Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 141

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135←Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143→Archive 145

Removal of flags and insignias from multiple info boxes

User:Huberthoff has been getting around these past couple of days with his newly created account, and seems to be on this mission to remove flags and insignia from numerous articles, mostly those of American military people. This users cites a guideline about flags in infoboxes (which btw says nothing about insignia), but ignores the fact that every guideline stipulates "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Famous military people are such exceptions. Other editors have taken exception to this apparent mission to remove flags and insignia, mostly from the articles of prominent Americans, as evidenced on Huberthoff's Talk page. Imo, we should return these items to the infoboxes. Some of these articles, like George Washington,  Abraham Lincoln  Ulysses S. Grant,  William T. Sherman, etc had these items in their respective infoboxes when they were approved for GA and FA status, with no issues all of this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said. :( I said it before, it feels disrespectful to remove these icons to military service. — Myk Streja (who?) 21:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Good for him. So many of these flags and insignias are just blobs of color that most readers will have no clue about. See this diff where the various flags of the branches of the armed services are present, but so incredibly small that they can't be distinquished, thus negating the whole "identify at a glance" object. And how many readers would be able to tell (even if the images were large enough) at a glance which flag is for which branch? Its worse for the Leadership section - the chances of most readers being able to identify the flags of the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is... very very remote. This leaves aside the issue of using anachronistic and incorrect "flags" or "banners" or "coats of arms" for periods when they weren't in use as we do now. (An example is currently at Talk:Battle of Hastings, where I seriously was told "it was not necessary to use an absolutely historic banner or emblem, it could possible to use a flag of hypothetical look, because I saw similar flags in the British documentary film about the battle at Hastings, also historical books sometimes using hypotetical pictures as an illustration, and from my point of view using hypotetical picture is maybe better solution than nothing. It depends on how much we want it to be accurate." I wonder how many OTHER flags/banners/COAs/etc are just put in with the same regard for accuracy?) As for disrespect, I run into far far far more problems with accuracy and anachronism. We need to stop thinking of these flags as useful to the majority of our readers. To take a small sample - my husband, who was in the Army and does use Wikipedia often, cannot say that he ever used the flagicons/insignia to help him identify things in infoboxes - and he could be expected to at least be familiar with the various insignia. We're better off making sure we have the text correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I find your reference to flags a bit curious. Flags are hardly "blobs of color" to anyone above the 1st grade level, and I have no difficulty distinguishing them. We need a valid reason to go through all the military articles and start removing flags and insignia. No one editor should take it upon his/her self to do so, as is the case in question here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have issues telling a flag apart from another at a decent size. But at 15 to 30 pixels, they are useless. Quick - look at Hundred Years' War and tell me if the coats of arms actually tell you who the combantants are. Can you identify ALL the flags in Seven Years' War? (I'll note that File:Flag of the Habsburg Monarchy.svg is attached to the "Austria" entry but strictly speaking that's not flag for Austria during this period, its the flag for the Hapsburg Monarchy ... which included quite a bit more territory than Austria. See what I mean about problems of accuracy?) Or do the flags in Ottoman–Persian War (1775–76) help most of our readers? And File:Zand Dynasty flag.svg has a tag on it noting there are NO sources for the fact that this is the flag of the Zand Dynasty... the query on the talk page got a "this is well known" reply... my, that makes me trust the accuracy of the image to apply to this conflict...) Note, I haven't gone around removing flags or other similar icons through all the military articles, but it's very clear that MOS:INFOBOXFLAGs exceptions are NOT for biographies. To be quite honest, Grant should never have passed FA with the flags in the infobox because FAs are supposed to comply in ALL respects with the MOS, which the flags prevent it from doing. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I also support removing them. It is surely for those arguing to keep them to justify what good they do. --John (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

These items have been in articles for years. If you feel there is something 'wrong' with that it is incumbent on you to substantiate it before removing them wholesale. You didn't even say why they should be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I often remove typos or unreferenced sentences which have been in articles for years. Mere longevity is not a good argument for keeping features with no purpose. Flags in infoboxes have no purpose, and I agree with the issues Ealdgyth raises. Remove them. --John (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Typos and unreferenced sentences get overlooked for lack of activity. Removing the flags from George Washington's infobox just tugs at something visceral. It feels wrong. How many editors have visited that article and felt no need to remove the flags. So we have a hardliner with a week's experience who has decided to edit every infobox that has a flag in it. And he's been doing it from day one. You can keep citing chapter and verse, or complaining about the size of the images, but it still requires common sense and flexibility to edit a guide for human beings. — Myk Streja (who?) 22:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Flags show the national symbol for the country, insignias do the same for military rank. We need more than the opinion that they have no purpose. If you are asserting some 'wrong' here, it's up to you to substantiate it. i.e.guilty until proven innocent? If you object on the grounds that one of the guidelines say flags are "discouraged" in infoboxes, fine, but this sort of talk is contrarian and appears to be no more than arm wrestling with another editor. Easy to see. We should be addressing the bigger issue at this point, per the Statement below.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If you are asserting that flags in infoboxes have some purpose, it should be easy for you to state what that purpose is. What is that purpose? --John (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ealdgyth:, again, I have no difficulty with the images, and anyone who wants to get a better look simply has to click on the image. Many images are too small to view in the first place. Also, no one image is supposed to tell you who or what a person or country is, all by itself. That is what the article is for. They are a historical reference, and are valued by most history buffs, and the 100's of editors who have included them in articles. Also, GA and FA articles are usually passed on their content and inclusiveness -- the most important consideration for the readers, who are our primary concern, or should be. Certain guidelines, like page length, are sometimes waved in the process of FA approval, as was the case for the Barak Obama and Ronald Reagan Featured Articles, (very long) which is why they are guidelines -- common sense and exceptions apply. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
As I said, all one has to do is click on the image. Which 'it' are you referring to? Sounds as it you're referring to them all. No doubt there is an icon image out there that is still small when you click on it, but most, if not all, flags and insignias can be viewed in full. Hope this doesn't come as a disappointment for you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
But often clicking on the small flag icon doesn't take you to a larger version of the image, it takes you to an article instead. Try clicking on the Ottoman flag in Ottoman–Persian War (1775–76) or the flag next to "Bavaria" in Seven Years' War. That's because they use Template:Flagicon, which is set up to link to the various articles. And sometimes it isn't a link at all. Try clicking on the flag next to "Ireland" in the Seven Years' War article. So, no, you can't always just click on the flag icon to see a bigger image. On the Seven Years' War article I'm using as an example - ALL of the flags in the infobox are produced with the various flagicon templates except for Austria. So only one of the flag images is capable of being enlarged by clicking on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, if an icon takes you to an article instead, fine, that is the way the editor set it up. Every image can be viewed in full. If you feel there are issues that need to be addressed in a given article, then you should bring it to the attention of editors on the respective Talk page, and not try to use one example as justification for removing the contributions of 1000's of editors in 1000's of articles, if indeed this is what you're doing here. That would be a 'solution' far worse than this assumed problem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
So you don't know what you're talking about and haven't done even the most basic research yet still have a strong opinion. I think you've made a fool of yourself. I think you should do your homework and have a proper think about it before you come back here. --John (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
No, I haven't checked each an every icon to see, but still know that, like all small images here at WP, most link to a larger image, per my original and overall true statement. Your "Really? try it" statement exposes you as one who assumed that nearly all icons didn't link to larger images, as well as an individual who didn't do his homework and is prone to hypocritical statements when exposed as such. Your false accusation and personal attack also shows us you're the one with a strong opinion, and again, someone who descends into a state of hypocrisy when confronted with simple differences of opinion on a Talk page. My main concern was that someone created a new account and started right in removing flags and icons from GA and FA articles, and others, with no discussions and no regard to the contributions of 1000's of editors made over the years. This should be something that concerns us all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Most? See I don't think that is true. I take all your heat, anger and snark (Hope this doesn't come as a disappointment for you) as a sign that you are not as sure about this stuff as you make out. A lot of flags don't link anywhere useful, and I remain unconvinced that they have any utility for our users. It is for you to convince me I think. And I am fine with someone removing that which is useless and unencyclopedic from articles. I do a lot of it myself. --John (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Heat? Anger? Snark? You really pile it on for someone who accuses someone of having a strong opinion. The 'disappointment' comment was in response to your rather coy and ignorant remark that assumes, as you still seem to, that most icons, which are only scaled down images, don't link to the larger image. The only time that they don't is when an editor arranges for the image file to link somewhere else. And it's only your opinion that images of flags and insignias don't belong in an encyclopedia. You've yet to substantiate that claim either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement: -- Going through and removing flags and insignias from the thousands of articles on military people would be a major disruption to Wikipedia!! Let the contributors for each article decide, which they already have. This whole issue, which was started by one editor with a new account, being used primarily for one purpose, is only going to create a lot of conflict between editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Let the contributors for each article decide, which they already have. By that logic nobody should be editing any article, ever. That isn't how we work. --John (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can contribute, and contested matters are decided by consensus. People can drive by and make deletions, but if they're challenged, then a discussion takes place and a consenssus arrived at. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Leave the flags and insignias alone. The flags show the nation of the military in which a veteran served -- some individuals serve in the military of a country other than their own.
Service flags show which component of the military a veteran served in, which among other things might be helpful to those who are not familiar with the different components.
Rank insignia can also perform the same function -- aid those who are not familiar with the military to put the rank of an article subject into the proper context.
Billmckern (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
What info is carried by a flag that cannot be conveyed by words? --John (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Flags should be used where space is at a premium, like in tables. Infoboxes aren't that space, as the countries have to be spelled out in any case. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I wonder why they appear in the commanders section when this only repeats what's in the belligerents section above. Keith-264 (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If you're really so upset about the icon linking to the article instead of the image, break the link to the article & link to the image, instead. (Where you'd find it...? I'd guess on the article page...) This is an issue not unlike the Olympiad links, which mention the year's events, but the links go to the sport & not an annual report. If it bugged me enough when I ran across it, I'd have changed it (if annual reports existed, & IDK if they always do; I'd guess not.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I delete them from military people infoboxes as they don't convey any useful information and are frequently there just for decoration. In relation to battles/wars, I keep them for identifying the belligerents, but unless there are multiple belligerents, delete them for commanders, forces, etc. Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a sensible approach. --John (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Use of flag icons (which I personally don't encourage) is a matter for consensus arrived at by the editors of an article, and can depend on a number of things such as the number of combatants in a battle article etc, where they may perform a function. It is not a matter for drive-by deleters (or adders for that matter). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Mztourist is of the opinion that flags are for decoration. In reality, they're a visual and historical reference, and it is only opinion that says they are of no used to all of the readers. We really don't need no royal opinion carved in granite that says flags can't be used, and it's a bit troublesome to see some editors reaching for opinion to remove them wholesale from the many 1000's of military related articles they exist in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Peacemaker67. It's not a matter for any one editor to routinely go from article to article removing these things with no discussion, esp after being contested on the matter. Again, this would prove to be a major disruption, and as we are experiencing here, will create conflict between editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Next to the fact that his initial efforts seemed to be American presidents infoboxes, was concern for speed of the edits and how quickly he went from one article to the next. How was a two-day newbie able to do that? It took me a week to understand that the placement of the infobox didn't correlate directly with the raw file. — Myk Streja (who?) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

