusion and almost unreality of the situation. Palmeira (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I feel compelled to point out that if you look at the very bottom of the page you'll find all manner of templates related to the conflict as a whole. In you case specifically, if you look at the World War II template provided in both the the Attack on Pearl Harbor and Battle of Hong Kong articles, you will make an interesting discovery: both of the articles are listed side by side each other in 1941 as part of the timeline for that year. Accordingly, then, someone else already though to add a link to the Battle of Hong Kong in the Attack on Pearl Harbor article, thus proving that great minds really do think alike. @Trekphiler: As a friendly reminder, you get three reverts before a block. I'm not saying that to be mean, its just a fact: its 9:46 PM where I live, and on Wikipedia you get three reverts before a block. @Palmeira: Remember that sometimes people remove links because of the presence of more appropriate pages to cover the material in question. Try to work with the editors, not against them. In both cases it wouldn't kill you to talk first and then edit. Moderation, gentlemen, in all things. I'm sure you are both capable of finding a solution that leaves neither one of you happy but both of you content. That is where consensus lies. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I did, on User talk:Trekphiler, on User talk:Palmeira and on Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor. That is also why I wanted "other eyes" instead of my own revert again. Sanity checks are a good thing! Palmeira (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, User:DMacks locked the page down, after the fourth revert delteing the Battle of Hong Kong from "See also" though it still is in the obscure piped link I added as better than the geographic link to the city. Perhaps a consensus on that and those others that may help readers get the overall picture can be reached here. Palmeira (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
If the problem is just whether to also include it as a visible link in SEEALSO in addition to a hidden link somewhere else, why not rewrite the "somewhere else" so that the link can be visible? DMacks (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That is not the problem at all. I changed all the simple geographical links in the second paragraph of the introduction to the military article; i.e., from Hong Kong to Battle of Hong Kong piped to the city. Same with the others in that paragraph. If your suggestion is to just go with the full name of the military events I think you might agree it would be a very odd read with some version of:
There were nearly simultaneous Japanese attacks on the U.S.-held Philippines Campaign (1941–42) , Battle of Guam (1941) and Battle of Wake Island and on the British Empire in Japanese invasion of Malaya, . . ."
My position, and it looks like some others here, support making those more obvious in the "See also" links as they are very much connected, if only by the Japanese Combined Fleet Operation Order No 1 which is only one of many. User:Speedyspeedo made the minor change in "See also" and after two reverts of those additions by User:Trekphiler I chimed in with entries on User talk:Trekphiler and the page's. You unfortunately in my opinion locked in that person's fourth revert of the day despite efforts to discuss just why it was a useful link for the reader to understand the events of that morning across the Pacific. Palmeira (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. Carry on discussing amongst yourselves (I don't know anything about any of this, it just popped up on my radar as an edit-war). Isn't it always the WP:WRONGVERSION that gets locked? DMacks (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Of course it is always someone's "wrong version"! That is life. Palmeira (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The link is a good addition to the "See also" section, because its only other appearance in the article is somewhat hidden inside a piped link in the introduction.
Perhaps there is room in the wiki for an article about the Japanese attacks of early December 1941, all of them taken as a set. In such an article, the interconnectedness between the nearly simultaneous operations can be discussed. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I offered to get references and then decided this was interesting enough to reeducate myself on those connections. As a personal note, I completed Morison, all the Army "Green Books" decades ago and have spent many years since digging. The period from 8 December Tokyo time through the collapse of the Malay barrier have been some of the most fascinating from a strict military viewpoint and poignant from a people view. The story or refugees fleeing that Malay barrier attack, small boats with nurses and troops and survivors of Houston and the Philippines sailing and walking toward Australia is perhaps one of the great and largely forgotten today events of 1942—a marine version of the end of the Phoney War and collapse of France. I'd forgotten Combined Fleet Operation Order No 1 and that it wrapped the Hawaii and Southern operations into one order:
Outline of Operations
1. In the east the United States Fleet will be destroyed and United States lines of operation and supply lines extending toward the Far East will be cut.
2. In the west, British Malaya will be invaded and the Burma route, British lines of operations and supply lines extending toward the east will be cut.
3. The enemy forces in the Orient will be destroyed and enemy bases of operations and areas rich in natural resources will be captured.
4. A structure for sustained warfare will be established by capturing and exploiting strategic points and by strengthening defense.
5. The enemy forces will be intercepted and crushed.
6. Battle successes will be exploited, thereby destroying the morale of the enemy.
Damn if they didn't do that, excepting #6, for a time even if the Pearl Harbor thing brought blooming mushroom clouds later. Yeah, and even on #6 it was a close run thing. I've read too many now published personal diaries that are clinging to "morale" even as realistically there is not a real good reason. I also ran across a 2009 Staff Ride Handbook for the Attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941: A Study of Defending America that brings in some 9/11 stuff while providing a nice overview of the event. Palmeira (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't the 5th Air Force also attacked on that day?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Extracted from the talk page:
Gill's table in Royal Australian Navy 1939-1942, volume 1, chapter 14 showing hours reduced to that common time of the morning of 8 December in Melbourne is helpful:
  • Kota Bharu—3.5
  • Pearl Harbour—4.25
  • Philippines—8
  • Guam—8.27
  • Hong Kong—10
  • Wake Island—10
I have the reference, Army "Green Book" with a footnote of exactly when the communications center in the Philippines got the "no drill" message, but yes, the first air attacks there came less than four hours after Pearl; though we got "lucky" in a way in the Japanese hesitation in Formosa (didn't make a hell of a lot of difference in the end). One of my tooth gnashing things is the failure on that warning to do anything much at all. MacArthur's behavior then was a bit like Hitler's later, couldn't be disturbed. Then they were mostly "men of thier time"—a slower, more deliberative, somewhere between "gentlemen don't read other's mail" and the modern perspective of a year or so later. Few now realize we had to kill off or relieve large numbers of peacetime, career officers before that "modern" no nonsense view got a grip. Palmeira (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, you want Hong Kong? Why not the Philippines & Thailand? Or Burma? Or wherever else? Just because it happens at the same time is not a connection. It's a coincidence. It's not like it was the attack on the Aleutians in Operation MI, which (notice) I would not be deleting. Show me more than coincidental happening, & don't try & tell me "co-ordination equals connection". It doesn't. Show me how Hong Kong actually affected the outcome at Pearl Harbor. It didn't. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Combined Fleet Operation Order No 1 (above)? Be sure to read Chapter III, "First Phase Operations" that describes the linkages fairly well. If you think those attacks were just "coincidence" I've got this bridge up in Brooklyn . . . And, yes, each of those pages describing the initial Japanese attacks that morning, including Pearl Harbor, need closer linking (certainly more than Battle of Taranto to which you seem to have no objection beeing in "See also"!). As I politely suggested in our initial go round, you might want to brush up on your deep military history before becoming too argumentative. Palmeira (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
To the Japanese at that time, launching an attack on the Pearl Harbour is close to equivalent to launching an attack on the Victoria Harbour (aka Hong Kong), as they are both the first series of attacks initiated to the Japanese' greatest possible enemies, the USA and the greatest empire at that time, the UK. They are the two battles that drove the UK and the USA into the Pacific battlefield. They are well-connected under the same Japanese military plan as the same wave of attack. Talking about the linkage, the attack on Pearl Harbour affected the attack on Hong Kong and as a "see also" article, the connection between two pages is not necessary the other way. Pearl Harbor actually affected the outcome at Hong Kong. In addition, Pearl Harbor and Hong Kong are nearly equally significant in driving the world into the Pacific War (Indian, French and Canadian fought in Hong Kong). After all, there are plenty of space on the Pearl Harbour page to add in "The Battle of Hong Kong" -- it is in total just five words or nineteen characters.Speedyspeedo (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
What do the sources say?Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
General Order #1, ooooo. It's describing the operational plan. Show me how the outcome at Hong Kong, in the remotest fashion, affected the outcome in Hawai'i. You can't.
Taranto, OTOH, is a clear precursor that deserves a mention--tho perhaps, since it's influence is usually overblown by the ignorant, perhaps it should be removed, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I have already listed the connection between the Attack on Pearl Harbour and Battle of Hong Kong, so unless you can read and reply, otherwise you are making pointless argument, and your revert on my edition should be stopped. Connection is more than one way influence, and the page is also more than simply describing the operational plan.Speedyspeedo (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Just Accepted

Hello there! I've accepted Harold Edwards (RCAF officer) after an extensive copy edit, however I'd appreciate it if you had a look and tweaked it according to your own guidelines and style. It could also use an infobox. Many thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A veteran’s Wikipedia edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars

Hi Milhisters, you probably know me better under my volunteer username, The ed17. I'm now working with the WMF's comms team for a few months. I just published this profile of Milhist coordinator Peacemaker67 on the Wikimedia blog, and I'd love any feedback or comments you have on it. It's a great story, and I must thank Peacemaker for working with me over the last couple of weeks. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ed (and PM), it is indeed a great story, well put together -- I'd encourage everyone to take a look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. And thanks very much to Ed for asking me. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Peacemaker67. I feel like I learned a lot. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well done to all involved. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well done, Ed and PM. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
That's an excellent article. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Erm Nato didn't try to stop violence, just make sure it led to the desired result, a dismembered Jugoslavia, same as Somalia, Iraq and Syria.Keith-264 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic article. Thanks for Sharing, Ed and Peacemaker! auntieruth (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Just read this in the Signpost. Very well done and deeply moving article. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: the WMF received a complaint about the blog post from a Wikimedian, and they have taken it down pending specific criticism. I can't give more detail without violating privacy, confidentiality, etc. etc. Those wishing to read it will have to do so in the Signpost, hopefully only for now. My apologies for the inconvenience. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Kargil War

Request for comment on an RFC going at the talk page of Kargil war here, would be right to have neutral third party view Shrikanthv (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Foreign fighters

I just noticed that there is no article on the phenomenon of foreign fighters. Given that the concept has become a fairly pressing international concern (particularly in the context of "foreign terrorist fighters" participating in the conflict in Iraq and Syria), this seems like an area that's ripe for exploration. Is anyone interested in collaborating on such a project? TheBlueCanoe 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't the United States be "foreign fighters" in every conflict they've been involved in outside of the United States? Maybe narrow it down by conflict, like Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War. — Maile (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
We have the article on foreign volunteers, no? —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Question for WP:MILHIST

The article Milunka Savić describes the subject as "the most decorated female combatant in the history of warfare". Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) and I were discussing whether or not this is likely, and thought it best to ask members of the project for their opinions on the topic. Are their reliable source which uphold this assertion, or ones that say something to the contrary? Thanks in advance for all comments. 23 editor (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone have a view here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Cross-national comparisons are generally hard to do, how do you compare her with those Russian female snipers and pilots, several of whom I believe won the Hero of the Soviet Union, the highest Soviet medal for heroism? I'd be inclined to avoid the peacock phrase in general unless a RS has provided detailed documentation for such a statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It also ignores the reality that prior to the more modern era there simply weren't "decorations" in the sense we understand them. I'd pull the phrase. Intothatdarkness 14:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Also overlooks the fact that throughout most of history women weren't part of the armed forces proper, so even if they did incredible things they were not necessarily decorated for them at the time. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
A similar discussion occurred a couple of years ago in the context of most decorated US member of an ethnic group. If one or more of the article's sources in Serbo-Croatian is a RS, I believe something like "[Source Names] have reported that Milunka Savić is the most decorated female in . . . (I'd limit the 'history of warfare' to something like modern history or recorded history) -- Joan of Arc and Boudica are part of history, but I doubt all awards or equivalents they earned are on record. I can see a weasel word objection to this proposal, but I don't think it is over the line if reporting what a RS said. I agree with Stormbird's comments on Soviet women. Comparing awards of Hero of the Soviet Union to Milunka's awards reminds me of past discussions of notability that raised the question whether one Medal of Honor is worth two Navy Crosses. Bottom line, though is that the assertion as made cannot be supported without some qualification. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS: Dates and Numbers discussion on Military dates

MOS: Dates and numbers - Military dates - This discussion has been going on for months. This is just the latest thread. Inasmuch as this would affect this project, you might be interested. There has been some discussion therein about changing all existing articles to one style or the other. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I skimmed through that just to see, but don't really want to get involved. I'm not an expert here, but it seems to me that dates do not exist in a vacuum: if you use AP Style ranks, then you would use AP Style dates. See Dwight D. Eisenhower which uses Lt. Gen. instead of LTG. --21lima (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
When Eisenhower was a lieutenant general, LTG hadn't been thought of. After the Army "invented" the new abbreviations in the late sixties, it realized that they didn't necessarily make sense to the public and directed that the old forms be used when communicating with the people we work for.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. This list of likely copyright violation can be categorized by wikiproject: control-F "WikiProject Military history" or similar projects of interest. --Lucas559 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle needs you!