edit break

It should be a matter of article consensus by the editors therein, as Peacemaker67 states. I believe they are helpful for general readers in military bios (under Allegiance and service branch) and Battle articles (under Belligerents). Kierzek (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In what way do you think it is helpful? --John (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If it's your intention to remove flags and/or insignia from a given article on the basis that it is not helpful, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate this opinion. It's already been mentioned by at least two editors that they serve as identifiers for allegiance and service branch, or as historical references to country or rank. If this is not helpful for you, fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Clearly it was a mistake to raise the issue here. The gist of MOS:ICONS is that images are generally disallowed. There was some wiggle-room left in so editors invested in each article could express interest in keeping these flags and insignia. Reverting the removals and challenging the editor in question (perhaps a sock) on each talk page would have been the right move. You brought it here and now find a mixed-bag of responses. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Reverting more than three edits by this user, in different articles, by one user, would have involved 3RR and/or Hounding. The matter needed to be brought to light so others could act accordingly if they saw fit. As intimated by several editors, MOS is a set of guidelines, which, thankfully, allows for exceptions, and is not a license for any one editor to hop from article to article in a petty dictator like fashion making deletions, and then reverts when they are challenged. It was suggested to me that the matter be discussed here, seeing that it involved military articles overall. Seemed to make good sense at the time. As for the possibility of a sock, I can't help but notice the apparent new user in question has more than a passing familiarity of Wikipedia. That's another issue I'll let someone else pursue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines are inherently meant to be followed. And the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is incredibly clear on this issue. – Huberthoff (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
So is the stipulation at the beginning of every guideline, that common sense and exceptions apply. Why do you think that stipulation was included? Again, the guideline isn't a license to justify your sort of inconsiderate behavior. This idea has already been addressed here by several editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing inconsiderate about following the WP:MOS guideline. – Huberthoff (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3)@Huberthoff: Per WP:GUIDES, "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Your single-purpose account to remove images (which will mask you for only so long) is not well-received, even if many editors agree with you in principle. Your actions indicate to me that you're not here to build an encyclopedia but merely to step on others' toes (and believe me, I have stomped on toes before). Would you please stop tilting at windmills? This isn't the best way to accomplish anything useful. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the inclusion or not of icons, is one of the least important issues with almost any article involved, yet it attracts strong opinions and bad will. Perhaps take a step back and do something more useful. (Hohum @) 23:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it has caused conflict between some editors, as I said above, but the issue overall involved a bit more than just icons in of themselves. i.e.Use of a guideline to justify the routine deletions in numerous articles by one editor with a single purpose and rather questionable new account. A quick review will relate this for you. Hopefully these decisions will now be made by consensus, per each article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Ducking the issue doesn't seem all that helpful, especially with a "guideline" so explicit. Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I expect we could get a guideline together for "which end of a boiled egg to open first". With as much polarized opinion and wasted effort, and as little benefit to content. (Hohum @) 15:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Just in case you missed it, it's been pointed out by several editors, several times now, that the images in question serve as identifiers for allegiance and service branch, or as historical references to country or rank. i.e.Much better to show a picture of a sunset than trying to describe it with "content". Once again, attention needed to be brought to the idea, among others, that guidelines are not policy, and that at the top of every guideline is the stipulation that common sense and exceptions apply. We also have WP:IAR for the same reason. Evidently the good folks here at Wikipedia were wise and gracious enough to include these things, and rightly so, considering how some editors will take a guideline and goose-step with the idea. Consensus is the way to go. That is fair to all parties involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

How can there be debate on this? The flagicon template has existed for over 10 years and been applied to over half a million pages. Clearly it's fine to use.
Note that they're called icons--they're not intended to be detailed images. They serve a similar function to the icons in Google bookmarks: although their details are not fully decipherable, they serve as quick identifiers. YoPienso (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As I have said above, their use, like all things on WP, is a matter of a consensus between editors. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
And of course, consensus can change. Do you remember the spoiler template? If things are worth keeping it should be easy to state and demonstrate their utility to readers. I still haven't seen that. --John (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Obviously that would depend on the article, there are articles where there is consensus they are appropriate, and others where there is not such consensus. It should be decided on an article-by-article basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, you and John clearly don't have a consensus on this article. YoPienso (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
When I started this thread my primary concern was over one user, one with questionable principles as it turns out, using a guideline, not a policy, to tromp through numerous articles, where there clearly was consensus for these images and where they've existed in most cases for years, with no issues, and removing them with no discussion. The "utility" of these images has been pointed out now several times, by several editors, but if anyone is so inclined, they can always refuse to get it. Once again, consensus is the way to go, as it has for years now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Gosh. So many misunderstandings and misstatements. Guidelines vs policies; this is not an argument as we are not a bureaucracy. The "utility" of these images has been pointed out now several times; no it hasn't. It's been asserted but this mysterious "utility" seems impossible to describe by its proponents. Never a good sign. And when we see folks unable to back up their arguments and simultaneously accusing opponents of "IDHT" and so on, it never speaks highly to the strength of their arguments. If there are good reasons for plastering military infoboxes with dozens of flags, it should be easy to list them. Still waiting for you to do so. --John (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The arguments have been gone over many times, eg. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 12 13 14. The MOS currently explicitly allows infobox flags in "military history contexts" (WP:INFOBOXFLAG and WP:MILMOS). If you want to change the MOS, you need to start a yet another discussion over there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Several templates have been nominated for discussion; the entry can be found here:

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Scope of Neutrality Patrol article

Comments are invited here to help reach consensus in a difference of opinion between two members of the Maritime warfare task force concerning appropriate scope for the Neutrality Patrol article. Thewellman (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The FV4401 Contentious was a prototype for an unbuilt 1960 British tank destroyer. It was distinguished by the gun being (almost) fixed to the chassis, thus laid onto the target by moving the whole tank - although there was a small degree of traverse possible in the mount, for accurate aiming. This prototype is obscure and barely known - rather better known is the slightly earlier Swedish S-tank, which is known to have been an influence upon it. Both had a sophisticated suspension system which allowed tilting the whole tank to control elevation.