As some of you may have noticed, the last few editions of this project's monthly newsletter The Bugle have been a bit thinner than normal. TomStar81 has been providing excellent articles on World War I, but the book reviews and other possible features have been relatively scarce. To help turn this situation around, I'd like to encourage members of the project to consider contributing reviews, opinion articles, short news stories, or whatever takes your fancy. For instance, the Wikimedia blog currently has a really interesting article in which Wehwalt discusses some of his favourite articles, and members of this project might be interested in doing the same. If you'd like to make a contribution, you can post it directly via the news room, or draft it elsewhere and contact myself or my co-editor Ian Rose to arrange for it to be published. Ian and I are also happy to answer any questions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Military career of George Washington

Please. PLEASE. This article is in desperate need of some heavy-duty copyediting (and has been tagged since 2007!!!). I simply cannot take it on right now. The latest is this content being repeatedly added by another editor. If it's what the reliable sources say, then fine, but to me it seems very not WP:NPOV and seems very essay-ish to me. See also that editor's remarks at the "POV problem" section where they refer to the editors (including myself) who reverted their edits as attempting "to bully and intimidate me by placing threatening 'warnings' on my talk page". I have left their content intact, tagged that section as being unreferenced (on that score they were absolutely right) but am asking folks from this WikiProject to step into the breach and fix this article up. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This is being done by a vandalism only IP that removes all warnings on its talk page. The IP dates back to 2013 and is all vandalism. I've reported it. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thx for that. The article still needs some help...that IP did have a valid point, the one section has no sources. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

NMilitary

I have a question: if someone was a colonel during the Civil War, would that make them notable? I've got someone who already passes notability overall since he was part of the House of Delegates, but I only have one source for him so I'm a little antsy about creating a page based on ultimately one source. It'd be helpful if he passed on other criteria as well, like military service. Here's a page about him on Encyclopedia Virginia, if anyone wants to look at that. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I misread slightly. Apparently it was for the Virginia Volunteers brigade and he was appointed as a colonel by the governor. It's still during the Civil War, but under slightly different circumstances sort of. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islamic State (ISIS)

Hello,
This WikiProject was recently created and I'm trying to determine if there is any level of interest in it. Right now, this WikiProject consists of just one editor. I'm notifying several related WikiProjects in order to gauge whether there is sufficient interest in this one that it should be allowed to grow or be deleted. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Ordinarily this would be something we'd cover in a relevant task force, or special project, but at the moment it seems a little premature to do anything since the project itself is just barely off the ground and that one editor may grow. My opinion is that this was a bad idea, but from a Wikipedia perspective - and in particular taking into account both WP:BOLD and WP:AGF - perhaps the best course of action for now would be to adopt a wait and see approach. What do you guys think? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen, the editors working on ISIS warfare related topics are largely those who focus on all ongoing conflicts, so a project to coordinate things may not be necessary/taken up. But I agree with Peacemaker that this project should be given time to see whether people vote with their feet to join it. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be posted to WP:COUNCIL proposals area? (to gauge support) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The other thing I would suggest is forming a collaborative initiative within an existing Wikiproject, like WP:OMT (in Military History) or WP:BORA (in Yugoslavia). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

New FA

On the basis that she served with the Royal Navy during WWII as HMT Girl Pat, I've tagged the FA Girl Pat (1935 trawler) article for MILHIST. The article needs expansion with details of her RN service and post-war service if anyone is able to do this. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Does this not technically mean that the content is currently lacking in coverage (on our scale at least) and therefore not FA.... ;) GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't tag it in order for it to be demoted. I'm sure you'll appreciate people put a lot of work into getting an article to FA. Let's put in a little more and improve it. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
All that aside, I suspect that there's not much publicly available info on her career with the RN so there's no reason to delist or conduct an RFA. Based on what I've seen there's virtually no ability to take an article on any wartime RN trawler to GA, much less FA. There's just no coverage of what these ships did during the war in RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This book looks like a potential source if anyone has it. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The article states that she was an Admiralty requisition, so Part 1 may be the better choice. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I can see an MoS issue that need sorting. The history shows it slipped in post-promotion. Also the source list is non-standard so I suspect a tweak there won't damage the rating GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Guilty as charged on the MOS issue. Mjroots (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Lenton and Colledge's Warships of World War II (1973) has Girl Pat acquired in 1940, and serving as a minesweeper with the Auxiliary Patrol, but nothing else (not even a tonnage or pennant number).Nigel Ish (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, many naval trawlers retained their former fishing registrations. We now have an Official Number and tonnages. Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't an Admiralty document in The National Archives a primary source? Ranger Steve Talk 21:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pershing missile displays

I'm not happy with how Pershing missile displays is laid out. Are there better examples of how to do this? --21lima (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's suitable article material at all. Any mileage in an AfD? Meanwhile I'll see if a tweak works on the layout. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty much done with this one. Why do you think this might not be a worthwhile article? --21lima (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

new "Europeana 1914-18" images

Dear Wikiproject Mil-Hist,
I thought you'd like to know that there are now ~800 new items on Commons that have been imported from the http://www.europeana1914-1918.eu collection. You can see the complete project here:
Commons:Commons:Europeana/Europeana 1914-1918 batch upload.
Because of the way I had to do this upload, these files are hand-selected to have a high likelihood of being usable in Wikipedia articles - It's not just a massive dump of pictures. Rather, it is items from Europeana 14-18 project that are BOTH freely licensed AND "encyclopedic". Also, because these are crowdsourced items, many of the descriptions are quite personal stories of the objects' original owner, and they can be used to illustrate 'general' topic articles. Just some examples...:

You can see on that project page that I've divided them into language groups - this is based on the language of the description (and therefore the object's owner), not based the originating country of the object - often items relating to France items will be in the "German" [language] section, and vice versa.
If you're interested in using these images, It would be great if you could help me categorise them on Commons and indicate a 'suggested articles' next to the images on the project page (to make it easier for other people to know where the image might be used on their language wikipedia). Sincerely, Wittylama 16:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Among other things, there's some nicely done medal\badge images - File:Alfons De Ceulaerde met 8 jaar legerdienst., item 5.jpg; File:German medal collection, item 39.jpg; File:German medal collection, item 35.jpg; File:Alfons De Ceulaerde met 8 jaar legerdienst., item 13.jpg - unfortunately mostly not identified in detail. Definitely worth a look. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes! In talking about the 'general use' images I shouldn't forget the large range of Mil-Hist specific items that this collection contains! For example...
  • lots of munitions and trench art
    lots of munitions and trench art
  • Certificates and forms
    Certificates and forms
  • Lots of hat/lapel badges
    Lots of hat/lapel badges
  • early dog tags and uniform items
    early dog tags and uniform items
  • homefront items
    homefront items
  • medals and commemorative items
    medals and commemorative items
I hope people find this collection useful! Wittylama 11:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Can_we_add_WikiProject_Poland_template_to_all_articles_that_are_missing_it_but_have_the_milhist-Poland_taskforce_template.3F. Piotrus requested that Yobot adds banners of WikiProject Poland to pages that already have the milhist-Poland taskforce template. Any comments are welcome. IF there are no disagreements the bot will start the task in the next few days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for your information: Piotrus is a member of WikiProject Poland. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Writing Contest report available on Meta

The draft for the Writing Contest Report is now available for peer review on Meta. If you participated in a contest or helped organize one, we would love to hear what you think about the report! Please feel free to comment on the design of the report, ease of navigation, ease of reading, or usefulness. We are hoping to have the summary page translated to several languages soon, and we are aiming to publish more widely on July 7!
If you would like to hear updates about evaluating wikimedia programs, follow the learning and evaluation team through: facebook, google plus, twitter account, our mailing list, or email us anytime at eval [at] wikimedia [dot] org.
--EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67, Ian Rose, Sturmvogel 66, Zawed, and Catlemur: you're all people who have judged entries in the last few months at WP:MHCON. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian hypersonics

Do we have an article on Russian hypersonic military platforms? (ie. Yu-71, Project 4202) like the Chinese WU-14, the U.S. DARPA Falcon Project/Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, the Indian Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Libyan–Egyptian War

On the article of Libyan–Egyptian War a guy keeps edit warring to claim that the conflict falls under Cold War and Egypt won the war, none is supported by any source or any internet website. He asks for a source to prove his original research to be wrong, which is not possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.45.56.98 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You don't gived source to 'no victory'. You asked: 'no victory' and deleted phrases Egyptian victory, Cold War, but don't gived source to delete this phrases. If you give the source(s) to delete this phrases, I will not roll back. Best regards--Poti Berik (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't 'added original research' this phrases do not confuse user Mikrobølgeovn who is edited previously. Best regards--Poti Berik (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't put blame on others. You are edit warring for this misleading information, and your frivolous request for "source" that would refute your original research is a useless challenge. We don't have sources to refute that Egypt won WW2, doesn't means that we will claim that Egypt won ww2 on any articles. 189.45.56.98 (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't put the blame on others, I not author of this phrases and do not accuse me to 'vandalism' I'm not vandal, I do not care on this war. You don't gived source. Best regards--Poti Berik (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikiconference Australia 2015 cancelled

Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to attend the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition of a warship

The definition of a warship is under dispute at that article. A user has tried to add a "legal" defintion of warship to the article, per this diff, which I've twice reverted. Besides being written in legalese, the definition is too wordy, and restricted in scope to the modern era. However, as the user points out, the entire warship article is unreferenced, and has been tagged as such since 2007!

Any contributions the discussion at Talk:Warship#Definition of a warship would be welcome. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I love the scare quotes around "legal". You know, sourcing? We're supposed to be big on that? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Which I pointed out. The problem is that your text creates more problems than it solves, which is why I reverted it before. Obviously, the article needs sourcing, hence my posting it here. - BilCat (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
We could just as easily use a dictionary instead of a 21st century legal definition. The problem is the proposed definition excludes everything before the early-modern period. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree a dictionary definition would be far preferable, the legal definition is too narrow and gives undue weight to modern warships. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The pre-rv def was plenty clear, & more useful for a general reader; the UN-sourced one looks like legalese for its own sake. I'm far from sure the ancient Greeks or Romans had Navy Lists or "identifying marks"...but I am sure they had ships we'd call warships. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation of Falklands War book

Hello, for those of you who have read Battle for the Falklands (Hastings and Jenkins) there is a dispute over interpretation of the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falklands_War&diff=669253797&oldid=669249321 Confirmation or rejection of the material as (in)accurate to the text would be appreciated. K.Bog 21:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Portal:Royal_Air_Force/Did_you_know/Archive

Please take a look at the MfD deletion discussion of Portal:Royal_Air_Force/Did_you_know/Archive - Nabla (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

denoting death outside action in infobox

The infobox in American-led intervention in Syria has a dagger next to King Abdullah Al Saud, but he didn't die in action:

Saudi Arabia King Abdullah Al Saud †

How should this be represented? Is there an abbreviation for dying of natural causes while a leader is in command? -- Aronzak (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have the feeling that it is a cross, which raises further issues.--Catlemur (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we need a contextless, easily mis-identifiable icon in the infobox that requires specialist knowledge to interpret, or can we just explain it in the text and trust that people are intelligent enough to conclude that someone who has died (for whatever reason) is consequently no longer in command after their death. If His Majesty's natural death had a major impact in the event, explain it in the lead instead. -- saberwyn 07:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
King Abdullah Al Saud, along with figures like Barack Obama and Stephen Harper seems to be a formality - as they aren't involved in the conflict in any way, but are technically the formal heads of the military. Most of these heads of state just delegate to the military without ever being in the field or near it. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it still standard convention to use a cross to denote death, even if the person wasn't a Christian? Is the crescent moon ever used in a similar manner? --benlisquareT•C•E 09:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
IMO, explaining in the text is preferable. I don't care about the potential religious issue, myself. I'm more concerned about a lack of context for any symbol, & the prospect of it being overlooked completely. (I'm far from sure I'd notice it...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Note, it's a dagger, not a crucifix - the dagger should use a serif font face when used. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

77th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Does anyone know what the 77th Division (ex-Devon and Cornwall County Division) was doing between November 1941 and December 1942? I presume, like its Norfolk counterpart, it was retaining its County Division duties of being an anti-invasion formation manning coastal defenses etc, yet i have not been able to find anything that states this. A little help would be appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: The British official history The Defence of the United Kingdom has a map showing where the division was located in May 1942 and some material on what the country divisions were doing at this time (though it doesn't seem to specifically mention the 77th): [2]. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nick, I will check it out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Military rocket engines

FYI, there is a notice at Template talk:Rocket engines that may be of interest to this project -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Input requested at two RfCs.

Greetings. This is just to advertise two RfCs:

Input from editors here would be great. It gets boring sometimes to see all the same WP:ARBPIA people commenting (not that I have anything against them). Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Kriegsmarine ships TA 10 and TA 11

What is the correct description of these ships. Were they torpedo boats or destroyers? One source I have describes them as the former, whilst another states that they were formerly the French destroyers Pomona and Iphegenia respectively. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They were former French La Melpomène-class torpedo boats, seized by the Italians in 1942 and by the Germans in 1943. As the French also classed them as torpedo boats, it seems reasonable to call them torpedo boats (and were rather small for destroyers by WW2 standards anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Nigel. I've no need to alter any wikilinks then. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Does someone want to check Draft:Thomas William Fitzpatrick out? It needs a lot of cleanup! Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Armed priests and other anomalies that defy our categories

this article defies assignment to category, although for now I've added it to biography. Any suggestions? auntieruth (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Communications and Information Services Corps also defies our categories. It doesn't fit into any of the task forces (nations and regions), but I've put it in Scitech auntieruth (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
National militaries task force would be a better bet. All military units and formations can be characterised under that TF. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I couldn't find a TF that was appropriate for the CCSC (it's Irish). The doesn't have a nation. auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
National militaries is not a regional task force. "This task force includes the core articles which cover currently operational national armed forces (e.g. the United States Armed Forces) and their individual service branches (e.g. the Russian Navy)." As far as I'm concerned, any components of any currently operating militaries fall under the task force. That includes the CCSC. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
CCSC kind of sounds like Signal Corps (United States Army), which also manages communications and infoprmation systems.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible duplicate article - First battle of El Djorf and Battle of Al jurf

Gday. An new article stub has recently been created for the Battle of Al jurf which apparently took place in September 1955 during the Algerian revolution. I'm not an expert on this field but it seems to cover the same topic as an existing article - First battle of El Djorf. Can someone with some knowledge in this area pls have a look? If it is we will probably need to merge them. If so which is the correct name? etc... Anotherclown (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe both may be WP:HOAX or at the very least WP:PROPAGANDA. No English language sources are provided and the 2 links on First battle of El Djorf are dead. I have checked Alistair Horne's A Savage War of Peace and on page 142 he refers to Bachir Chihani's headquarters at Djeurf being surrounded by French troops in September 1955, he refused to break out and lost most of his escorts, all their weapons and numerous documents [3]. The French apparently dynamited the caves in which he was hiding and he was trapped inside for 6 days. Subsequently he was executed by his ALN superiors. Horne doesn't mention 400 French troops being killed or 8 aircraft lost as claimed on First battle of El Djorf or 700 soldiers killed plus tanks destroyed as claimed on Battle of Al jurf (although the only source given doesn't state such losses), which would have been extraordinarily high casualties for the French to suffer, as they enjoyed superiority in most engagements. Google search to find other sources for the battle just repeat the Wikipedia page Mztourist (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Gday - thanks for checking this. Ack the POV issues. As it was a poorly ref'd stub anyway and it now seems fairly clear that it dealt with the same topic as an existing article I've just been bold and redirected the latest article - Battle of Al jurf) - to the existing one - First Battle of El Djorf. If there is an objection I will self revert and discuss. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

These Texans are on a quest to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of their state's revolution

Hi all, I have another blog post up about the difficulties of writing a big-picture FA. Feedback is always welcome! (or praise, because I can pass that on to my bosses ;-) ) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Auto ed

Does anyone know why it doesn't go off if it's clicked after editing the page? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Keith-264 (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know anything about this script, but perhaps try asking Plastikspork or Drilnoth. Hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Stopping an AK-47 Bullet

This link may be a bit off-topic, but likely interesting to member of this project. (links to YouTube video)

• Is there a military version 'ruggedised' I-Phone? (Kevlar case?) And what about a Koran or Talmud app? (per Wp:NPOV) - 220 of Borg 11:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
How far away do you have to be for this to work? (Hollywood screenwriters need to know, so they can ignore it. ;p ) And does it work as well with a bent iPhone? ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Eyes needed

"Crimean crisis"

A WP:BRD discussion is open on the topic of Crimean crisis, the discussion has been blanked before [4] so you may have to rollback a future blanking to participate -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Western Desert Campaign

A disagreement has arisen over the intro to the article. Feedback is requested at Talk:Western Desert Campaign#Request for opinions to break this deadlock. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: real person or Soviet propaganda?