The purpose of this vehicle was to be a lightweight air-portable tank destroyer with a powerful main gun. Avoiding the weight and bulk of a tank's turret permitted this. Vehicles with similar goals were developed worldwide, although taking other approaches. The S-tank, and its precise tactical role, is a matter of interminable debate.

The question here is whether the section §Comparable vehicles should include the S-tank as a member of that list. I believe it should, another editor disagrees. The two vehicles are certainly "comparable" – they may be compared. They have technical features which I believe to be unique outside them. This is not to claim that either or neither is a "tank" or a "tank destroyer" or to have some overlapping role, merely that a reader ought to be pointed to the article, in order to compare another example of this rare technical approach.

There is some discussion at Talk:FV4401 Contentious, but it is fruitless. The other editor seems to be claiming that the Char B was somehow involved, but has given no reason why the S-tank (which was studied by the British and is known to have been influential) should not be listed.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

United States Space Corps

An article on a US Congressional proposal to create a United States Space Corps has been made. This may be too soon, but it is a likely target for people seeing the news about it in the past week.It does need work to remain a full article, including correct categorization. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

MilHist Articles and Primary Sources

Hey All. I was curious if any experienced Wikipedians have recommendations for me concerning the use of primary source materials. Some of the things I've been writing about can only be found in the primary sources. This is due in part to a lack of existing secondary source materials, but it seems counter to Wikipedia's mission (and viz. contra established criteria for B+ class articles) to rely heavily on such sources — especially when these are paywalled as is Fold3.

To head off at the pass claims that such subjects are therefore not noteworthy, simply look to the Formosa Air Battle, which appears in every major publication on the Battle of Leyte Gulf even though these actions are separated by more than a week. Although secondary source materials exist sketching the basic repercussions of the Formosa Air Battle and its broad outlines, there is no detailed accounting of events from 12–16 October 1944. Is it wrong, then, to use Wikipedia as a medium for the publication of such an account? I know this is not a platform for private research, but can such endeavors be injected into an article with strong backing from secondary sources? Just interested to hear the 2C of other contributors. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The policy you are looking for is WP:PRIMARY. There is nothing wrong with using primary sources per se, but care must be taken in the way they are employed. Historians normally work from primary sources to produce secondary one; but we are a tertiary resource. Hew closely to the policy, and you'll be fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References for a couple of older A-class articles

G'day, a couple of our older A-class articles, Cambodian Campaign and Battle of Khe Sanh (both about 10 years post ACR) seem to have quite a few unreferenced paragraphs. Is anyone able to help add citations to these? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments on article title

I'd like to hear any comments on the title of the LIM-49 Nike Zeus article. I think it could be argued that the LIM-49 should be dropped. While that is the identifier of the missile component, it was not that of the system as a whole, and the missile was only a small part of that project - the smallest given its development history. Compared to things like A-35, where it's the system itself that the article is based on, this article seems a bit different. Comments?

It appears to me that US aircraft and missile systems articles are not generally titled under the weapons system concept, but rather by the aircraft or missile designation. There's some difference between aircraft articles (usually titled [[Manufacturer Model/Design/Series Popular name]]) and missiles (usually designated Model/Design/Series Popular name). I'd leave the article where it is, if only for standardization. A quick search of articles using Air Force Weapons Systems designators only comes up with projects that resulted in more than one vehicle being developed, like WS-201A (which surprisingly redirects, when the "A" was an important part of the designation.) --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
We can argue just about anything, but If we drop the designation at the front of an article like PGM-17 Thor, we will wind up having to use a disambiguation, ie. Thor (missile). For consistency, leaving the articles as they are seems the best solution. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
But there is a difference here - Thor was "the system" and that article is about the missile. The Zeus article is not about the Zeus missile. Consider LIM-49 Spartan and Safeguard Program. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
But surely this is about the common name of the system? All I can remember is that as an inquisitive and military-obsessed kid during the Cold War, Nike Zeus is the name I recognise. Is there another Nike Zeus that we need to disambiguate from? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sink my battleship

I just came from Battleship, & found the template {{Sclass|shipname|battleship|2}} used frequently. On any other page, it wouldn't be an issue, but on a page about battleships, the repeated use of the word is pointless. Is there a way to turn off that part of the display? I tried {{Sclass|Bismarck|battleship|0}}, successfully, but I'm concerned that would break links to the correct class(es) of ship(s). Anybody know of a sure, safe way? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Parsecboy? With Sturmvogel 66 in drydock, you are the guru on this stuff (I just stagger from one template to the next, not sure if I have any idea what I am doing...). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't know much about the template and I am not certain what the issue is or what you would rather see. As I see it, the template is a way of creating a link and formatting the name in italics, which is appropriate for ship names or the name of a class of ship (which are often named for the lead ship of the class). So {{Sclass|shipname|battleship|2}} applies to the South Dakota-class battleship (1939) ie [[South Dakota-class battleship (1939)]] as opposed to the lead ship of the class, which was USS South Dakota (BB-57) - there being three other ships of essentially the same design in the same class. The South Dakota class is a "sub-class" of battleships.
{{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship (1920)|2}} displays South Dakota-class battleship (1920) but
{{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship (1920)|4}} displays South Dakota class
Just trying to clarify the issue and not teach you to suck eggs. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
To supress the ship type but keep the word 'class' in the rendering, set the format (second positional) parameter to 0 (adjectival, hyphenated) or 4 (noun, unhyphenated):
{{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship|0}} → South Dakota-class
{{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship|4}} → South Dakota class
Use the first form when the next words following the template is the thing that the template describes, usually the ship type or a variant thereof.
This is malformed:
{{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship (1920)|2}}
One should be able to change the format parameter to any of the allowed values and expect the template to work correctly. But, because there is no Battleship (1920) article, this does not work:
{{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship (1920)|3}} → South Dakota-class battleship (1920)
The correct form is:
{{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship|3||1920}} → South Dakota-class battleship
The template has never displayed disambiguators.
And while I'm talking about things malformed, @Trekphiler, shouldn't the closing </font> tag precede the wikilink closing ]] in your signature?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
My mistake if the example was malformed, though, in my defence, I copied it from the Battleship article. I am correcting these atm. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
♠"shouldn't the closing </font> tag precede the wikilink closing ]] in your signature?" Maybe, but it's not interfering with the display, so I'm not going in & messing around at the risk of screwing something up. Like they used to say, "If it ain't broke..."
♠On the substantive issue, thx everyone for the tutorial. Except... {{Sclass|Bismarck|battleship|2}} gives Bismarck-class battleship, and {{Sclass|Bismarck|battleship|0}} gives Bismarck-class), while {{Sclass|Bismarck|battleship|4}} (Bismarck class) is what I was after, almost: no "battleship" (but also unhyphenated... And why I'm getting a redlink, now, IDK...).
♠I'm disinclined, with the likes of {{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship|2}}, to change anything, because I have no idea where {{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship|3}} or {{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship|1}} or {{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship|0}} might end up... Am I understanding correctly I'd be safe, in ref links going to the correct class, with {{Sclass|South Dakota|battleship|4||1920}} (i.e., just add the double pipe to the original, & change the number?)
♠My (inelegant) solution is to delete the template & link to the class page, but I'm seeing the template more & more, & thinking, sooner or later, I'm gonna have to use it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
But it is broke. For those of us who use syntax highlighting, wikilinks are colored; the default looks like this: [[wikilink]]. Because the closing </font> tag trails the wikilink closing ]], the highlighter doesn't see the closing ]] so everything after the opening [[ of your signature's user talk wikilink has the wikilink coloring. This is not a bug in the highlighter; it is malformed markup:
[[User talk:Trekphiler|<font face="cursive" color="#008000"><sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup>]]</font>
The correct form is:
[[User talk:Trekphiler|<font face="cursive" color="#008000"><sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup></font>]]
Please fix it.
You wrote:
({{Sclass|Bismarck|battleship|4}}) is what I was after, almost: no "battleship" (but also unhyphenated...
I don't understand. The output from {{Sclass|Bismarck|battleship|4}} is an unhyphenated class name: Bismarck class
{{Sclass|Bismarck|battleship)|0}} → Bismarck-class is a redlink because there is an extraneous ) in the ship-type parameter
Is the {{sclass-}} template documentation not helpful? Does it not illustrate what the various format parameter values mean? How could it be improved?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that what you want can be achieved by the template alone but by "manually" adding "battleship" after - {{Sclass|Bismarck|battleship|4}} battleship - Bismarck class battleship. However, there is then the issue of "Bismark class" being used as a compound modifier per MOS:HYPHEN. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
{{Sclass|shipname|battleship}} gives you what you want, linking both the Bismarck class and battleship. {{Sclass|shipname|battleship|1}} just a link to the Bismarck class, {{Sclass|shipname|battleship|0}} Bismarck class is linked, hyphenated and you can slap a noun afterwards, like the Bismarck-class ships or the Bismarck-class vessels. It's pretty straightforward. Llammakey (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
"Is the {{sclass-}} template documentation not helpful? Does it not illustrate what the various format parameter values mean? How could it be improved?" Honestly, if I'd known there was documentation that might explain this, I wouldn't have asked here.
If {{Sclass|shipname|battleship}} will do it, that's all I need; my concern was breaking a link to a specific class page, where they share a name. I'd sooner get a dab page than more headaches.
"For those of us who use syntax highlighting" That's an actual reason, as opposed to an esthetic objection (which I thought it was). Let me have a look. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, Just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day, there sure is. To invite people to join us, you can use {{subst:User:The ed17/MILHIST|signed=~~~~}}, and to welcome new members, you can use {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome|~~~~}}. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Peacemaker67! I wonder if welcoming and inviting new editors to the project is something desired for the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure is. I'm not sure how good a job we do in inviting newcomers, but one of us usually welcomes in a timely way those new editors that join the project. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Got it. That's good to know! I am a PhD student at the University of Minnesota. We are preparing a study to help projects recruit new editors. I am not sure if this would be something you are interested in.. Here is the writeup. Bobo.03 (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hermann Graf

An article that is of interest to this project has been nominated for community reassessment. The discussion can be found here:

Interested editors are invited to weigh in. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

TFA for 11 November

Any suggestions for which article should be Today's Featured Article for this year's Armistice Day? Australian Defence Force is available, and seems like a reasonable choice, since I'd prefer to have a high-level article of some kind, and the end of the war was a defining moment for the ADF (and the country). But I'd be happy to hear about other options. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day Dan. Owning a conflict of interest here, I think it is a reasonable call, assuming the article is up to speed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Australian Defence Force is certainly a possibility, but the article doesn't have a strong connection to the end of World War I given that it covers the structure of the Australian military since 1976 - prior to the establishment of the ADF in that year, the services were independent. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, in 1918, the army and what became the air force were one and the same, under Australian Army. The navy was definitely separate at that point though. I think there is sufficient connection to run it as TFA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
We're running five TFAs per month that have run before ... if we can pull from the whole pile of FAs then I'm sure we can find something, but if ADF or any other article that hasn't run at TFA before works for everyone, I'd rather run that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought an international article would have been best. There are four FAs on British War Memorials that have not yet appeared on the front page: Devon County War Memorial, Northampton War Memorial, Norwich War Memorial and York City War Memorial. I think that one of them should appear. Perhaps they could be run together as a set. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not that they aren't worthy, but they are no more international than the ADF article. I'm not following the logic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed Western Front (World War I) at FAR ... if anyone feels like pitching in, that would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this the right place to discuss something akin to an edit war?

I have been making my typical WikiDragon-esq edits to a MILHIST related page. The veracity of these edits have been repeatedly impugned by another editor. Is this the right place to get opinions on these issues, or is it more proper to go to one of the more formal DR pages, even if the issues are well within this project's scope? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest this might be a good place to build consensus on differences of opinion within a community of editors knowledgeable on the subject matter. That may resolve the difference of opinion, or at least provide technical and historical perspective on the subject for individuals unfamiliar with the topic if necessary to proceed to DR. Thewellman (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I prefer that anyway. Suggestions on how to get this rolling? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It is best to have the discussion on the article talk page itself, but feel free to link to it here to bring it to the attention of other editors. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok well for those with the time, I have over the last couple of weeks expand the Project Excalibur article from about 20k to it's current ~100k. The new content is heavily cited from multiple independent sources. Please examine the the edit history and the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Two expeditionary forces sent to Spain without articles

I came across a reference in an article about the Battle of Vitoria that Joseph Bonaparte was aware that the vanguard of the Black Princ's expeditionary force had been destroyed on the small hills at the centre of the position, and he thought that Wellington would place much misguided effort in capturing them for sentimental reasons.

This came as a surprise to me because I did not even realise that the Black Prince had lead an expedition into Spain from France. There is a Wikipeida article on the principle battle (battle of Navarrete 3 April 1367), but no article on the campaign, so I am in the process of writing one. It is historically significant because it was during this campaign that the Black Prince contracted the disease that would kill him.

I have today come across another expedition for which we have no article, there is mention of it in several biographies:

In 1706, he and his regiment took part in the expedition under Earl Rivers, originally directed against the coast of France but subsequently diverted to Lisbon. In 1707, Hill and the regiment were shipped to Valencia, to take part in the campaign which ended with the Battle of Almansa.

There is a section on it in the article War of the Spanish Succession but it does not show up in the TOC. Would anyone care to write a stub on this 18th century campaign? -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