At the suggestion of The ed17, I'm bringing this matter to the experts here. A recent news article discusses how Armenian Wikipedians have discovered that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov may be a Soviet propaganda creation. The English Wikipedia article discusses him as a real person, but every single one of the cited sources is in Russian. I have no idea where to even begin looking into this, but I assume many of you do. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To start with, I've added the 'hoax' tag to the article and copied the above section to its talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I advised Gamaliel to bring it here because people will actually see it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust an Armenian newspaper article on an Azerbaijani war hero. Apparently the person making the discovery is the editor of Wikipedia. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a page on the French Wikipedia which, after being blessed with a Google translation, seems to indicate some French references. Maybe one of us who understands French should take a look at the refs, which have been flagged as needing improvement.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a copy of a letter from Maj. Dewey Fournet to Maj. Keyhoe (both from the US military) that is listed as: CONFIDENTIAL: For Release to NICAP Officials Only. It's to a civilian organisation so it's not in the CIA online records, I appear to have access to something in hard copy that isn't digitised. Can I digitise it and use it as a reference from a reliable secondary source? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying what you have is not published somewhere? WP:OR says sources must be published.— Maile (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You should be able to scan it and post it to WikiDocuments and source it to that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It's part of a collection of unclassified official documents, patents, and military reports from multiple countries which are in the book UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry. 99% of it is available already on the official government archives (the CIA, for instance, published everything they had online so you can pick it up), but I'm not sure about personal correspondence - even if it is between a man and an organisation. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2015-07-27

Hi everyone. Our POTD for the 27th of July is the Bombing of Hamburg. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at Template:POTD/2015-07-27 and check the blurb for errors. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: That blurb should be pulled - it's a POV-pushing disaster (it seems to reflect the wartime propaganda line rather than modern scholarship). It presents the bombing as largely focused on military-related sites, and implies that the firestorm on 27 July was not intended. In actuality, the Allies (including the USAAF) were targeting Hamburg's urban area and hoped to start a major firestorm. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's why I've asked for feedback; I'm not familiar with such issues. I've based the blurb on the article, which has the same issues you brought up. The paragraph starting "On the night of 27 July, shortly before midnight" does not state that the bombing deliberately lead to the firestorm and the lead says it was "a totally unexpected effect". The article's lead ("As a large port and industrial centre, Hamburg's shipyards, U-boat pens, and the Hamburg-Harburg area oil refineries were attacked throughout the war.", vs. "Hamburg, home of numerous shipyards, U-boat pens, and the Hamburg-Harburg area oil refineries, was a regular target of Allied strategic bombing missions" in the blurb) is actually more POV; the blurb says the city was targeted because of the installations, whereas the article says that the installations were targeted. Per your request I'll pull the blurb. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Crisco, and sorry if my comment was too strong (I'd assumed the blurb was taken from the file's record, which in turn was based on the wartime rationale). Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I went to take a look at the blurb, but it was gone, so I put a slightly rewritten version here just so I could say I did my part to help :)

A US newsreel covering the Allied bombing of Hamburg, Germany, in World War II by the United States's Eighth Air Force. Hamburg, home of numerous shipyards, U-boat pens, and the Hamburg-Harburg area oil refineries, was a regular target of Allied strategic bombing missions. One of these missions, code-named Operation Gomorrah, was flown over a period of eight days in between 24 July and 3 August 1943. Initial missions saw the use of blockbuster and delayed action bombs and the introduction of new countermeasures against anti-aircraft guns. On the 27 July raid, unusually dry conditions and concentrated bombing created a firestorm which incinerated more than 21 square kilometres (8 sq mi) of the city. This was followed by two subsequent missions. Overall, the bombings killed 42,600 civilians, wounded 37,000, and destroyed much of the city.

Of particular note in this clip is the use of wartime news broadcasts such as this one as instruments of propaganda during World War II. As with most publications at the time, propaganda considerations resulted in an overall favorable slant towards the U.S. war effort.Video: United Newsreel

Archive – More featured pictures...

TomStar81, thanks for the addition. The reason I decided to pull the blurb was because the issues Nick pointed out permeate the article as well; to eliminate the POV problem, we'd need more than just a new blurb. That article would need some serious TLC, which I cannot provide with the limited Wikipedia time I have right now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

High-volume disambiguation pages.

Greetings! The following disambiguation pages on this month's list of most-linked pages are relevant to this WikiProject. Any help in fixing incoming links would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. Battle of El Alamein: 9 links
  2. Rus'–Byzantine War: 9 links - Done, down to 2 (possibly unavoidable) GermanJoe (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Greco-Turkish War: 8 links - Done GermanJoe (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Opium Wars: 8 links
  5. Siege of Inverness: 8 links
What about links to Battles of El Alamein? There are some cases, such as service records (see Idwal Pugh's infobox), where both battles of El Alamein are meant. It would be wrong to make this merely a single link. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me that Battle of El Alamein would be better off made a redirect to Second Battle of El Alamein and the current disambiguation page renamed Battle of El Alamein (disambiguation). Most people mean the second battle when they refer to the Battle of El Alamein. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, reading articles that pipe the link to the battle down to just "El-Alamein", it is the second that is linked. So I'll back a redirect to 2nd, and a hatnote for the 1st. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Note that per WP:INTDABLINK, if a link intentionally points to a disambiguation page, then it must be piped through a "(disambiguation)" redirect (for example [[Battle of El Alamein (disambiguation)|Battles of El Alamein]]). In this case, however, I am not sure that a disambiguation page is needed at all. The page could be redirected as proposed above, or alternately redirected to El Alamein#World War II, since that article section already contains everything in the disambiguation page. The same applies to Siege of Inverness; intentional links should pipe through [[Siege of Inverness (disambiguation)|Siege of Inverness]]. In this case, however, I would be inclined to say that rather than having a disambiguation page, the page should be moved to List of sieges of Inverness, since the topics are not unrelated. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing tail number

Further information: 2015 Moncks Corner mid-air collision

OK, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I can't find a serial number for the F-16 involved in Tuesday's mid-air collision over South Carolina. Can you help? Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't that be 96-85. Leading zeros only needed to fill out the tail number, not the serial number, right? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Its normal to use the official serial number as used on the data block as the "tail" presentation of that number are never the same, so 96-0085 is OK. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

C.J. Grisham

Hi. I'm interested in submitting military blogger C.J. Grisham to the DYK Wikiproject but was told it's too long and there may be some unreliable sources. Someone at the DYK Wikiproject suggested I try this project for help. I had to get a crash course on using wikicode to submit this to the AFC project and I'd appreciate if a regular editor could assist. Thanks. 72.74.202.74 (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That feedback sounds fair, and I'd add that the article also seems to be strongly biased in favour of Grisham and the causes he supports. Watch out for WP:PEACOCK language as well. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a problem rewriting the article. Could you provide some specific examples? 72.74.202.74 (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Also the statement "This was the latest in a series of altercations between Temple police and military personnel stationed at Fort Hood" is from this source:
"The conflict between law enforcement and armed military personnel in the community around Fort Hood, one of America’s largest military bases, has recently and repeatedly involved the issue of gun control" - Patrick Howley of The Daily Caller (citation 74)
Grisham also claimed on The Alex Jones Show (and at least one other podcast) that Sampson's arrest was on his mind when confronted by police. I can reword the statement if I misread the source. 72.74.202.74 (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Can you tell me what sources/external links to remove and which statements aren't NPOV? 72.74.202.74 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to be a straight puff piece, with questionable encyclopedic value. Who wants to list it for deletion? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that he is likely to be notable. I'll look at it and see if I can gut it and rewrite it. I don't think he'll much care for it, if presented in an NPOV manner, however. GregJackP Boomer! 05:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to write a "puff piece". I'm fairly new to editing and User:MeegsC said to ask here for help improving my article. I was more than willing to make changes but pointing me to policy pages (without specifics) doesn't tell me anything. The snide comments aren't necessary. 72.74.203.154 (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

He doesnt appear to be particular notable for a stand-alone article, his arrest for carrying a weapon cant be that unusual in America and the fact that he blogs doesnt seem much of an issue unless he contraves military security (which doesnt appear to have happened). The Open Carry Texas (OCT) movement is probably more notable than he his but I am not sure if just another campaign group is worthy of an article and could be rolled up into something like Gun violence and gun control in Texas but this sort of movement would need something a bit more notable to get a mention anywhere. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Lists of fortifications

There are a number of articles listing fortifications, forts, castles etc, such as:

Some of these lists are quite confusing, and none of them can ever be complete or nearly complete. In my opinion, some improvements can be made, such as:

In addition, there are lists relating to fortifications in a specific country, such as:

I think it would be a good idea to have more of these country-specific lists.

Does anyone else have any suggestions/ideas on how to improve these lists? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

General orders/awards

Does anyone have either or both of the following in their personal libraries and, if so, are there any refs to awards of bronze stars to Norman Dike? All the cites I have on Dike's page ultimately trace back to him or to family members.

Thanks,

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"Russian Winter"

"Russian Winter" the article about the effect of winter in Russia on warfare, is up for renaming, see talk:Russian Winter -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Although there was no consensus, it looks like the nominator has withdrawn the move request. Too bad, I kind of liked the General Winter option. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
A new request was filed to name it "General Winter" -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Mislabelled IWM Sunderland photo?

At Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Air_Force_1939-1945-_Coastal_Command_C4614.jpg , the photo is captioned of a 10 Sqn RCAF aircraft. Now to my knowledge the 10 Sqn that was flying Short Sunderlands was Royal Australian Air Force, not RCAF. Yet I've just found that there was a 10 Sqn RCAF flying land-based anti-submarine aircraft. Can our experts please check the service history of the named aircraft, EK573/P, and see if the IWM has made a mistake? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I checked the ADF-Serials website, and RAAF Museum, and that tail number doesn't seem to be among the RAAF's Sunderlands, not even those that operated in Britain. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The pilot mentioned - Flight Lieutenant W.B. Tilley - may well be from 10 Sqn RAAF, his name seems to appear in quite a few places from a simple Google Search [5]. Of cse its possible its a different bloke but seems unlikely. Anotherclown (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Also there seems to be another IWM image in commons of the same event here[6] which identifies the Sqn as being 10 Sqn RAAF. Anotherclown (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Service record for 418483 TILLEY, WILLIAM BORIS is available here [7] - I'd say this is probably the bloke flying the aircraft (if we can accept that part of the caption is correct). Anotherclown (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
In any event, the first picture's caption appears to be incorrect - RAAF rather than RCAF. Do we have linkages to IWM to correct things like this? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Addendum this page lists EK 573 as a RAAF 10 Squadron aircraft, "RB-P". Buckshot06 (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see that addendum -- that makes it conclusive! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
According to this German submarine U-534 it's the wrong submarine and you can't have a successful rescue.Keith-264 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've read of a 10 Sqn operating out of the Orkneys, with Sunderlands IIRC, but I wouldn't want to swear on it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting admin intervention

FA Battle of the Alamo - There has been a contentious dialogue on the talk page for months. No consensus to make changes. There is now a Dispute resolution opened by an editor. Without waiting for any action, that editor has gone nuts making edits today. Can an admin step in on this, please and restore it to prior to today's edits? I believe this is edit warring. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: I've fully protected the page, the protection is for 6 months. When/if this gets resolved in a peaceful manner I'll drop the protection, otherwise the protected version is the version that we are gonna keep for the time being. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Pinging @Karanacs: so she also knows this happened. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Time for the Xian H-X article?

Time to add an article for Xian H-X to be linked from People's Liberation Army Air Force? Lots of buzz about it lately.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/china-wants-to-develop-a-new-long-range-strategic-bomber/

Hcobb (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Started up a stub at Xian H-20. The name "H-X" seems to be a developmental project name, rather than an official designation for any particular aircraft. I've seen more sources refer to it as the H-20. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Babini Group

Does anyone have any sources for Babini Group 1940? I've gleaned a couple of onlines but nothing printed. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting third party mediation: Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War

There's a controversial discussion currently taking place at Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War, and I was wondering whether we could get a third opinion since I don't believe that I am capable of remaining impartial since I'm already opinionated. The discussion is in regards to whether or not the Nanking Massacre was actually a massacre against the city residents of Nanking, or whether it was a justified military operation aimed at exterminating guerrilla soldiers pretending to be civilians. A particular editor doesn't like how Wikipedia describes the event as a "massacre", and intends on changing the article contents. You can also find context for the discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Can Wikipedia's coverage of the Nanking Massacre be considered "unfairly bullying the Japanese people"? --benlisquareT•C•E 06:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

ISIS attack Egyptian ship

ISIS have attacked an Egyptian Navy ship, but which ship is it? Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it suggested in a forum that it's a Timsah-class patrol boat. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Chattanooga shootings

There were shootings in Chattanooga, Tennessee, US today in which 4 US Marines and the shooter were killed. Any help from editors with experience in dealing with this type of incident article, or help in simply watching the article, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added a project link to the article's talk-page as I feel it is within scope yes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Given that US Marines were killed, that's probably correct. Even if not, I don't know what other projects would be appropriate. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem, as for other projects I included Death, Crime, and United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Watchlisting til it's out of the headlines, anyhow. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Great War on Youtube

Link: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar

I assume you all are already aware of, though I just wanted to check, of the channel The Great War on Youtube, which has been covering the events of WWI 100 years ago in real-time. Real...delayed by 100 years time, but you get what I mean. It seems like it would be a useful resource. I don't know if the videos themselves would be considered reliable sources (I somewhat doubt it), but each video includes the specific book resources used for the episode and, at minimum, they seem like a good method of keeping the events and what should be covered in order.