For the curious, the article Edward, the Black Prince contains a list of his campaigns. The reference to France above is a slip of the keyboard - the Najera campaign was, of course, in Spain. Best wishes with the article. Monstrelet (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits like that or [1], they should be done by consensus. I do not see it. Please nominate these pages for AfD if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The user who made the edits has a lengthy history of removing and blanking German-Nazi related military award and rank information. However, in at least this case, I think there is a lengthy history of its own about the Knight's Cross recipient pages. From what I have heard there was some kind of consensus reached a while back for the redirects. I am more concerned about edits like these [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] which removed major military badges of a country's official naval armed force, without any type of discussion or consensus. -O.R.Comms 17:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that such removals (your diffs) also need consensus. Could you please point out where the consensus about the redirects was achieved? The removal of pages through redirects could be fine if no one objects. If anyone objects this needs to be an AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
No doubt K.e.coffman can advise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, he gave this link, but it does not mean redirecting pages about notable people (that would be also against the policy). I simply think some of these people satisfy WP:GNG. And frankly, that was a ridiculous discussion. How about redirecting all pages for recipients of Red Banner? Well, I certainly do not like people who are subjects of these pages, and my political bias tells "delete". However, we are creating an information resource here, and these pages provide important information, so this should be "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I think if there are cases of well known German soldiers, with several references, books about them, or they have been portrayed in movies, then there should be no problem having the articles undeleted/restoring those that were blanked. Not too long ago, there was an effort to blank several German submariners, but there was no protest restoring them once it was shown there was plenty of material out there about them (one was actual the basis for a character on "Das Boot"). -O.R.Comms 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll confess ignorance of the notability criteria, to start, but IMO, any sub skipper (in anybody's navy) who earned a top award deserves a page. What's next, deleting pages on Navy Cross winners because they didn't get the Medal of Honor? Pages on anybody who didn't get the Navy Cross? Anybody who didn't get a VC? I'll wager not--they're all on the winning side--but the principle could be applied, & if it's going to be applied to the Germans, it damn well ought to be applied equally. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Part of the issue here is that the editor in question is only focussed on German WWII personnel, not those of other nations. WP:SOLDIER suggests that you'd need to get the Navy Cross twice for there to be an assumption you'd be notable, but basically the general notability guideline applies, which means we need significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. If people can locate that coverage and those sources, these articles can be revived. For example, I've recently written two articles on Australian WWI lieutenant colonels, one of whom only made major during the war. Both clearly meet the GNG, but only one meets SOLDIER (DSO and Bar, both for gallantry). So SOLDIER isn't the be-all-and-end-all, it's just a guide on what is likely to be notable. GNG is the final arbiter. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
There are also two schools of thought about the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross: it was a senior military award for valor, the same as the VC or MOH, and then on the other side there are people who believe it was a useless trinket which Hitler gave out to his minions. I tend to think it was a high level valor award, but others do not and have gone to great lengths to get lists of KC recipients and their articles off of Wikipedia. -O.R.Comms 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree completely with Peacemaker67. What Trekphiler tells is also something reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
O.R. - that is why the articles should be looked at objectively and on a case-by-case basis. As for the removal of the naval military badges/awards, which have now been restored, they should remain as they are notable. I have added RS sources for one and will work on the others, when I have the time. Kierzek (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Were there KCoICs given out that shouldn't have been? Probably. There were more than a few NCs awarded early in the Pacific War for things that didn't merit more than a Bronze Star by any objective criteria. How do we know, today, which are which? How does some passing editor know, without research that isn't warranted? And how do we prevent the casual reader (not editor) from seeing pages on some KC holders & not others, without thinking WP is run by idiots--or worse, by people hostile to Germans, or something? It is nothing like so simple or clear-cut as it looks prima facie. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem with only removing German biographies is that the unjustified awards situation also applies to a lot of top level awards of totalitarian states, like for example the Hero of the Soviet Union. After all, Leonid Brezhnev basically gave himself the award four times for his birthday, and in the same period many senior officers received the title merely for the birthdays. During World War II, for example, Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen all received the title posthumously for actions in the Battle of Moscow, but it was later found that not all of them had died. Stalin cronies like Semyon Budyonny and Kliment Voroshilov also received the Hero of the Soviet Union title during the war, multiple times. Of course, this doesn't invalidate the other 12,000 or so awards, and similar issues with Nazi awards shouldn't affect the existence of the articles. Kges1901 (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There's another issue, somewhat off-point: the changing criteria for getting an award. The U.S. Medal of Honor wasn't always for heroism in action, & there are numerous cases in the late 1800s & into early 1900s of awards for things that, today, might get your name in the paper, but not much more... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that receiving a nations highest award inherently creates notability (regardless). In a Commonwealth system, the various grades of the Knights Cross would be considered as bars or second and subsequent awards. Applying a higher standard to German awards in the Nazi era suggests that a similar level of scrutiny should be applied to all nations - including the US? This is not meant to denigrate the US system of awards but as a counterpoint to the proposition that, if the proponents position is accepted, might lead to a review of CMOH recipient articles? Cinderella157 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The biggest problem, that is often seen in these cases regarding selective targeting of Nazi personnel, award, and rank articles, is that the main perpetrators of the deletion efforts are engaging in this behavior out of a sense of what is right and not that they wish to vandalize or disrupt articles. This is clearly seen since the editors engaging in the behavior normally have countless numbers of positive contributions to Wikipedia, so it is very difficult to call out their behavior since it simply looks like a lack of good faith. What is also enormously frustrating is that such editors frequently will not get the point. Just taking a look at this thread will show that, in that even with nearly a dozen editors repeating support for an article repetitively, the editors wishing to see material removed would simply repeat the same argument over and over again. -O.R.Comms 18:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Battlefield

I have started a draft for the concept of a "Battlefield", but it is really outside my area of expertise. I think, with some help, we could construct a very thorough article. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I found this interesting, potentially useful and also an adjunct to the more modern concept of battlespace such that one concept has led to another. It does rely in its presentation too much on a large quote as a solid block which could be broken down and, in places, summarised and supported by other sources. It could also be made less specific in temporal context. References could be made to ranged weapons or analogous weapons pre-cannon. I wouldn't think that it really needs to grow (much) - just some contextual ties to other "concepts" such as battlespace in particular. Sorry but I don't have sources to add but I might support with copy editing. IMHO FWIIW Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think some coverage on battlefield preservation wouldn't go amiss. European battlefields (especially WWI) and U.S. Civil War battlefields are particularly maintained as "hallowed ground". Here's an interesting article on the philosophy of keeping ground where men fought and died free of modernisation. This would expand on not just what a battlefield is, in its simplest historic context as a fighting zone, but its context as a memorial, since without government intervention to protect them a lot of battlefields just end up becoming private farmland or are at threat of being used for housing or other buildings. — Marcus(talk) 05:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that article. Gettysburg must have changed a lot since I was there 20 years ago. Most notable in this regard is probably Waterloo, where the battlefield was destroyed to create the monument. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Gettysburg has changed, but not in the way you might think. [8] — Marcus(talk) 06:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
♠Rather than rely so heavily on the quote from Rogiat, I'd suggest describing the characteristics desired by commanders for attack or defense. You might mention them in context of actual historic battles, with reference to the impact the ground has. Like (yes) Gettysburg: holding Cemetery Ridge was key. Or Stirling Bridge. Or Arnhem. Or Québec.
♠I'd also say the definition of "battlefield" ignores the fact many very early battlefields were chosen precisely because they were actual fields: destroying an enemy's crops was a big deal. (How much that influences the origin of the term, IDK.) I'd say something about line of sight control of troops, too, until the arrival of field phone & radio (which may be getting OT...).
♠Your mention of naming offers an opportunity to explain how (or why) battles get the names they do: why is it Bull Run in the USA & Manassas in CSA? And why, frex, is it Battle of the Coral Sea, when it wasn't actually fought there? Why are naval battles fought off islands sometimes named for the island, & sometimes (but not always) for the nearest geographical point of the island? (The fighting around Guadalcanal is notorious for this.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The matter of some ACW battles being named after the closest town by the Union, whilst the Confederacy named them afer the nearest river is a curious point. I'd be interested in knowing how that came about, as I don't know of any other war in which battlefields were differently named by each side, where English was the first language for all participants. It's almost like the CSA went out their way to defy the more common practice of naming battles... I wonder if there is any literature on this somewhat petty, though typically southern American, concept. — Marcus(talk) 08:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
In the case of the BrEmpire, there were Battle Nomenclature Committees that met after the Great War and the sequel that gave official names to the battles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an excellent idea for an article, and it's shaping up well. I'd suggest noting though that in most instances the locations where battles were fought aren't preserved in any significant way (as life needs to go on), and at times are deliberately destroyed (for instance, the post-WW2 German Governments destroyed the Siegfried Line and many other Nazi-era fortifications). The Australian frontier wars is also an interesting example - the locations of its battles were rarely recorded much less preserved, and have only started to be memorialised in recent decades. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Arnhem is really good; the Hartenstein Hotel is now a museum. My favourite preserved battlefields worth a look are Borodino and Masada. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Another thought is the Battle of Bosworth Field which is not quite where everybody thought it was. Alansplodge (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with the comment that the article is focussed on the last 200 years and could be expanded out. Battlefields in earlier times were smaller and could be chosen with different criteria in mind. I'd think that the medieval practice of appointing a day and a place for battles should get a mention. It didn't cover the majority of battles but it accounted for some and is an alternative to the strictly military criteria implied in the later quotes. In particular, it fits a notion of battles as a dispute settlement process under divine judgement, which is very different to enlightenment and later thinking. One other medieval point on the naming of battles. Agincourt is so called because it is the name of the nearest castle because, to quote my historical namesake, "All battles" (Henry V) said "ought to take their name from the nearest fortress, village or town ..." which gives us an insight into medieval thinking on battlefield naming. This is lifted, incidentally, entire by Shakespeare in Henry V, so gives the chance to quote him if you wish.
Finally, the quote in the lead does seem a little more romantic than actually defining battlefields as geographical spaces. It might go in a section metaphorical uses of the term though. Monstrelet (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Please, feel free to improve it. I added some commentary (also a block quote) from a text examining ancient Greek battlefield selection, but again all of this is outside my area of expertise. bd2412 T 22:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Judging by the USA/CSA practise, & Henry V, there might be a page just in the systematic naming of battles. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I only included that in the current draft to the extent that battles tend to be named for their rough location, but there is certainly no point in having discussion in this article of battles named for their date or some other historic consequence. bd2412 T 02:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Though Anglo-centric, Foard & Morris (2012) The Archaeology of English Battlefields gives a good over view across periods. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I have returned to this having given a little thought and done some more research. I am concerned that the section choice of battlefield leans too heavily on later military theory. I'll consider drafting a few words on battles at pre-arranged places, such is attested anthropologically as well as later (the Viking Hazelled field, the medieval journee). Others may wish to think about earlier theorists (like Sun Tzu, for example) and their view on the matter. And one trivial point, the redirect to Field of battle just goes to Battlefield disambiguation page, which rather defeats the object of linking them separately as hatnotes. Monstrelet (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
My hope, in bringing this draft here, is that others more versed in the area than myself would apply improvements like those suggested above to the draft. Many hands make light work, so I feel that if everyone participating in the discussion were to make some slight improvements to the draft, it would be ready to move to mainspace in short order. With respect to "Field of battle", that should probably just redirect to this article once it displaces the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 22:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
OK. I added a section and tried a bit of structuring to fit it in logically. Look forward to seeing what others come up with.Monstrelet (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
♠Can I suggest copying this discussion to the talk page there, & continuing there? That seems the more sensible place to discuss improvements.
♠That said, there might be something in adding a mention of a connection to sports. Based on unsourced (& flimsy) recollection from an Ancient Greek history class, I recall the Greeks would select a champion from either side, & victory in the battle (perhaps the war itself) would go to the winner in that contest.
♠Also, IMO, the significance of geography to victory or defeat must be mentioned. Just to mention the obvious example, already offered, of Gettysburg: whoever took Cemetry Ridge first, wins.
♠Gettysburg also illustrates the influence of technology, & the changing value (or influence) of geography is impacted by technology. At Gettysburg, frex, the Federals could have shot Pickett's division to pieces without any artillery, based on the distance Pickett had to cover & the lethal range of the Springfield rifle. Today, with air recce, RPVs, the ability to call in indirect artillery fire, & motorized armor, the value of being on the ridge at the start seems much less important. OTOH, Pripyat Marsh or Qattara Depression acted as "dead zones" for motorized forces, & the An Nafud behind Aqaba seemed like one.
♠That introduces issues of psychology. How many sites were selected because they seemed impregnable, only to fall anyhow? Offhand, I can think of Aqaba, Masada (no mass Zealot suicide, contrary to Josephus), & Monte la Difensa.
♠Are you wishing you hadn't taken this on? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
For those who contributed above, just reporting that the work is progressing and it may be time to add some substance to comments e.g. on naming conventions and on battlefield preservation (which has its own section). Any classical task force folks out there, your knowledge of ancient practice would give a useful dimension (e.g. Greek formalities about holding the field and erecting trophies). Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Trekphiler that this discussion can be moved to the draft talk page. As long as participating editors are watching there, we can transition fairly seamlessly. I also agree that we could have an entirely separate page on the naming of battles. We can start a separate draft for that, or expand the information in this draft until it is substantial enough to be broken out. bd2412 T 16:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