At the very least, it might be a fun series for all you history buffs to follow. SilverserenC 19:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Battlefield

I have noticed that Wikipedia has no article on the concept of a battlefield. Battlefield is a disambiguation page with links mostly to little known towns, songs, and video games. Battle is not a satisfactory substitute, since many battles do not take place in a "battlefield". I have created Draft:Battlefield as a place where a substantive (and, I anticipate, substantial) article can be written on the concept of the "battlefield" itself. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have also noticed that war zone and combat zone are also both disambiguation pages, both of which seem to be ripe for primary topic articles on the respective concepts. bd2412 T 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Some additional perspectives would be helpful at Draft talk:Battlefield. The question at issue is whether a "Battlefield" article would be redundant to either Battle or Battlespace. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Operation Camargue

From our style guide: "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning". Milhist has 3 21 FAs that are titled for operations, and my own poorly informed opinion is that those titles, and this one, work fine, but I realize there's another side to this argument and I want to see if there are objections. Brianboulton has selected this article for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2015. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I count 21 FAs titled with operational codenames here. I don't see anything particularly problematic, especially if that's the best known name in available literature. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I actually think they can be quite legit titles, particularly where other titles are strongly POV or would otherwise be poorly defined in time and space. Many Yugoslav articles have titles with German or Italian operation names for those reasons, while referring to the less-clearly defined names used in Yugoslav historiography. Looking at the article in question, the French launched the operation, and I don't see an equivalent Viet Minh name for it, so it makes sense to use the French operation name, which clearly defines the dates and scope of the operation. I note, however, that Thi and Giap aren't exactly heavily used, maybe there is more information available there about what the Viet Minh called it? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the style guide needs updating. Mztourist (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone have a suggestion as to how it should read? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It reads fine to me as it stands in the blurb and the article lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at WP:AVIATION - military table formats and images in Air Force articles

Gday. For those that are interested there is a discussion at WP:AVIATION that potentially affects many articles that also fall under this project. Pls see:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#List_of_aircraft_of_X_Air_Force.2FMilitary_table_formats.2C_especially_as_related_to_images. Anotherclown (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Other than Tsushima, where was Togos Z flag flown in battle?

Anybody with access to good refs on the subject who is up to taking on a tough question on which even historians and eyewitnesses seem to disagree, see Talk:Z flag. Herostratus (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

which task force?

Trying to keep up on assessment backlog. This article, Conflict Armament Research, defies our present task forces. auntieruth (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Military science and technology, perhaps? Having said that, if there's no applicable task force, then setting "|no-task-force=yes" will remove the article from the backlog in question and put it into a holding category of articles that are considered for future task forces. Kirill [talk] 19:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Only very vaguely connected to Milhist. Should be in the same project and task force if any as International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch, Enough Project etc. But it is a commercial entity, as far as I know. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Should battle/massacre at Batoh be mentioned in the article on Khmelnytsky?

Please see the discussion at Talk:Bohdan_Khmelnytsky#Massacre_at_Batoh_section_added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for M15 Halftrack needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for M15 Halftrack; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC) M15 Halftrack

Proper grammar dispute in Capture of Wurst Farm

I'm having a bit of a struggle with Keith-264 (talk) over capitalization of plural proper nouns in Capture of Wurst Farm. He believes that usages like 175th, 176th and 177th Infantry Regiments should not have the word regiments capitalized. I've told him that he's wrong on his talk page, but he insists not, despite user:Diannaa's support there. Perhaps y'all can weigh in there on this weighty debate?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the guidance is in MOS:MILTERMS. That would indicate that "The 1st and 4th Divisions attacked", but "The divisions attacked." The statement about unofficial, but well-known names would seem to apply if it was properly the 1st Infantry Division that did the attacking. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

... the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name.

Keith-264 (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That only applies to the generic names such as the ones listed, not specific named units. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Your own quotation is undermining the argument you're making: "if they do not appear in a proper name". While I'd suggest the correct formulation is "proper noun" (is there an improper name?), the rest is clear: unit names are capitalized. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The plural word is common.Keith-264 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
"The plural word is common" The plural of "Chevrolet" is a common noun? Since when? Obviously, you really don't understand capitalization at all. (I invite you to delete the remark here, too, since you obviously don't care to have it pointed out.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I told you to mind your manners and you didn't. I'm done with you.Keith-264 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't make you less wrong, or less ignorant. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep playing nice, everyone. While I see Keith's point to an extent, I'm used to writing say "Nos. 1 and 2 Squadrons", which is a method used by several official Australian historians and has always been accepted in WP reviews right up to FAC, so I think I'm with Sturm and Lineagegeek here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Ian, Sturm and Lineagegeek on this. They are "appearing in a proper name" in this case, 177th Infantry Regiment is a proper name, and just because several proper names are grouped for grammatical or prose reasons doesn't change the fact. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with Sturmvogel, Lineagegeek and Ian for the reasons well outlined by Peacemaker. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're all right, depending on where you're writing. I would have written 175th, 179th, 180th Infantry Regiments, but I would write four battalions attacked the Confederate cavalry. The former are proper nouns, the latter are simply nouns. Four battalions of the 175th, 179th, and 180th Infantry Regiments attacked the First Cavalry (CSA). auntieruth (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Let's keep playing nice"? Ignorance is not stupidity. This is, AFAICT, ignorance of the correct use of capitalization. By appearances, I'm not the only one who thinks so. I am, however, the only one calling it that. Not nice? Or simply more honest? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The plural at the end of a collection of words which are proper nouns isn't part of the proper nouns....geddit?Keith-264 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes they are, just like a family name is. The Flintstones, the Blairs, the Obamas etc... Pluralising a name does not mean it ceases to be a name. Auntieruth's view is correct on this and in the example at the start of this thread, regiment should be capitalised. Ranger Steve Talk 21:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty strong consensus here. Time to pack up. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. While my English is horrible, like the others I do believe that since "Regiment" is part of the actual proper name/noun of each of the named things being combined (At least I'm assuming "Regiment" is officially part of it in these specific cases), then I think that, yes, it should be capitalized when combined, ie "The 175th, 176th, & 177th Infantry Regiments ..." but yet if you were to change "regiments" to something else (ie "units" or "formations" or whatnot) that would not be capitalized. However, if you are using and combining the nicknames like "175th Infantry" "176th Infantry", etc., then I suppose it would be "The 175th, 176th, & 177th Infantries regiments ..." (which clearly sounds wrong) though you could have something like "The regiments of the 175th, 176th, & 177th Infantries ..." ("Infantries" still sounds wrong, but English lacks dual or trial grammatical number cases.) A better example might be, using Ranger Steve's family name example of the Flintstones: if you were combining the father and the daughter (but not the mother) it would be "Fred & Pebbles Flintstone" (note, not "Flintstones" in this case). Ultimately Trekphiler is correct but his/her incivility is uncalled for. As for the (C/c)-hevrolets example, I would need to see the context to figure that out, and I don't care to get that involved so I will not do so. Cheers. Gecko G (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Apropos Chevrolets, "Chevrolet is similarly a proper name referring to a specific company. But unlike Microsoft, it is also used in the role of a common noun to refer to products of the named company: "He drove a Chevrolet" (a particular vehicle); "The Chevrolets of the 1960s" (classes of vehicles). In these uses, Chevrolet does not function as a proper name.[15]"Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Give it up, Keith. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
As Gecko G points out, if the word Regiment is part of the name of these formations (in each case) then the capitlisation of the word regiment at the end of the three examples is normal. We can also see what reliable sources do. So, I've picked up a random book on my desk - Juno Beach by Ken Ford (which I still haven't put away after visiting the place last month). The series editor for these Battle Zone Normandy books is Simon Trew, the Deputy Head of the Department of War Studies, Sandhurst, so I think we can call this a reasonable book. On page 76, it states that "By 1200 hours both the Winnipeg and Regina Rifles had reached objective Oak...".
If we turn now to the book underneath that one, we find C.E Lucas Phillip's Springboard to Victory, a book about the Battle of Kohima. Again, I hasten to assure you all that this is randomly on my desk (my Grandfather fought there) and not one that I have sought out to support my views. On page 51 he refers to the "...plan to withdraw the 17th and 20th Divisions right back to chosen positions..."
Now if I understand Keith's argument, rifles and divisions should not be capitalised. But if I understand everyone else's here, and my own, they should be... And it appears that Ford, Trew and Phillips agree. Ranger Steve Talk 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not an argument, it's my opinion that a Divisions does not exist, unlike my opinion of Trekphiler which isn't an opinion but a fact.Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
"In these uses, Chevrolet does not function as a proper name" Of course it does, & the fact you neither understand that, nor even use the correct term, undermines your position & proves mine. (BTW, I maintain "incivil" would be calling it "stupid", not "ignorant", which it self-evidently is.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand you Keith, but if you're saying that this debate is all based on your opinion, then I'm afraid that I think you're flogging as dead horse... Ranger Steve Talk 20:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

User:HHubi and ranks

This user is creating many rank pages at their original language titles, not in accordance with WP:UE. His view has just lost a deletion debate from Starshiy to Senior lieutenant. I have just found that he has been banned from de:wiki seemingly due to repeated copyright violation. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have just blocked him for three days after several people warned him, he did not engage in discussion, and he created another non-English article title (Kapitan 2nd rank). Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A Proclamation to All Editors of the Military history WikiProject

Whereas the English Wikipedia's current article count is at 6,928,004, and

Whereas the contributors of the Military history Wikiproject, one of the largest and most active projects on Wikipedia, are frequently engaged in the creation and expansion Military related articles, and

Whereas our project and its members are held to lead the way in progress made on Wikipedia,


Resolved that I hereby due pledge one WikiChevrons, one WikiProject Barnstar, and a Barnstar related to the subject in question to the first Military history Project contributor who can prove that they have successfully created the first new Military history Project article at or over the five-millionth article added to this English Wikipedia.

— TomStar81 (Talk) 20:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Endorsed and Seconded Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
How would one go about proving this? -- saberwyn 06:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It'll be added here when we cross the threshold. Presumably there's a way to prove it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I like it! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Very cool. No doubt it will be done while I'm vaca!  :) auntieruth (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

List of military disasters

Could anyone have a look over the current state of List of military disasters?

A recent edit described as minor with edit summary of "Reduced detail. These entries are not from an "anti British" point of view, and it is defamatory to assert that. Most of the criticism cited is from official British reports and senior British officers etc. Britain is great but not always right" added 8,763 of characters. I've edited out what I think is coatracking of political points but appreciate a second opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would remove the lot. None of additions meet the definition on line 1. Hamish59 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It does seem to have been the case of an editor getting some things off their chest. Including the Srebrenica massacre in the list also seems inappropriate, so I removed that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
On a not-unrelated note, do any of Srebrenica: a 'safe' area, NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, The Kingdom of the Netherlands During World War II come into the MilHist sphere?GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, IMO they're all off-point as not being actual "disasters" (one a/c crashed?); rv'd all on that basis. (If there was anything worth keeping, put it back?) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The editor disagrees and has restored most of the content. Also has put Market Garden in the root of Category:incompetence. But editors are engaging with the editor as to definitions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military Incompetencies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I count 6 reverts by the editor in less than 24 hours - I've blocked him for 24 hours. If he resumes edit-warring (or socking), please let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:CourtCelts1988 is back. After a 24 hour block, s/he has just started editing on King's Shropshire Light Infantry. Hamish59 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Back at Military Disasters, too, with 3rv in a couple of hours, by my count, on the same theory as before... I'm already pushing a 3RR, myself, or I'd rv again. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like he / she has decided to leave. Hamish59 (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if User:FunnyHatsRus is a sock - only edited on 4 articles to date, two of those in common with User:CourtCelts1988. I do not want to break 3RR so can some one look at this edit. Hamish59 (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a WP:DUCK to me, though I'll hold off blocking for now - have reverted his edit, however. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, Parsecboy. Hamish59 (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Low caliber?

I encountered this at Mauser MG 213: a metric case designation. I expect it's commonplace, so I wondered: is there a way to use the convert template to produce a metric designation without the "extra" unit? That is, not this: 9 mm × 25 mm (0.35 in × 0.98 in)? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I beleive you mean 9 × 25 mm (0.35 × 0.98 in). Leaving off the a abbrev. option (9 by 25 millimetres (0.35 in × 0.98 in)) gets it close, but not quite there. Try asking on the template's talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Your example is what I want. Where do I find that page...? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:57 & 17:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears it's more complicated than I thought.... So, will editors weigh in here? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Midway

I have nominated Battle of Midway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Tks DrK -- hopefully some of our Majestic Titan members (particularly Sturm given his ongoing work with Japanese warships?) could help rescue this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Content_guide#War

At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Content_guide#War we are encouraged to include the "trigger, if notable". This has been raised previously at Archive_56#Trigger_or_pretext and Archive_129#Pretext_or_trigger_event_guidance, with limited discussion and no conclusion. The trigger is usually the most hotly disputed topic in all articles on wars, particularly modern wars, as both sides in the actual conflict will usually have blamed each other for "starting it". The WP:MILHIST content guide could help reduce unnecessary disputes by giving guidance on how to produce a neutral description of the trigger.

I propose amending the word "trigger" to "stated casus belli", and then explaining that if the stated casus belli is disputed (i.e. WP:RS include claims that it was just a pretext), best practice would include either a footnote or a section in the main body of the article setting out the different perspectives on the stated casus belli held by WP:RS. Best practice would also avoid stating in wikipedia's neutral voice that the conflict was started by one side or the other, unless WP:RS do not reference such disputes. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Any comments on this? I may try WP:BRD approach to see if it generates any discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Your nomenclatural change and corresponding amendment of the soon to be Casus belli guidance section seems both prudent and avisable to me. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me as well. Kirill [talk] 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Help request regarding Lift and strike (Bosnia)

An IP editor added Template:POV-statement and Template:Verify credibility tags to the statement "In 1994, the United States Congress and Senate called for the arms embargo to be lifted, but by this time Clinton opposed it because of previous European opposition" in the Lift and strike (Bosnia) article back in December, but didn't explain the supposed neutrality and sourcing issue. Could someone take a look at the statement and the sources for me, to give an independent assessment of whether there is a problem with them? That would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see the NYT or Journal of Conflict Studies as lacking in credibility. If the tagging hasn't been explained on talk, I'd just remove it. There are plenty of IP POV-warriors out there in former Yugo-land... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A-Class article assessment discussion

Hi, I wanted to make this wikiproject actively using A class article assessment aware of the discussion. I am aware of the no-consensus discussion from March. I am unsure if A-class is useful for Wikipedia or is just more busy work which is partly why I asked the question. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO, A-Class is one of the key parts of this project, and underpins the quality of the content we produce. It is rigorous and highly subject-focused in terms of the military aspects of articles, which do not necessarily receive the necessary detailed scrutiny at GA or FA. The number of FAs this project produces is a testament to the success and utility of our A-Class assessments, around which we have built our recognition schemes. I consider A-Class an essential part of Milhist. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Orders

See Draft:Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 64 (series 1864). Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Already been accepted but I'd have though more suitable more suitable for Wikisource. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Needs copy edit

Draft:Benjamin F. Strickland II for possible POV issues. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted by another editor as a copyright infringement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial looking for volunteers to help with working on its the First World War Nominal Roll from home

This might be of interest to members of this project, and certainly looks like a worthwhile project from the AWM. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick, I will volunteer for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Official designation of Canadian Expeditionary Forces

Can anyone with knowledge of the official naming conventions for Canadian units have a look at Talk:123rd Battalion (Royal Grenadiers), CEF and offer an opinion. This query is also the subject of an OTRS ticket that I'm looking at. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added a comment, but I am not overly familiar with Canadian battalions, so if some of our Canadian editors want to take a look, that would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

GAR for Frank Tarr

Frank Tarr, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. I found instances of close paraphrasing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Added a couple of suggestions to the review page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Task forces

Which task forces are relevant to an article about a current unit of the Czech Republic Army? It seems to me that only some parts of Europe are covered by regional task forces and there is no era task force for the present (Post-Cold War?) period. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

G'day, current units fall into Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/National militaries task force. There isn't a geographical taskforce for Czech units, but if you can get a group together to do the work, we could look at it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm actually already signed up to the African and Aviation TFs, I'm by no means a specialist on Europe. It may be useful to produce a world map coloured in by regional TF as a guide for editors who are merely trying to add the WikiProject tag to articles with the correct TFs. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Search page meddling

Recently the Wiki search page has been spoilt, by adding a migraine headache in the search box and a promiscuous drop down menu. I've tried to stop it by altering the settings in Preferences to no avail, can anyone help please.Keith-264 (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this something for WP:VPT? Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Not that I'm bitter mind....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a way to get rid [8] here now.Keith-264 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No ISBN OCLC etc

If a source has no ISBN etc is there a convention for noting that in a reference? I've tried adding "no OCLC/ISBN" under others= but it doesn't show at the end. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

See if there is another cite template that has fields that better match the source, such as {{Cite report}}, or {{Cite journal}}. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The convention is to simply leave out any elements that are not present or not known. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
OKKeith-264 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Naming of military units

Hi! There's a question that has been bugging me regarding the naming and scope of military unit articles, which has come pretty clearly to light at Talk:15th Infantry Brigade (Greece). The unit in question began life as the 4th Brigade, became expanded into the 15th Division in 1940-41, was reformed after WW2, downgraded to brigade in the late 1990s, and recently reduced to a regiment. Properly, this article should be moved to 15th Infantry Regiment (Greece), but there already existed an unrelated 15th Regiment. My question to the MILHIST community is this: what takes precedence, the name (in which case we'll have a "15th Regiment" article incorporating two entirely different lineages) or the lineage of a unit (in which case we'd need two different "15th Regiment" articles)? In addition to this, would it make sense to create separate articles for the unit during its life, e.g. a different article for the 15th Division and for the 15th Brigade? Thanks in advance! Constantine ✍ 12:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

My two cents is that lineage would be more important. Just like if / when a person changes their name it is still the same entity just with a different name, as opposed to two different units (or people) that just happen to have the same name (hopefully my analogy is clear). Anotherclown (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
G'day, others will no doubt have opinions, but there are several ways to approach it, IMHO. Not knowing the active service of these formations, it is a bit hard to say, but we generally prefer the last name or the most commonly referred-to one. If this was a fighting formation during WWII, there may well be a justification for that division to have its own article, with preceding and subsequent formations drawing their lineage to/from that division included. As far as the post 90's dealio goes, I couldn't see the existing article for 15th Infantry Regiment (Greece), could you point to that? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Anotherclown: Noted, thanks. That is pretty much the way I've done it so far with other similar articles. @Peacemaker67: There isn't one. That is why I am asking around here first, to clarify what the scope of this article should be, i.e. both regiments, the historical and the current, or just the current and the historical one (if and when we find enough info on it) under a different title. Constantine ✍ 13:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I must have misunderstood your reference to "there already existed an unrelated 15th Regiment". I'd just keep all the ones with a common lineage in one article (perhaps titled 15th Division (Greece)) with redirects from all the other formation titles in the lineage. If there IS an unrelated 15th Regiment, then it could still be at that title. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, I disagree with the approach advocated immediately above. Anyone has to be able to search for a unit at any point in its lineage history. So the 15th Regt in 1911 may be of different lineage to the 15th Regt in 1967 (imaginary example). The 15th Regt (Greece) page has to refer to both of them. There's an easy way of doing this, adopted from the Soviet first formation/second formation/third formation procedure. Intro says the 'regiment was formed in 19xx orginally, disbanded by being redesignated XX Division, reformed by the redesignation of YY Brigade as 15th Regiment in 19yy. Disbanded (by being redesignated WW Brigade), reformed from ZZ Brigade in 19zz.' Then each period of service has a separate section, each clearly noting how it was formed (often by redesignation) and how disbanded.
For example, there was probably a 15th Infantry Division (Turkey) in the 1940s. Now for decades within First Army (Turkey) there has been a 15th Corps (Turkey) (note that Turkey uses Arabic not Roman for corps designations). That corps disbanded after the end of the Cold War by being redesignated 15th Division (Turkey) though there's not much further data on it. The page for the 15th Division (Turkey) would list two separate periods of service, 1918-40s, and 1990s. Clear as mud? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
In essence, if I understand you correctly, you propose that each title, e.g. Nth Regiment, Nth Brigade, Nth Division, etc. have its own article, with cross-referencing between them, yes? Constantine ✍ 07:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Lots of cross-references, and well referenced throughout. I'll try and hunt out an example. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Addendum. Look at the way that United States Eighth Fleet finishes, though the sequence in the middle of the article is a little unclear (needs more looking at the excellent online sources). Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with combining two completely unrelated units into the same article just because they shared a common name at some point. Take a look at 1st Reconnaissance Squadron (disambiguation) to see how many (nine) US Air Force units have had the name 1st Reconnaissance Squadron. In our hypothetical Turkish Division, and presuming there is no difference in notability between the two divisions, I believe the appropriate way most of the time is to make 15th Division (Turkey) a disambiguation page and title of two separate articles 15th Division (Turkey 1918-1940) and 15th Division (Turkey 1990-). If, as in many cases, the one that's been around a long time is more notable then the pages would be 15th Division (Turkey) (disambiguation), 15th Division (Turkey) and 15th Division (Turkey 1918-1940). That leads readers to the unit the unit they'e looking for, informs them that there's another similar unit and lets them choose which to read about. There's a lot of flexibility in disambiguation pages. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Russian Winter"

An RFC has been opened on the title of the article Russian Winter, for the discussion, see talk:Russian Winter -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User Box for Members Participating

Code Result
{{User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/Userboxes/MilHis}} User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/Userboxes/MilHis Usage

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • contribs)

If anyone is interested, there is a more exhaustive list of available userboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Banners. Kirill [talk] 18:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Recondite question CS1 maint: Extra text (link)

Bauer, E. (2000) [1979]. Young, Peter, ed. The History of World War II (Orbis: London, revised ed.). New York: Galahad Books. ISBN 1-85605-552-3. CS1 maint: Extra text (link) Does anyone know why CS1 maint: Extra text (link) is showing on this reference in Operation Sonnenblume? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see "CS1 maint: Extra text (link)" on my machine; the reference looks fine to me. Perhaps a browser issue? I'm using Chrome. Hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I added a css to the skin User:Keith-264/common.css to see hidden labels and it appeared. I've tried various changes but nothing has worked. It shows on Operation Compass for the same reference too.Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see at User:Keith-264/common.css you have the final line:
    .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
Try removing this line? I think this is what is causing the error message. I'm afraid I can't see anything wrong with the reference myself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it's because you've got a colon in the "edition" field? Try removing that. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't like the "revised" part (CS1 pedantry at its finest). The Chicago Manual of Style recommends "rev. ed.". Just using "Orbis: London, rev." as edition information works. GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hah! I thought it was deliberate. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
rev did the trick, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Joe. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
YW, added a note about this glitch at Help talk:Citation Style 1. GermanJoe (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Civil war in Tajikistan

There is an ongoing RM. Comment there for consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 5#Category:Bahraini uprising (2011–present)

There is an ongoing discussion on renaming categories related to Bahraini uprising of 2011. --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ram Pyari Gurjar

The article on Ram Pyari Gurjar claims that she was a woman commander who fought against Timur. However, the only source cited in the article is The royal Gurjars by Nau Nihal Singh. The book seems less of a reliable scholarly work and more of an attempt at ethnic glorification of Gurjars. I cannot find any other sources -- Google just throws up Wikipedia mirrors or articles based on Wikipedia. I've tried searching with alternative transliterations. Singh claims that she fought alongside Jograj Singh Panwar -- I can find mentions of this guy in some reliable sources, but those sources describe his story as more of a local legend than history.

Being a female commander who fought against Timur is no mean achievement. So, it's surprising that there are not more sources that mention this. I am wondering if this is a real historical figure, a legend or a hoax. Any inputs are appreciated. utcursch | talk 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A-class procedural question

@Ian Rose:, A-class review Runaway Scrape was closed at my request on Dec 20, 2014, perhaps prematurely. I would like to re-open this review, with old comments on it. I can explain further on the template once it is re-opened. How do I re-open the review? — Maile (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the usual procedure is not to re-open a closed review (regardless of why it was closed) but to open a new nomination, not unlike the process of renominating an archived FAC. The old comments are still there for posterity in the previous nomination. The procedure for re-nominating an article is at the top of the A-Class Review page -- if it looks a bit too involved then I'd be happy to kick it off for you and you'd just have to write the (re)nomination statement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I need your help. I got the old one archived, but can't seem to figure out how to open a new one. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, just gimme a sec to check the archive you've created. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything looked okay to me, was just a matter of changing "A-Class=fail" to "A-Class=current" in the article talk page (like for a brand new nom) and then editing the old A-Class assessment page (here, which you can now edit with your re-nom statement above "Prior nomination here"). Then transclude the nom page to the ACR list as you would with a brand new nom, and I think that should do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability of military units

If an article about a military unit is sourced only from the official website or publications by the unit itself or its parent unit/corps/branch, is it actually notable? Imho it's the same as sourcing a business article from only the company's own website or that of it's corporate parent, thus it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. At the help page discussion of an AFC submission about a Czech Army unit - WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#15:39:28.2C 22 July 2015 review of submission by Catriona - there's a (possibly justified) suggestion that American units are not subjected to the same standard of independent sourcing as military units of other countries. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:GNG regarding the overarching requirement for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I would say that the Czech Army website would be no more independent of the subject than the US Army one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the existence of a battalion- or larger-sized unit makes it notable, no matter where it comes from (this is common sense as far as I'm concerned - these are units that are hundreds strong). The official website is fine to prove its existence, so yes, no problem. Just as we default to keeping secondary schools (as long as we can verify their existence) and footballers who've played a single high-level professional match (as long as we can verify the fact), we should keep major units (as the British Army calls them). If we don't apply common sense to keeping clearly notable organisations like these then Wikipedia begins to look very much like it's primarily an encyclopaedia of pop culture for fans of sports, music and minor celebrities (which and who tend to get exhaustively written about on the internet), which is not what we want (or at least, not what I would have thought we wanted and certainly not why I joined the project all those years ago). We really have to get away from dogma and start applying more common sense to issues like this. It's become sorely lacking in recent years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't buy the "inherent notability" argument - for anything at all. There are many thousands of run-of-the-mill battalions all over the world that have done nothing notable - particularly modern era ones that have never seen combat nor controversy. All that can be said about such units is: it exists, it's base is here, it's role is this - which makes for a miserable little permastub. I think User:AustralianRupert's comment at the AFC Help page is spot-on. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If all that can be sourced is its existence and base location, and that comes from the Army website, then it doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Battalions that haven't seen action aren't necessarily going to be notable. All the WWI and WWII Australian ones are, as are those that served in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. But logistic support battalions that haven't seen active service as a battalion, pretty unlikely. Is every German or Soviet infantry battalion in WWII notable? I doubt it. German regiments might meet GNG, but not necessarily. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
"Is every German or Soviet infantry battalion in WWII notable?" Absolutely they are. These are large units. Obviously we're going to continue to have a difference of opinion here, but I'm afraid I really cannot understand the "logic" that says someone is notable for kicking a ball round a field for an hour but a military unit of several hundred people is not notable. Whether editors "buy" inherent notability or not is irrelevant, since the former are, whether we like it or not, considered to be inherently notable if they've done it in a fully professional league or an international, as long as that fact can be verified. The results of endless AfDs tell us that. And if we compared the number of them to the number of major military units I don't think there would be much of a discrepancy. Given the sheer amount of utterly non-notable drivel that has been kept at AfD, why are we who are interested in military history quibbling about the notability of major military units? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The idea of inherent notability is not supported by policy and is (I suspect) a misreading of project specific essays / notability guidance. AfDs that close as keep while relying on these essays over policy are simply incorrect (although you are quite right that it does seem to happen often and increasingly so). In the end it comes down to the General Notability Guideline. At any rate why have an article on something that we can't write in any detail because there are no sources? This isn't to say there is no room on Wikipedia for information about these topics, just that a specific article should not be created for them. What information that is available in WP:RS can usually be included in another relevant article (for instance for a higher formation etc) and a redirect created for the unit. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue isn't really that there are no sources at all, it's rather that there are articles that are sourced only from official websites of the unit and/or it's parent structures - i.o.w. WP:SPS. Such articles do not comply with WP:GNG. (The original AFC help desk topic that led to this discussion basically complained that there is one notability rule for the US military and a stricter one for everyone else.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, "no sources" was an overstatement on my part and should really have red few sources. Incidentally I agree with AR's cmts at the AFC help desk as well. Anotherclown (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:SPS is another of those rules not understood by non-contributors. Off course it does not apply to official websites. Similarly, WP:CORP is about establishing a company's notability; its annual reports can still be used as sources once notability is established. I get pretty annoyed at people who want articles on basketball sourced from books on cricket. The rules do vary from country to country. Having recently returned from China, the idea that sources have to be independent of the Chinese government lacks common sense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I beg to differ about your idea that official sources do establish notability. I do not see any reason why the Republic of Slobovia's Hundred-and-umpteenth Infantry Battalion can pass notability based purely on the Slobovian Army website, but ACME International Inc. gets shot down in flames if it is based only on acme-int.com. Your "articles on basketball sourced from books on cricket" comparison is a straw man - nobody demands that, all they want is that the book at least not be the team's own yearbook. Official websites are the very epitome of an SPS, and thus must be excluded from establishing notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but I did not say that, and the original question did not say that. What I did say is that there is a difference between establishing notability and referencing. The notability of a unit depends on independent reliable sources; but that does not mean that we must use them solely, or even at all, in creating the article. (And, for the record, someone once really did argue that I should source an article on basketball from something other than books on basketball.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The concept of inherent notability is not a misreading of anything. It's a result of consensus, which is how Wikipedia functions. It would be nice to have a consensus that major military units are notable among those who write articles about them just as there is a consensus that all secondary schools are notable and that all sportspeople at a certain level are notable among those who write articles about them. After all, we already have a de facto consensus that all general, flag and air officers are inherently notable, even if it is based on an essay. I've yet to see one be deleted at AfD. Yet we strangely do not seem to have a consensus here that all major units are notable, despite it being based on the same essay (although to be honest I've rarely or never seen one of them deleted at AfD either, so maybe we effectively do have a consensus and it's just not being expressed here). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem (if it is one) is that reviewers are declining military unit drafts that do not comply with WP:ORG by having the minimum independent sources - where "independent" is read as "not the Army/Air Force/Navy/Marines own website" but actual independent books, news media or magazine articles, etc. If we end up with a consensus that official websites are sufficient to establish the notability of major military units (BTW is "major" actually defined?) then we should try to formulate a specific "MILUNIT" SNG that explains it properly, so that reviewers have an actual standard for accepting drafts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
A comment on the idea that a battalion is automatically notable. If this were true, then a wing, the equivalent of a brigade, surely must be super-notable. However, I call attention to List of MAJCOM wings of the United States Air Force most of which have no article on Wikipedia. I would submit this is appropriate, not because of the absence of reliable sources (which is true for most), but because of the fact that a wing level unit that combined the support organizations at a single station for a year or two just isn't notable. Size does not equal notability IMHO. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
"Major" is defined in WP:MILUNIT as: Higher level land forces command formations, such as regiments, brigades, divisions, corps, and armies, or their historical equivalents. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
During the First World War, many British regiments raised tens of battalions each. Is each battalion individually notable? Almost certainly not. Opera hat (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes they are, as long as they had an operational existence! There seems to be a rather selective reading of WP:MILUNIT here. It actually says that "Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations (including combat, combat support and combat service support units). Examples include battalion-level or equivalent units..." and "Air force, naval, or marine aviation squadrons, wings, groups, and commands" [italics mine] are likely to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Likely, not inherently. Still need to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I was answering the apparent claims above that most battalions and wings are not notable. Secondly, the same GNG requirements also theoretically apply to general officers, although it is quite clear from the results of many AfDs that they do have a de facto presumed inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Necrothesp - "Presumed notability" and "inherent notability" are quite different concepts, you seem to be treating them as synonyms. Presumed notability means that the subject is so prominent that reliable sources can safely be presumed to exist, this is the basis for the existence of subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs). Inherent notability is the idea that something is notable simply because it exists, this idea is not supported by policy or guidelines. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I can assure you I'm not treating them as synonyms. I've been here a long time; I understand the difference. I was addressing the de facto inherent notability enjoyed by several groups of topics. While some editors like to claim there is no inherent notability, consensus quite clearly shows that there is. As with many things on Wikipedia, "set in stone" guideline are trumped by consensus. Which is as it should be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Article rescue