[9] doesn't have a share-alike licence so I think that [10] "In copyright texts and images are made available for non-commercial use only." applies but I'm not sure, I've only used images from Great War texts before. Can anyone enlighten me please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, yes I think you are right, but someone like Diannaa or Nikkimaria might know better. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can't use "non-commercial use only" works, except under fair use - see WP:COMPLIC. However, it seems likely that this tag would apply given the author and date? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
While the map shows events in 1940, we don't know what year it was prepared, so I don't think PD-New Zealand necessarily applies. It's not eligible for fair use either in my opinion, as a user-prepared map could be created fairly easily using open-source maps and some sketching — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I asked on Commons too and they took the same view; the source is a 1961 publication. I don't know how to maps sadly. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Nazi Germany" as name of combatant in WWII articles

Hi, I saw that User:2602:304:B268:EC00:3C6B:7190:A3B2:E24F (contributions) was changing the name of combatant from "Germany" to "Nazi Germany" in a number of articles (example), although seems to have stopped doing so after I encouraged them to discuss the matter first. Could we please reach a consensus as to whether that is advisable or not, and then ensure that any change is implemented in a self-consistent way -- whether that means making similar changes to a lot more other articles, or reverting the changes already made. Thanks.

For what it's worth, my personal view is that the change is inadvisable, because "Nazi Germany" was not the name of the country. The link target pointing to the Nazi Germany article, in combination with the Nazi flag icon, already gives the reader sufficient context that it relates to the Nazi era. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, I have never understood the need for this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I've seen this discussed in various articles, with the consensus always being that 'Germany' should be used, as there was never a country called 'Nazi Germany'. The Nazi period is an era in the history of Germany, and using a different name could readers to misunderstand this. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree there is no reason to add "Nazi" in this context. Samf4u (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I also agree that Germany should be used and this is an example of when a flag icon is useful - to convey the government and era to readers. Kierzek (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Quite a lot of pop-history stuff (at least in English) refers to "Nazi Germany" or uses "Nazis" interchangeably with WW2-era Germany. But we shouldn't. First, our usual style is to refer to nations by their name and not their political setup. Second, it's historically imprecise (and, arguably, sometimes misleading) - the relationship between armed forces and politics is often complex, particularly so in WW2-era Germany. Saying "Nazi divisions" or "Nazi aircraft" or what have you mis-states the relationship between the Heer or Luftwaffe and the Nazi party. Thirdly, this language is often tied up with the heroic narrative of WW2 in Britain (and I guess the USA as well), and we should usually avoid the rhetoric of heroism. The Land (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting renaming the article Nazi Germany? Because it is hard to see how we are happy to use that title for the Germany of that period with that set of boundaries, yet it shouldn't be used as a title for a link or description within other articles. Just what should it be called instead? "Germany" is far too vague. Deutsches Reich, Großdeutsches Reich or Third Reich would be possibilities too, but COMMONNAME would seem to favour the current. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No, but this is also apples and oranges. Nazi Germany is often called that, the Nazi German Luftwaffe is not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The Nazi era is a bit unusual, so references to "Nazi Germany" in text wouldn't be out of bounds, but in the infoboxes, IMO you're begging for changing the U.S. to "Republican U.S." or Britain to "Labour UK"... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:58 & 21:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Only talking about this in the context of combatant naming in the info box. Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Understood, & agree (more/less). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
agreed - because, by the same token we don't use the term "Stalinist Russia" or "Democratic USA" when referencing those WW2 combatants, so lets stay consistent Philby NZ (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I probably hadn't thought about it too much till now but we should use the correct name of countries. It could still link to Nazi Germany when referring to the country from 1933 to 1945 -- this is an occasion when linking a country makes sense (we don't generally link modern nation states). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that Communist Russia exists as a disambiguation page. I agree with Hawkeye7 about avoiding the use of Nazi Germany. I usually run across this in a context in which even Germany would not be appropriate based on WP:OVERLINK. As for the name of the article, My preference would be Third Reich, rather than Nazi Germany. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I generally link Nazi Germany rather than leaving it unlinked as we do with current states, and usually pipe Nazi Germany to German/y when linking. The same applies to Kingdom of Italy/Fascist Italy, which should just be Kingdom of Italy or just Italy. I must admit I have had a few FAs slip through with Nazi Germany unpiped, so this is a good reminder to go through and pipe it where appropriate. Per a different discussion, this is one place where infoboxes benefit from flagicons. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
IMO, that's the best option: show it's a particular Germany (or particular period) without going overboard. (A bit like using a period Canadian flag.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The Nazi period is a bit more distinctive than a change between a USA Democratic Party administration vs a Republican Party administration. The distinction would be more like differentiating between the Union of the USA and the Confederacy of the USA during the American Civil War. The USSR was a very different country to Imperial Russia of the Tsarist era, or to the Russia of today. Germany is a fairly recent country compared to France or Britain. The Imperial Germany of WW1 was quite different from the Nazi Germany of WW2. West Germany of the Cold War period was again a vastly different country to the Germany of the Nazi period. The unified Germany of today is vastly different to the West Germany of the Cold War period. If you are referring to Nazi Germany, it makes sense to say so. Surely the guiding principle should be more clarity rather than less clarity? If we are writing about Nazi Germany, why would we want to avoid using the label? Wdford (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
And the Kaisers Germany was different form today's Germany, Hell the UK of Gladstone if different from the UK of today. As to France, well do we say "1st empire France" in every article, or "second Republic"? The simple fact is "Nazi" Germany is being treated differently form many other nations that have undergone regime or even styles of governance change. Nor do I agree that not including the word Nazi is unclear, in fact I would say doing so does not make it clear that not all German Generals or Admirals were Nazi's. Nor does it make it clear (and implies the opposite) that the vast bulk of Germans fighting me were not Nazi's. In fact when we then have articles about "good Germans" we only add to the confusion if it turns out those "good Germans" were servicemen (how can a Nazi be good we could ask ourselves).Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the reference to "Democratic US" is about parties in government, it's about the form of government. Just like Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany isn't the name of the country, it is an intersection of the type of government and the country. The situations where it might be useful to make the distinction between the Germany's is where a person had an allegiance to a series of Germany's, like the German Empire, then (perhaps) the Weimar Republic, then Nazi Germany. In an infobox, for example, with the years of allegiance noted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Just an aside: the analogous situation with the US would be the difference between the governments under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789 for you non-Americans out there) and under the Constitution. Both would simply be called the United States of America. I don't see much of a need to differentiate between most of the Germanies (East and West being the obvious exception). Parsecboy (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Either German (with or without a link to the article Nazi Germany), or perhaps Third Reich (because of the Anschluss the state incorporate the territories of Second German Reich and Austria). Using Nazi Germany seem to me to be an example of Godwin's law so Let the facts speak for themselves. AFAIK the term "Nazi Germany" became popular in the English speaking world in the early cold war period when the Western Allies wanted Germany to rearm and so needed to pretend that "our Germans" are nothing to do with those nasty "Nazi Germans". It was also a statement that fitted with the conservative mainstream in Germany during the 50's and 60's and was in part of the reasons for the political disenchantment in Germany by the post-war generation that in the late 60's that lead in extremis to Baader-Meinhof terrorism. I remember a German woman of that generation once telling me "What did you do in the war daddy?", was not something children in Germany asked (So no "Great Generation" for Germans). -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to flags, mentioned above, {{Flagcountry}} is useful for targeting the link and displaying a different name. {{flagcountry|Nazi Germany}} produces  Germany. Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Lost Squadron

Deleted article text

The Lost Squadron is an extremely well-kept legend within the U.S. Army pertaining to the "loss" of the members and colors of a cavalry squadron (equivalent in size to an infantry battalion) at West Point, NY.

In 1958, the 4th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment was reassigned to the United States Military Academy at West Point alongside the 1st Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment for the purpose of conducting garrison duty, guard duty, and cadet field training. Over time, soldiers and officers were reassigned without replacement. By 1972, the unit was defunct, but never officially deactivated. With no one remaining in the unit after 1972, the squadron colors went missing and the few former unit members and academy graduates who know of the squadron's presence at the Academy speculate various locations where the colors could be hidden. The 1st Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment remains in service at West Point in the same role to this day without interruption.

In January 2006, there was a very subtle clue about the mystery. In that month's edition of Soldiers Magazine (a U.S. Army publication) a centerfold poster listed each battalion and squadron in the Regular Army. From the 1st Cavalry Regiment, there were an unequaled seven squadrons listed in active service attached to the various Brigade Combat Teams throughout the world--1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th. The 4th Squadron was conspicuously absent from this list, and no deactivation or colors-casing ceremony was ever conducted.[1] As such, the squadron remains on the rolls of the active army, but remains lost.

References

  1. ^ Soldiers Magazine, January 2006, pg. 56-59, archived at http://soldiers.dodlive.mil/
  • Since beginning this thread, BilCat's link to Lost Squadron has changed to a different article and could create confusion. I have pasted the deleted article above in the collapsed box for clarity.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A user has created the unsourced Lost Squadron. I have no idea if anything in it is true, but it reads like a secret-history hoax of some sort. Should this be CSDed as a hoax, or PRODded/AFDed? - BilCat (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Frankly looks like an attempt to create an Eagle of the ninth style mystery, and using Wikipedia to do it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
During a brief search I found the 4th Squadron of the 1st Cavalry Regiment was redesignated as 4th Battalion, 4th Cavalry on May 1, 1966. On December 29, 1966 it was redesignated as 4th Squadron, 1st Cavalry. Found no history after this. Obviously if some solid references can't be shown the article can't survive. Samf4u (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
You had more luck then me, I could not find even this much.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not a hoax, it's completely true, according to many U.S. Army sources I've looked at over the years. See for example http://baummil.org/arm-cav.html#1. But there's a way we handle U.S. Army cavalry regiments (consolidating all information under the regimental title), and we work by the formal name of the organisation. I'll merge the text to 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Buckshot. I had no clue, which I why I asked here. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been searching and searching since I saw this a few days ago but coming up empty-handed. I have read the deleted article. Would there have been a color casing ceremony when they were redesignated into the 4th Cavalry Regiment? Where would those colors have gone at that time? Presumably, for the portion of 1966 they would have had new, different colors for 4th Cavalry and then in December they would have had a color casing for that set? (Where did that set go?) And it is presumed that they received their old colors back? I see that we don't have a Color casing ceremony article. I haven't seen these colors, so do they exist in photos or drawings from their earlier history?
Are there any project members that have access to the West Point library and archives? If not, this might be worth an email to see about getting one of their librarians involved. Records and photos may exist. It would be a win for this project anytime any of the military academy's librarians and archivists participate. Has the project ever issued invitations to any of those to join?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Might be the way to go, they must (at least) have a record of what units served there. But even then, there is nothing about the 4th (squadron) before this date (1958). I am wondering if this is a case of Chinese whispers.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Fwiw, I just created Casing of the Colors as a byproduct of this discussion if anyone wants to help expand and add additional sourcing. Editors are welcome.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone object to replacing the redirect Lost Squadron with a little disambig page pointing to  ? — Stanning (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Add Glacier Girl - which actually google-searches to the top for "lost squadron" (partially due to multiple book titles).Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Disambig page created. What should be done with Talk:Lost Squadron? — Stanning (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy

Hi. I'd like to invite you to Cycle 3 of the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions. This cycle is focused on the challenges identified by the research that was conducted in collaboration with experts, current/potential partners, and current/potential readers of the Wikimedia projects. Every week until the end of July, one challenge will be discussed, so if you're not interested in - say - challenge 1, don't forget to have a look on the page later this month.

If you want to ask a question, ping me or read the FAQ. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Any Royal Navy experts out there?

I think there's been some silliness in recent months, at HMS Ocean (L12). Edit summaries like Fixed the info AGAIN ban the person who makes fake info and keeps copying stuff are a good indicator of this. Can someone who know's what they're talking about review the edit history and check that the current version is OK? Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, HMS Ocean is still on active duty - this article (published a week ago) states that Ocean is scheduled to be deployed to the Mediterranean later this year, not something one does with a decommissioned ship. This press release states that Ocean is to be in Sunderland three days from now before going on said deployment to the Med, again, not something a decommissioned ship does. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I just reverted edits to USS Comstock (LSD-19) by the IP (Special:Contributions/78.155.230.32) who appeared to be trashing articles in addition to HMS Ocean.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks guys. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Texas Navy flags