I just noticed a new article, Eagle Dustoff, created by an inexperienced user DustoffControl (talk · contribs) (who probably has a WP:COI). Most of the article's sections need filling in, but I did my best to fix the categories based on my very limited knowledge of military issues. Just wanted to see if anyone was interested in rescuing the article, which may not have enough content/sourcing to survive otherwise. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly doubt there was ever a unit "Eagle Dustoff". This sounds like a call sign or nickname to me. "Dustoff" has been a call sign for US Army medical evacuation helicopters since the Vietnam War and the 101st is known as the "Screaming Eagles." "Eagle Dustoff" appears to be the 326th Medical Battalion or part of the battalion, so that may be a place to lodge the article. I believe "Dustoff" dates no earlier than Vietnam, so the Korean War section may be inappropriate, although the 326th may be older. Perhaps Vietnam War Fighting Forces: 326th Medical Battalion’s Air Ambulance Platoon is the unit referred to, --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

John Whitelaw (1921–2010) vs John Whitelaw (general) - possible confusion b/n the two

Gday. Could any knowledgeable (probably Australian) editors pls have a look at my comment at John Whitelaw (1921–2010)? There may have been some confusion b/n him and the achievements of his father John Whitelaw (general). I have removed half a paragraph that looked incorrect (although I wonder if there is more). Of cse pls do not hesitate to trout me if I'm wrong but it didn't look right to me. Thank you in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been re-written now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Foreign language citations used for EN page

What is the policy regarding the use of foreign language articles in citations to substantiate statements /claims in EN wiki articles? It makes it extremely difficult to validate a citation - and thus the fact cited, if one cannot read the source text. Is this permitted? Farawayman (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I do this fairly routinely, and many of these articles have passed FAC - see for instance SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm, which relies fairly heavily on a German book. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the general rule is that sources in foreign languages are acceptable, but that if equivalent English-language sources exist these are preferred. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep - non-English sources are fine, but the editor using them is typically expected to assist others in understanding how they have been translated etc. For some periods/areas of work, non-English sources are indeed absolutely essential (e.g. articles on French castles will typically require French-language sources if the article is to be comprehensive; covering Byzantine military history without at least some German-language material would be hard, etc.). Hchc2009 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Same, several of the FAs I've worked on rely heavily on German and Serbo-Croat sources. Google Translate will help you to get a sense of whether the content reflects the cited material. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thx Farawayman (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Musa

By a roundabout means (well, checking an image's licence) I came to Muhammad Musa (4th C-in-C Pakistan Army) whose image in the infobox doesn't look like it has a valid licence ("own work" - not buying that). Rated as start on our scale, it is also rated Good Article via the Hazara Project - I suspect an overzealous editor - so I will fix that but could anyone advise on the image?GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's marked on the user page of the uploader as a possible copyvio (and the user has recently been barred on Commons because of copyvios). As a matter of fact, the talk page of the user seems to consist entirely of copyvio notices, except for the welcome, so (assuming good faith) it appears to me that the image was uploaded by someone who misunderstood Wikimedia rules on copyright. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe that was another different image (Gen. <-> Genral). But anyway, the image information is not sufficient and the uploader has already uploaded several copyvios. With that background, those images are unusable and should be nominated for deletion (unless the uploader can provide plausible and detailed source information). GermanJoe (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Nominated for regular deletion on Commons (not speedy, so the uploader has still a chance to clarify). GermanJoe (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
On a more positive note, the article's photo of Musa in 1935 by the same uploader seems like a clear case of Commons:Template:PD-Pakistan (some more info would still be nice). GermanJoe (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

HMCS Bonaventure

FYI, there's a notice about HMCS Bonaventure at WT:SHIPS -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 03/08

Am I correct to state Draft:Scott Haraburda is non-notable? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably not notable for his military achievements (at least what is covered in draft), but his patents and other engineering work seem to make him notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability question

Does a Brigadier General generally pass notability? See Draft:Henry Williams Hise for reference. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that all general officers as leading commanders are notable. Maybe, we can start a biography sub-task force to make sure that all WWI and WWII US general officers have at least stub biographies. I know from working with researchers, especially genealogists, that these are very useful especially since people not familiar with the military tend to connect to names of people over names of military units or formations. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, general consensus is that all general, flag or air officers (and officers of equivalent rank such as brigadiers and commodores) are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Great to know, thanks! Should I accept so you can clean it up? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please accept. TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically, our guideline says that it's the expectation that someone of that rank will have sufficient coverage ("individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage ") to meet the GNG. insufficient coverage still means not notable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Which has already been demonstrated for Draft:Henry Williams Hise by the way. Move it to the mainspace. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"Technically" is right, since de facto they are always considered to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Calling Wilson Pickett

User:NavalWarrior has made several adds here. Most, IMO, are badly written, in an unencyclopedic tone (editorializing or adding "notes"), or are wrong outright. I'm already at 3WW, not to mention tired of trying to fix it. Can somebody take care of this? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ref tag question

[9] Does anyone know how I've managed to collect a ref tag warning on the gas shell table in the right margin? It beats me. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Gday. The efn template doesn't seem to like "=". Perhaps write it in words instead? Anotherclown (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I knew it was something to do with the change to efns; I took your advice and swapped = for : which worked.Keith-264 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

American civil war: "return to union control"

I hope this is the right community to address this issue. If not, please point me in the right direction.

I recently came across the template Template:Infobox Confederate State ACW and articles that use it such as Texas in the American Civil War, South Carolina in the American Civil War, Florida in the American Civil War etc. One of the pieces of information it has is "Return to union control" followed by a date. It appears that articles are listing this date as the date at which they began to again be represented in congress, not the date at which their armies surrender.

I'm not an historian, but this doesn't seem to make sense. Shouldn't "union control" be the date at which the union physically had control? I'd propose the template be modified to say something like "Representation within the union returned" Jbeyerl (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That would seem intuitively true. What the law on "rejoining the Union" says, IDK...so being back "under control" might not mean what we'd take it to mean on its face. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
yes it should be "Representatives seated by Congress" that was the critical moment when the states had their rights restored Rjensen (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

List of wars involving the United Kingdom

The article List of wars involving the United Kingdom could IMO, do with some TLC. While military history is not my forte, this article seems crude (and often factually wrong). I've done some basic fixing in the last few days, but more is needed. Among the 'clangers' was listing Ulster Defence Force and 'B specials' as Nationalist groups in N. Ireland in relation to 'the Troubles'.(fixed), and listing Bosnian War as a UK victory (??? how a peace-keeping force could even achieve a victory, was not explained). Editors with more experience than I in rendering military history will have a better eye. Please 'ping' if my attention is required (or even to tell me I'm wrong).Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple of bits and will have another look at it later. In many ways it is pretty good, but I agree that it could do with some period experts checking it over. Thanks for flagging it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoever thought that the UK would go to war with the Ulster Defence Regiment? :-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits to infoboxes

Hey y'all--do you have an opinion on edits like this one? As far as I'm concerned this is needless formatting which only makes things more difficult to edit later. FDRMRZUSA (hereby pinged) has made a couple more of such edits. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The bold formatting there seems excess and unneeded to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't see that it's helpful. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Not seeing a benefit to it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Zero value.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Also a penchant for adding portraits of the opposing commanders - with lurid colour choice and double bold. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not sure I'd be vehemently opposed to having their pictures. :) (I'd probably say, "Use the links", tho. ;p ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Phantom FG1 892 Sqn on HMS Ark Royal (R09) 1972.jpg

There are two issues with File:Phantom FG1 892 Sqn on HMS Ark Royal (R09) 1972.jpg, an image used in an article that's currently listed at WP:DYK. Firstly, the file description claimed that the frigate in the background was a Leander-class vessel; it rather obviously isn't (an ex-RN sailor contacted OTRS to point out that error and suggested it was a Whitby-class ship; a comment on the file page itself suggested it's a Rothesay-class ship; to me they loook virtually identical). Secondly, the source for the file given at the Commons seems incorrect, possibly due to a typo in the image number. I have commented on both issues at commons:File talk:Phantom FG1 892 Sqn on HMS Ark Royal (R09) 1972.jpg; input would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Somebody has already amended the caption and narrowed it down to HMS Tenby (F65) or HMS Berwick (F115), probably based on the pennant number which (if you zoom in) says F(something)5. The Ark Royal visited the US in February 1971 according to this which would explain why the US Navy was taking photographs. At that time (according to our article), Tenby was part of the Dartmouth Training Squadron. Also, I think that I can make out a helicopter on the frigate's stern and Tenby seems to have never been converted to carry one. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd venture that it's Berwick. Tenby had a lattice aerial mast and not a lot of superstructure aft of the funnel. Berwick had a solid mast and some structure aft of the funnel - much like the vessel in the photo. Ranger Steve Talk 07:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wing Commander Nikki Thomas RAF

This officer is the first female in the RAF to command an operational squadron (Foxhunting 12). Given 12's current flying, she is commanding a squadron that is in action; a battalion level unit. This I believe makes her eligible for an article under MILPEOPLE. She probably has other GNG coverage. Was I right to redlink her in the squadron page (never mind about the confusing fact that there are other articles for other Nikki Thomases who already exist?) Buckshot06 (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

My first thought is she's eligible for an article. Linda Corbould, the first woman to command a flying squadron of any type in the RAAF has had an article for some time. I'd have thought the first woman to command a bomber squadron in the RAF would also qualify -- there's certainly coverage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Not the first woman to command an operational flying squadron. That would be Nicky Smith (RAF officer). First woman to command an operational combat squadron maybe. If so then I would say she's eligible for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sailing down to Rio

I'm in a content dispute of sorts here. There's an IP editor with what looks like a POV problem (& an issue with less than ideal English). I originally asked for clarification on the nature of the convoys (not believing minelayers were suited for deep-ocean escort). The tag was ignored & removed, the IP editor claiming Morison didn't say. When I read the linked Morison, I found mention of convoys to Trinidad (p386), which strongly suggest to me the Brazilians were limited to coastal convoys; that fits my previous understanding. (I have not read all of Morison, nor have I read Blair on the U-boat...) In response, the IP editor offered a completely different ref to minelayers (not in Brazilian service) & is now suggesting the mention of "minelayers" be changed to "escorts" or "warships", claiming Morison doesn't make it clear, & claiming some other source says different. I am frankly getting tired of arguing with him, & it's getting frustrating. Will somebody take a look & weigh in? Preferably somebody who's read Blair & Morison--better still, somebody who has them both at hand? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And now there's been a badly-written edit in favor of the IP's POV, which is less accurate & less complete... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hunt for Tirpitz, Nick-D's new blog post

Hi all, you'll probably know me better under my volunteer username, The ed17. There's a new blog post from Nick-D up at the Wikimedia blog: "The Hunt for Tirpitz." We've had a good amount of military history posts recently, and I'd be happy to run more—if you have an idea, message me! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Great work Nick!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :) I'd note that if the article looks familiar, it's because it's an expanded (and tweaked) version of the review essay in the most recent edition of The Bugle. Thanks to Ed for the idea of publishing this on the WMF's blog and copy-editing it to meet the style used there. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to Bougainville Civil War‎

FYI I've started a discussion on the talk page of this article about concerns I have regarding recent changes to it, pls see Talk:Bougainville Civil War#Problems with current state of this article. My knowledge of the subject is limited so I'm requesting others have a look and see if my concerns are valid or not. In particular I have an issue with the poor quality of the sourcing (most of the article has been re-writing without any references, or using You Tube references) and possible breech of NPOV (it rather prominently relies on an article in the Green Left Weekly without, in my opinion, providing adequate balance to that material for instance). Anotherclown (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:AE for a tangential mention of that article and YouTube copyvio links. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ack, seen. For some reason I'd forgotton about the previous issues in other areas. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
This issue has continued today so further input / oversight from other editors would be appreciated. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Have dropped by and done so! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Ran Auto ed (it worked this time!), made a couple of small edits, checked for dups in the citations.Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned vs. cancelled military aircraft projects

We currently have Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects which contains subcategories for "cancelled" projects by country (e.g. Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United States) but also includes subcategories for "abandoned" projects (e.g. Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects of the United Kingdom). The difference, according to the main category, is whether ("cancelled") or not ("abandoned") the projects reached the flight-test stage of development. However, they're currently all categorized together, and there is no Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects. Is it necessary to differentiate between these two definitions?

  • If yes, then I propose that Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects be created, and the various Abandoned military aircraft projects of foo categories be moved there.
  • If no, then I propose that the various Abandoned military aircraft projects of foo be renamed to Cancelled etc (and merged where necessary).

Thoughts? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft linking to this discussion as these categories are also within that projects area. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems like splitting hairs - someone looking won't necessarily know which category an aircraft should be under, there is no real need for both, and the fact that the definition isn't obvious means it isn't really a common enough as a basis to split it into two categories. (thanks for crossposting)NiD.29 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with NiD.29. Did the design reach the wind tunnel model stage? Was it given a manufacturer's type designation? Was a mock-up built? was metal or wood cut on the first machine? Was an official military specification ever issued? Was an airframe completed? Was it given its engines and systems? Was flight attempted? On what grounds was the project stopped - on the manufacturer's initiative, on the customer's, or due to overriding circumstance? Frankly, the suggestion that we should logic-chop our way through all these (and more) options to arrive at a consensus distinction between cancelled and abandoned is just unworkable. Perhaps most telling, I am not aware of any reliable source who has done so. The standard term in everything I have ever read is that an aircraft project on which work stops for good, before the project reaches fruition, has been "cancelled". That is all we should attempt too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Another possible distinction, in the minds of the less specialist reader like myself, might be the cancellation of a commissioned project as opposed to the abandonment of a private venture. However, given the complexities of the definitional problem, sticking with one category as suggested above seems most straightforward for both editors and users Monstrelet (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This all lines up with what I thought, but I wanted to check with editors who are more knowledgeable here before I start making maybe major changes that might be controversial. But it seems pretty clear from this that we can consider abandoned vs. cancelled a redundant categorization. Thanks everyone. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

historylearningsite.co.uk

Is this site (list of 70 usages) considered a reliable source for historical and WW-related topics? Don't have a specific case in mind, just wondering about a general evaluation of its use for encyclopedic articles. Found the author info here, so the author obviously is very knowledgeable, but can he be considered as reliable expert? GermanJoe (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The original author, Chris Trueman, was a teacher, but not, as far as I can tell, a specialist historian; it is unclear who has written material for the site since his death. The site doesn't give sources for particular claims etc. Looking over some the medieval bits, there are some inaccuracies. I'd treat with caution, therefore; it looks like a worthy attempt at producing a resource for younger students (which seems to be what Trueman aimed it at) but not necessarily what the wiki would term a "reliable source" for more significant claims or details. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit less sanguine. It's not exactly a fanboi site, but without published material outside the website, and without even a bibliography or footnoting on each page, I'd say not a RS. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Trimmed a few of the easier cases and replaced 1, but a lot of the cites may need a look from topic experts in the respective areas (some of them certainly just cover relatively common knowledge, others reference more problematic content like vague details or statistical information). GermanJoe (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Type 054A frigate; number active

There is a matter concerning the Type 054A article on WT:SHIPS. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RM: The Notebook (2004 film) → The Notebook

An RM that affects this project (the war films task force) is currently taking place. Interested editors may wish to discuss here. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Terry Zuber question

Battle of Le Cateau: does anyone have a print copy of Zuber, Terence (2011). The Mons Myth. Stroud, Gloucestershire: The History Press. ISBN 978-0-7524-7628-5? TiltuM added some details from Zuber but he only has the e version, which doesn't have page numbers. If anyone can fill them in we'd be grateful. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have one - it'll have to wait until tonight though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks babe. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Buy a guy a drink first! I added a few page numbers, but stopped when I noticed that the additions are directly copied from Zuber (see my comment on the article talk). Parsecboy (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

New and improved articles notice?

I just completed writing an article about WWII Major General Walter E. Lauer and thought I'd post a little announcement over here in the project. I see we have lists and lists and lists of articles that need writing. How about a list of new articles or articles that have been recently improved? There's nothing like recognizing success and progress to encourage additional contributions. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Gday, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/New_articles which is an automated list of new articles that may fall within the project's scope as determined by some regular bot run using various criteria. It doesn't include recently improved articles though. I agree a list of these would likely work to help foster collaboration which can be quite powerful in moving a newly expanded article forward quickly and ensuring it is accurate (and occasionally even comprehensive). Anotherclown (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Operation Polo or Indian integration of Hyderabad

I have found some good sources on the historical and political aspects, but the sections on the military preparation and operation are very weak and only sourced to a couple of websites. Any help from the wizards who lurk here would be great. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a few details at 1st Armoured Division (India). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it's only a few paragraphs, but it's something at least. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hermann Fegelein needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Hermann Fegelein; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Large unsourced additions from 89.167.129.49 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for the additions, but as k+ sections are being added without any attempt at sourcing, this needs to be looked at. Does anyone have time to go through their recent additions and maybe source, possibly rollback them?

Several editors have warned them already, for a few different articles, but there's no engagement. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

US warship recognition skills (1914) needed on the RefDesk.

Can anybody help with an enquiry over on the Humanities Reference Desk at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Tampico_Affair.3F please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Now resolved. Alansplodge (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Years of service

There is a discussion at Talk:Omar Bradley about how to correctly reflect General of the Army Bradley's years of service, the options being 1915–1981 (commissioning to death) and 1915–1951 (commissioning to retirement from active service). On 11 August, I reverted a change from the former to the latter. Two others disagree and believe the latter should be used. Inside the infobox there is a notation to use the longer period because Bradley was on active duty until death. Comments welcome at Talk:Omar Bradley#Years of Service.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Brute Force (Ellis 1990)

Does anyone have a copy? We need a page reference for "...there is considerable justice in Matthew Cooper's assertion that the panzer divisions were not given the kind of strategic mission that was to characterize authentic armoured blitzkrieg, and were almost always closely subordinated to the various mass infantry armies." for the Blitzkrieg article please.Keith-264 (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft additions to WP:AVLIST

You are invited to comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists/draft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard Jeffrey Sinclair

Would a few editors chime in at [[10]], could use assistance to improve the general article and notability concerns. Hell in a Bucket (talk)

A-Class review for Yugoslav monitor Drava needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Yugoslav monitor Drava; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No. 57 Squadron RAF

I'm not an RAF squadrons expert but this article is in dire shape. Considering we're the en:wiki, these sort of articles should be our bread and butter. Could I kindly request our RAF experts to take a look? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Iran nuclear deal

See RfC here: talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Your input is appreciated! Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Alleged discovery of train carrying Nazi gold

This story might be worth keeping an eye on. Could be an article if it is confirmed to ave been found. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeking advice on creating a Wikipedia page on a military exercise

Is a military exercise such as Operation Bold Quest (which is put on multiple times each year by the U.S. and about a dozen partner nations) worthy of a Wikipedia page? If so, what would be the best way of going about submitting it? I know how to create a page, but being a commander in the JCS chairman's office, I'm worried I might run afoul of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

Morgan Murphy 20:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganMurphy14 (talk • contribs)

There are a number of military exercises that have a Wikipedia article. While I am a skeptic as to whether some of these meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY, there's no reason to exclude Operation Bold Quest if it meets the notability requirements. Give it a try and feel free to ping me on my talk page for an opinion on your efforts. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with Lineagegeek; well worth giving it a go - you've declared your professional interest in the subject, which gives everything transparency, so just keep an eye on ensuring that the language you use is neutral and balanced, and you'll be fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

British war crimes

Oh how I loathe this article, although not due to the subject. I request a third opinion, before I get myself banned for breaching the 3 revert rule. An editor's claims to be cleaning the article up is in fact code for removing everything they do not agree with despite the fact that - even in this poorly sourced article - sourced information contradicts them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it the longest article in Wikipedia?Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I got no farther than the Boxer Rebellion and the statement that British forces "comitted war crimes". There was no such thing as a war crime in 1899, so the article is obviously infected with WP:POV issues. As a war criminal myself (at least by the standards of this article), I think the label inappropriate for what's on the page (without expressing an opinion on whether some of the items are valid). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I find Bombing of Dresden in World War II to be deeply problematic in it's inclusion. WP:UNDUE in terms of the limited sources deployed to support this allegation bugs me somewhat. Obviously it warms the hearts of revisionist Neo-Nazis everywhere though. Irondome (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The originator didn't help things by choosing the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 because this changed the labels but not the behaviour. It might have been better to use a term like atrocities, although this would be tendentious too for implying that war isn't atrocious per se. As it stands it might be better to limit inclusion to crimes for which have been ruled crimes and/or for which convictions have been obtained and tie that into other articles which list atrocities defined by other criteria.Keith-264 (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think convictions are required. If reliable sources state that they were war crimes (customary international law applies here as well as treaty law), then they should be given due weight. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Convictions are reliable, indictments are potentially reliable and allegations aren't (if you use the originator's criteria).Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
What's your view on the Dresden example PM? Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
As I stated on the talkpage, I completely agree that the article is a mess and a lot of sourcing is needed and the weeding out of unjustified entries.
Just to chime in on the Dresden comment above. I think this example sums up the entire lousy article: controversial; on the whole, weakly sourced; needs to be re-worded and balanced. In my own experience, this controversial subject has had the term 'war crime' thrown around a lot. A quick look finds several authors on Google Books that describe it as such or acknowledge that some see as such. JSTOR has several articles on the controversy. Then there is the net itself: covered in such talk. Personally, I don't agree. There are countless books stating the exact opposite. Considering this article has been created, and to stay within our own guidelines, I would argue that such controversy would have to be engaged - in a NPOV, with some sort of effort to point towards the consensus on the subject - not just deleted. At any rate, that is my two cents.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is exactly the point. If a few reliable sources mention it as a possible war crime (the indiscriminate use of incendiaries against a civilian target for the purpose of destroying morale would be, in this day and age), then this should be mentioned, but if a lot of reliable sources say it was not, then you might want to cite twice as many reliable sources in contrast. Or a similar approach. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Singling out Dresden potentially legitimises all the other massacres, which is why it's a liberal critique. When it comes to massacres, one state is as bad as another.Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Holocaust deniers have a fixation on Dresden for that reason. This article's coverage of the raid is obviously unbalanced in that it only quotes authors who believe that it was a war crime, and not those who take a different view. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but the inclusion of the Bombing of Dresden isn't deeply problematic, the way it is portrayed in this article may well be, where the views of non-partisan sources on both sides should be given due weight. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Iron Coffins

I notice we have a number of articles that draw heavily on Herbert Werner's book “Iron Coffins” as a source and I'm wondering how good an idea this is: How reliable is it as a source?
I know its veracity has been questioned (Clay Blair lists it in the bibliography to Hitler's U-boat War, but is careful to say in the text “Werner claims...” or “Werner implies..” and in at least one place says Werner's “assertion... cannot be substantiated from German records” (vol I, p313)
I've just re-arranged his biography article, for the reasons given on the talk page and in the (new) book section, but I'm wondering what to do about the other articles (U-557, for example, and U-230, U-415 etc). Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am the main culprit as far as the Herbert Werner, U-230, U-557 articles are concerned, indeed, I started them off, so I had better comment.
Concentrating on the Werner offering, I simply used the book as a source, as it was available from my local library (which has since closed down). Perhaps, rather naively, I did not question its veracity, because a) I thought it could be relied upon, and b) I assumed others with far more knowledge than I, could check on its facts, such as Xyl 54.
One thing I would say - I'm not sure that putting chapter numbers before the sub-section headings (e.g. 'CH 1:The Early Years', 'CH 25:The End' and so on), are correct and are the best way forward. As it was, it took me a while to figure out the 'new' version, even with the Iron Coffins title near the top of his page.
RASAM (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears it's rife with factual errors, & it's widely known to be. That being true, any claim resting on it would obviously seem to require verification from an additional source. Isn't that always the case? A single source, even a reliable one, isn't an ideal. If there are claims based on Iron Coffins that are supported elsewhere, delete Iron Coffins & save having WP undermined. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been decades since I read it, but I agree with Trekphiler; check other sources against Iron Coffins and see what the majority of them say about the incident or fact in question.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
TY. :D TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you one and all for replying...
RASAM: I don't blame you at all for bring taken in by this. I remember when I read it (a looong time ago, now) and just thought it was a jolly good read. It is only after re-viewing it recently (and with a bit more knowledge of the subject) that I noticed a lot of things that didn't sit right.
All:Regarding the U-boat Pages, there are enough sources around (I reckon) to make decently referenced articles from them, comparable to other, similar, U-boat pages anyway. But I don't think we will be doing ourselves any favours using Werner as a source; except perhaps to say “ between (dates) Herbert Werner, author of the best-selling book Iron Coffins, was watch officer/commander of U-(whichever) and took part in the following operations...”
As for the HW page I'm not sold out on the chapter number/heading arrangement; my main aim was to separate the book material from the rest, and as the paragraphs corresponded roughly to the chapters I just went with that. But we could lose the chapter headings (they aren't in the book, just handy descriptions of the content) or collapse it down to the three-part arrangement Werner used, or collapse further to a Synopsis/Plot summary section (like we have with Papillon). I'm also wondering if it is worth splitting the book stuff into a separate book article (again, like with Papillon); I'd say it was notable enough. What do you reckon? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
♠Influential as it was (& I read it, too, longer ago than I can recall, :( tho I do recall liking it a lot), I'd agree, it merits a page.
♠After a quick glance at the U-boat pages linked to, I have some concern about deleting the cites but leaving in the claims; am I right thinking the claims would need to come out, too? (Absent confirmation.)
♠On a broader issue, this raises something that might justify a mention somewhere (not sure it could carry a page on its own), tho offhand, I couldn't say where: namely, the overclaiming of successes. I have a suspicion at least some of Werner's overclaims were good faith belief he'd done it, just as there were good faith mistakes by USN sub skippers in the Pacific. (If that's not borne out by his patrol reports, OTOH...) In any case, perhaps we could come up with something, since this doesn't stop with Werner, or subs. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. On the split at HW I'll post the proposal there, just to keep things open and above board and if there are no objections from anywhere else get on and do that.
For the U-boat pages I've done a rough draft on one of them (and paralleled it for comparison) here.
And yes, I think the claims that are reliant on Werner need to come out.
On the subject of overclaiming, I'd like to assume good faith on Werner's part, but I wonder if it is something more than just believable overclaiming, or poor memory over the passage of time, in his case. For instance, his description of U-230's first patrol: Seigmann attacked SC 121, fired and hit one freighter Egyptian of 2,900 tons; he claimed hits on two ships of 5000t each: W in IC says they sank three. He then buttressed the story with a tale of an attack on SC 118 (identified by the losses he mentions; U-187, U-609, U-624 ) which U-230 had no part of, and on SC 122, (which, again, U-230 wasn't involved in) each with claims of ships sunk.  And he was writing in 1967, when the official histories were out, so he could have checked if he'd been minded to.
On the broader aspect of overclaiming at sea, we have an article on Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II so it probably is worth expanding on it somewhere, though the aerial victories page is addressing a particular issue (whether the huge scores of some German aces were believable, or just cases of overclaiming). I don't know that the scores of U-boat aces are unbelievable, though I think playing the whole aces game rather obscures the wider issue.
It may look good if, say, some of your fighter pilots have massive scores, but the real issue is who has air superiority; there may have been many more German fighter aces than Allied ones in WWII but also there were were, for example, many more North Vietnamese fighter aces than American ones during the Vietnam War and for many of the same reasons. Likewise focusing on the tonnage sunk by certain U-boat aces tends to distract from the more fundamental questions of who had naval superiority in the Atlantic during the conflicts, and whether the war on commerce was succeeding.
Overclaiming is possibly of significance only to German navy, as in both world wars they were reduced to waging a war on commerce, and a tonnage war at that. OTOH the RN, which had naval superiority in the Atlantic, in both conflicts, aimed at a total blockade and the measure of success there was how few ships arrive at their destination; in WWI and WWII they were able to choke off German commerce within weeks of the start of the war (though in WWII Germany found ways of getting around that). By contrast Germany, which aimed only at sinking a set monthly amount of shipping, regardless of where, whose, and what it was carrying, failed to meet that target in most months of both wars. Overclaiming may have obscured how badly they were doing in some months, but for at least half time they must have known. Anyway, I should stop there...Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
♠"On the subject of overclaiming, I'd like to assume good faith on Werner's part, but I wonder if it is something more than just believable overclaiming, or poor memory over the passage of time" I'm offering no reason for it; it could be bad memory or something else.
♠"On the broader aspect of overclaiming at sea" I was unaware of that one; thx for the link. It's evident there were false claims among German fighter aces (IIRC, Marseilles at least once claimed on a day with no British losses at all); mostly, tho, IMO false claims are in good faith. (Separating that out, this late in the game, may be impossible...) I also know U.S. Sub Force overclaims were, in part, driven by a need to justify using more of the (faulty) Mark XIVs...; it's possible German claims were, too. And the "overclaims" are complicated by loss of records; Japan's postwar were in chaos, so even sinkings with photographic support couldn't be confirmed... I daresay German records were in a pretty chaotic state, too. Nor would Britain's have, necessarily, have been perfect.
♠As for the "tonnage war" remark, for Germany, that's probably the case; why it happened is for the same reasons it did in anybody's navy: short periscope views, weather, target similarities, simple mistakes... How many "battleships" did USAAF attack that turned out to be USN subs? ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Overclaiming was easy to do. A submarine would fire torpedoes at a freighter, then dive when the escorts responded to the torpedo wakes. Explosions and breaking up noises would be heard by the whole crew. The submarine would surface later and find a lot of wreckage but no freighter, and conclude that it had gone down. Or even picking up survivors, without realising that they were from a ship torpedoed by another submarine. Tonnages were little more than an educated guess from looking at a ship, often in the dark and from some distance away. Post-war reconciling of the records was no easy task. There were a number of cases of ships whose destruction was witnessed and even photographed, but no record of a ship being sunk. There were also cases of ships that were definitely sunk, but were not claimed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; both of these explanations sound reasonable to me. Another factor (maybe less forgiveable, but probably no less unintentional) could be confirmation bias; “seeing what you want to see”.
Some examples of overclaiming might be:
  • Albrecht Brandi, of U-617, etc. who sank a number of ships and warships (tougher targets), in the Med (a tougher room) and (I reckon) fully deserved the Knights Cross he was awarded, but none-the-less massively overclaimed (or was massively over-credited): 26 ships, 100,000t, the true tally being "startlingly less"; 12 ships, 32,000t
  • The captain of the Italian submarine (Blair mentions him; I cannot just now remember his name) who misidentified US destroyers as battleships on two occasions and was credited both times with sinking them; no confirmation of hits on either ship.
  • Lunin, of K-21, who fired on Tirpitz and scored two hits, though German records have no knowledge of this (though, coincidentally, Tirpitz abandoned her mission, and spent the next six months in dock “refitting”: I'm just saying...)
  • Morton, of Wahoo, who after sinking Buyo Maru claimed to have killed 10,000 “sonzabitches” which, later analysts say was actually several hundred, and they were Indian POWs in any case (as if that makes it better in some way)
  • there is undoubtedly a RN example, though off the top of my head I can't think of one.
On the other side of the coin, anti-submarine commanders had similar problems (if a U-boat sinks, was it what they had done, or was it intentional; viz Churchill's stipulation they be described as “destroyed” not “sunk”). Denys Rayner commented (here) that in the early days of the war a couple of actions he fought were classed as successes, tho' he had his doubts; later the RN's strict rules led to CO's staging "tin-opener" attacks just to get evidence of a success. Morison states the Japanese ASW forces were generally far too ready to accept scanty evidence, thus allowing US submarines to escape. The ultimate overclaimer (to my mind) would be Otto Pollmann, credited with 14 Allied submarines; actual successes, one! Xyl 54 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Battles of Timbuktu

There is an article entitled Battle of Timbuktu and another one Second Battle of Timbuktu. The second article's initial section appears to be a repetition of the first article, followed by a second section on a second phase or battle a few days later. It would appear that they should be merged as one article under the former title or the second article should make clear that it refers to the second battle/phase. I don't know how these events are regarded in that repect, or indeed if either or both are termed the "Battle of Timbuktu". Views?

They could both do with a bit of copy editing too. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It does look like they should be forming a single article. I can't vouch for whether the term "Battle of Timbuktu" is appropriate though. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither of the French references (translated by Google) uses the word "Battle." "Terrorist attack" seems to be a better fit.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The French wiki articles refer to them as "Combat de Tombouctou (date)", with "combat" potentially referring to any size of engagement. The sources in French for the two French and the two English wiki articles use variously "attentat" (attack), "raid", "affrontement" (confrontation) but I haven't so far come across one saying "battaile"; I think they are too small-scale. The BBC source refers to it as an "attack" so I would be happy with that but not prefixed with "terrorist", despite a minority of sources using the term. These though would appear to be only two of the fairly small skirmishes mis-categorised as "battles", per a variety of articles at Category:2013 in Mali, Category:2014 in Mali and Category:2015 in Mali. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree there should be a Merge. The second article, created by a different editor 6 days later, simply copied and pasted the first article, and then added more details for the second article.— Maile (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, a merge is probably the best course of action. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there an American in the House?

The Trinity (nuclear test) article was changed by an IP who insists that since the article is in American English, the term "fortnight" cannot be used. Is this correct? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Fortnight" is rare in American English, so it's probably better to use two weeks and avoid any issues that way. - BilCat (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Concur. Fortnight may be used, but two weeks is more common and equally correct. Calidum 04:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys. In Australia people would look at you oddly, like if you said "seven days" instead of "a week". Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Fortnight has some info on the word. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Another notability question

Regarding commodores this time. Do they equal "1-star" generals and thus are usually considered notable? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_131#Notability_question and Draft:Edward Gabriel Andrè Barrett. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think yes; the pay grade is O7 (US). The area in which to tiptoe is for captains who were addressed as commodore while traveling on a vessel commanded by a lower-ranking officer. In that case the grade is an honorific because there's only one captain per ship. We're showing Grace Hopper as a rear admiral (lower half), but when I heard her speak, she called herself a commodore and made jokes about admirals.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. Commodores count under WP:SOLDIER. They are equivalent in rank to one-star flag officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Prisoner-of-war camp

The article doesn't cover the death of millions of POWs during WWII. A disaster.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really disaster as wikipedia is a work in progress and is not complete, just find some reliable sources and consider due weight and add something to the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Now I understand that the main article is Prisoner of war. How to divide information between the two article?Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Pretty straightforward. If it relates to a specific camp, or just to POWs in general. BTW, welcome back to Milhist. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Not at all straightforward, the two articles are too similar.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Prisoner-of-war camp is about several wars. Why these ones?
POW camps, e.g. in Germany, existed during several wars, see Łambinowice 1870-1945. The camps are the subject, not the wars. Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

USS Jarrett FFG 33

Had noticed that quite a few links to this Navy ship do not work anymore. Is it possible to edit them with new links for information relating to the info of the ship? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@JasonHockeyGuy: The page seems to be there – USS Jarrett (FFG-33). Can you mention an example of a link that doesn't work anymore? Stanning (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand. I've changed two links to point to archived pages. Stanning (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Shadow boxes

We don't consider blogs to be reliable sources. No mystery there. Several pages about the members of E Co, 2d Bn, 506th PIR link to shadow boxes displaying awards and other emblems associated with the subject of the page. One example is Speirs' shadowbox pertaining to Ronald Speirs. Is an unedited shadowbox any better than a blog?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Frank Wead

I stumbled onto this by accident today while researching John Madison Hoskins, a flag officer who for some reason doesn't seem to have an article about him, but does have a movie: The Eternal Sea. So I checked the Wead article and there's a very enthusiastic and well-intentioned editor User:SteveMiamiBeach who's making a proper mess out of it. I'm so boggled by the insanely unencyclopedic approach to the subject, it's probably best that somebody else break the bad news to this guy and get the pagespace back under some semblance of control. Would somebody biographically inclined give this a look? I'm not kidding, it's a wasteland over there. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This guy has been working on this for six years and this is what we have? I just made a start at cleaning up the lead. There's a whole lot of useless stuff.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Some improvement, imho. I don't know the name of the "this needs help" template. Could someone add it?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Also stumbled upon another "pageless" flag officer: Ralph Eugene Davison.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but Frank Wead is beginning to resemble an empty suit. The article as edited by Special:Contributions/SteveMiamiBeach seems to be "very dependent" on the words that appear on other web pages. Because of the number of web sites that robocopy Wikipedia, I can't tell which site had the information first. I'm going to keep paring back to what I can prove for a few more days, but I'm beginning to think "Spig" is a non-notable from a military perspective.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
He is, however, notable as a screenwriter and because The Wings of Eagles is about him. We've been stuck with much less interesting and well covered sources in our day. I appreciate you guys clearing out the dead wood. Hoskins has turned out to be a very notable story indeed. BusterD (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jadwiga of Poland

All comments would be appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Need some help with history of USN jet aviation

I did a foolish thing and watched an old movie (The Eternal Sea starring Sterling Hayden), and predictably, I got curious about the protagonist. The film reminds me much of John Wayne's The Wings of Eagles (but much more accurate, based on found sources). The fellow Hayden low keys didn't have an article about him and so I created one: John Hoskins (officer). There are not as many sources as I'd like, though there are some good ones already attached (including a Life Magazine cover story). What I'm looking for is an article or book relating Hoskins' enthusiasm for jet aircraft in carrier flight operations. The movie, produced and released while Hoskins was still a serving RADM, seems to indicate that Hoskins advocated reinforced decks and stronger catapults on carriers being built while WWII was ongoing, sensing the need for jet takeoffs and landings; in addition, the film indicates that Hoskins himself (peg-leg and all) flew takeoffs and landings along with an air group to validate the premise that carriers would be able to handle jet aircraft cycling through operations. Anybody know where I should be looking? What I've got right now dovetails with the premises of the film, and while I'm not using the movie as an RS, I suspect there's some truth to be found. Ideas? BusterD (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well you can start with the Revolt of the Admirals, that covers some of the material referenced here. You can also look into the Essex-class aircraft carriers, Midway-class aircraft carriers, Forrestal-class aircraft carriers, and the issues and concerns with their construction vis-a-vis the aircraft of the day. I'll look into this when I get a moment and see if I can suggest anything else that would potentially help. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tom. Appreciate your direction. I might actually have to read a book here... BusterD (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Arras attack

I've not tagged the 2015 Arras attack article for this WP, as the link is rather tenuous. Will leave it to this project to decide whether or not it comes under your remit. Reports are that US Marines disarmed the attacker. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it qualifies. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Does the awarding of the Legion d'Honneur to the four that took down the assailant now mean the article falls under this WP? Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
In this context, I believe the Legion of Honor might not be considered a military decoration. That being said, I would be quite surprised if the military members do not receive the Airman's Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for their actions. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Antoni Koper. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Battle of Buna–Gona

G'day, all, there is currently a discussion on the talk page about the length of the Battle of Buna–Gona article, and a request for opinions about splitting the article. I've offered my opinion, but I think it would be best if a few others could chime in as this is not an easy decision and there may be better ways of doing it that what I'm suggesting, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

MILHIST membership category

FYI, there is a proposal at WP:AFC/C about creating a new category for members of WPMILHIST called Category:WikiProject Military history Members -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Look for the request filed by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) aka "KC Velaga ∞∞∞" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Britain Bunker

Just came from copy editing [11] and especially removing some 'promotional' text [12] from Battle of Britain Bunker. The page could use some attention from editors with some knowledge in this area. The page also has only one real footnote, though it has several potential sources in "Further reading". My first, edit re. "15 September 1940", is of concern as I am unsure what the original writer meant, regards, 220 of Borg 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 22 on the deletion of an article on a general officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I shudder to think of the repercussion’s this could have on the task force. This one deletion debate is going to overturn existing precedent wrt general and flag officer notability and single handedly make a huge number of articles about BGenerals deletable. Gbawden (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It will certainly impact articles on living one-stars. That's unfortunate and I think BLP should be reviewed to distinguish between Internet rumor and events on the public record. Having said that, when I read the article I came away with the sense that I did not know what he had accomplished before or after being promoted to BG.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The few deletionists here must be rubbing their hands in glee and preparing to use it as a precedent to destroy others' work as they love to do. Oh what joy to destroy instead of create! We're making Wikipedia better by deleting articles on senior officials, they cry! This attitude frankly makes me despair for Wikipedia sometimes. However, I dispute that a single AfD should destroy years of clear precedent and consensus at AfD. Anyone who attempts to use it as such is very much working against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
No one is saying a "one-star" isn't notable per se, they just need to have significant coverage. Hell the bloke that cleans out the public toilet in Aberdeen would be notable as long as he has been covered in multiple reliable sources which provide enough detail for a complete biography... Anotherclown (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I think some of the above is an overreaction. The issue in this case was a "one event BLP"-type issue, not really that he was a one-star. And Anotherclown Wee Jock Poo-Pong McPlop would have the usual GNG issue with "multiple" sources, and perhaps the reliability of the source in question... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
At least there is someone around here of the req'd vintage to get the reference (feel free to be offended by that)... Yes I agree re your assessment of that particular AFD (i.e. BLP1E was one of the main issues not his rank). So I doubt there will be wholesale AFDing of brigadier-generals anytime soon regardless of the result of the DRV. Anotherclown (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for a somewhat off topic comment as I know this is beyond our control, but this is page is still appearing on Google over 6 days after it was deleted. Even further off, another Jeffrey Sinclair was the first station Commander on Babylon 5. :-/ 220 of Borg 13:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for August Meyszner needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for August Meyszner; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_131&oldid=1259720274"