Further information: List of shipwrecks in 1839 § 10 May

I'm not sure whether or not the flag is correct for the Republic of Texas Navy ship Zavala. According to Template:country data Republic of Texas, the flag in use by 1839 was Republic of Texas, but the Texas Navy article states that Texas was the official flag of the Texas Navy from 25 January 1839 until the navy was absorbed into the United States Navy. {{Texas Navy}} uses the latter flag. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This site http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-tx.html#mar has a bit on info. on Republic of Texas and Republic of Texas. — Marcus(talk) 09:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Mjroots According to Portal of Texas, Texas Navy flag, the File:Naval ensign of Texas.svg designed for the Texas Navy in 1836. The book this comes from is Texas Navy, written by the United States Dept. of the Navy. The Republic of Texas flag (the Lone Star flag, second flag you posted above) would not have been the Texas Navy flag anymore than the United States flag is the Flag of the United States Navy. — Maile (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66:, so {{Texas Navy}} has it wrong then? Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
{{Texas Navy}} has it correct on the upper flag (not the same one you show above). The Republic of Texas flag was indeed designed and approved in 1839, but that was the Republic's flag. The naval ensign would have been its own flag. — Maile (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
So the lower flag on the template needs to be changed to Republic of Texas, and the shipwreck list has the correct flag. To be clear, I'm talking about the flag flown from the stern of the vessel, not necessarily the official Navy Flag. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hold on. WhisperToMe do you have access to information that can clearly define this? — Maile (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66: I may have access to some databases from my employer. Is there a particular article you need, or do you need me to search databases for something? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
"I'm talking about the flag flown from the stern of the vessel, not necessarily the official Navy Flag" Which would be the Texas jack, the Republic's flag, no? (I can't resist saying, "Texas has a navy?" ;p ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
"had" a Navy. The Republic of Texas was its own independent country before being annexed to the United States. — Maile (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the flag on {{Texas Navy}}. Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
"The Republic of Texas was its own independent country" I do know that (& about the six flags that flew over the territory, too). "Had" wasn't funny... The Unknown Comic it's in the bag 06:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Change to the sfn template

For those who use shortened footnotes {{sfn}} and sometimes use {{harvid}} to define the full citation ref field when citing newspapers and news websites etc where there is no author, there has been a recent change to sfn which has meant that if you use the full date of the paper or online news article, it throws up an ampersand between the first and second fields. This change to the code was apparently done to accommodate situations where the citation had multiple authors but no year, and this change in display of sfn that use a date rather than a year was an unintended consequence. For an example of how the change impacts on sfn, see Kragujevac massacre fn 77. There is discussion ongoing at Template talk:Sfn#Query re: loose ampersand using sfn and harvid. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

List of wars involving Bulgaria

List of wars involving Bulgaria got raided by wild Bulgarian nationalists the moment protection expired. Please take action.--Catlemur (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

How do you know these IPs are being used by a Bulgarian nationalist? From what I can tell, all the IPs are located in Michigan, Detroit, and apparently there are a lot of Macedonian Americans living there. But wouldn't a Bulgarian nationalist be more likely to edit current politically-related pages rather than a trivial list of wars or youth football team results? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it doesn't make sense to me why they're focusing on low-key articles, so I don't know how you've reached the conclusion they're a Bulgarian nationalists. I also suspect it's just one person with a semi-static-IP making these edits, even though you used the plural. — Marcus(talk) 08:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Looking are the articles tone tells me its a piece of puffery (such as classing as victories defeats or the mere fact it just has "victory" rather the "Bulgarian Victory").Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Help needed at the Reference Desk please

Somebody has asked "When was the last US military route march?", presumably in an operational context rather than a training exercise. Can anyone help please? Alansplodge (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

FAC review for 6th Mass

Hello all. Not sure if this is the appropriate place for this, but looking for any suggestions/help regarding a military history FAC review which I'm concerned might be withering on the vine. 6th Massachusetts Militia has three supports, no opposition. Many thanks for the support received from key editors here! There's been no activity in recent days and not sure if there's enough for consensus. Any thoughts/suggestions appreciated. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Historical Perspective 2: although Ealdgyth's source review is not an opposition, the criticisms have not been addressed. Responded to, yes. Good luck! — fortunavelut luna 12:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thank, you. I'll work on that. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at Rotterdam Blitz

Additional opinions would be appreciated. The discussion can found here:

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day all, some may have noticed that the standard duplicate link detector script is playing up. It is now counting links in the lead, which it didn't do before. As a result, it is throwing up false positives. It hasn't been fixed, so those that have the script installed might want to change it on their common.js page to a tweaked version available at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, which I've been using for about a month now. It is an improvement IMO, as it marks the first link with a green box and subsequent ones with a red box. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for passing this on, PM, that has been bugging me for awhile. Just installed it and and found a duplicate link that I'd missed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks also, I assumed it was deliberate.Keith-264 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

John Clancy

I need a sanity check, please. I've been working on the pages about the men awarded the Medal of Honor for the Battle of Wounded Knee. Enter John Clancy. Clancy enlisted in 1887 at the age of 19. Wounded Knee was in 1890; he was a musician. Clancy was awarded his Medal in 1892 and was dishonorably discharged in 1894. None of the records give a middle initial. End of story, except:

  • The only awardee of the Medal named Clancy at Hall of Valor is John E. Clancy (October 25, 1869 – July 11, 1932); he was supposedly born in New York City and buried at Fort Riley Kansas.
  • The only John Clancy I can find born on October 25, 1869 in the ["New York, New York City Births, 1846-1909," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:27BC-297 : 20 March 2015), John Patrick Clancy, 25 Oct 1869; citing Manhattan, New York, New York, United States, reference cn 42469 New York Municipal Archives, New York; FHL microfilm 1,322,024. NYC birth records] is John Patrick Clancy.
  • The are John Clancys in the U.S. Army enlistment records; some are musicians or trumpeters and were members of the 7th Cavalry.
  • The John E. Clancy buried at Fort Riley (died July 11, 1932) is listed as a first sergeant of E/1st Arty.

How far can we go to construct one man's page out of these records? I think I'm pushing the limits of synthesis here.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you already have these?
  • Nebraska State Historical Society The Medals of Wounded Knee lists him as "John E Clancy (musician)"
  • Congressional Medal of Honor Society
  • Medals of honor issued by the War department, up to and including October 31, 1897, with laws, orders, and regulations relative to the medal, the ribbon to be worn with the medal, and the knot to be worn in lieu of the medal. Govt. print. off. 1897. p. 30-31 – via Hathi Trust.
— Maile (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree, you're pushing the limit. When you're forced to rely exclusively on primary sources, I would posit that the article isn't worth writing. Let an historian decide to study the subject and write, at which point we can cite the resulting book or article. That said, I did find this and this. Honestly, it looks like this was a bullshit awarding of the MoH, not unlike many of those that were later rescinded. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree that the usefulness of the article is limited, but as long as it fits into WP:SOLDIER, Clancy gets a mention. WP:SOLDIER, pre-dates my involvement here but it's possible that awards of the Medal before the "above and beyond" phrase was added to the qualifications should be re-addressed. Before I started this section, I self-assessed Clancy as a stub. I doubt that anyone will write a biography of the guy. I simply can't equate "John Clancy," "John E. Clancy," and "John P. Clancy." I'm going to leave the article as it stands; of course it's not mine.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you've thought of this already, but...if he was DD'd, wouldn't there be a record, including full name & reasons, plus a capsule of his service record? (Where you'd find that, IDK... The Army website?) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Germanicus needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Germanicus; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest just leaving it for a bit, the primary editor is doing a bit of a rewrite to make it predominantly reliant on secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Stripping pennant numbers from ship article titles

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Stripping pennant numbers? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Battlefield#Requested move 18 July 2017.

A move request relevant to this project has been filed at Talk:Battlefield#Requested move 18 July 2017, requesting that the current disambiguation page be moved to make way for Draft:Battlefield to be moved to "Battlefield", and for "Battleground" to redirect there. The move request discussion will run for seven days. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Operation Deadstick

I have edited this article over the last few days, and gave it a bit of a spring clean. I see that the editor, who got it to GA-status, is no longer active. I feel that a few interested editors, who are able to cite a few things and maybe flesh out the analysis section could easily get this article to FA status. Any takers? Regards 66.77.160.179 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Junayd of Aydın needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Junayd of Aydın; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Linking within an article question

I've just repaired a link here Template:Campaignbox Passchendaele for Nieuport, 10–11 July [[Operation Hush#Unternehmen Strandfest|Nieuport, 10–11 July]] and it works but when the screen loads, it lands a few lines below the header. Is it my laptop or have I missed something? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine on my screen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Notelist query

Does anyone know why notes in {{notelist}} format are forming columns instead of rows? Thanks Keith-264 (talk)

{{notelist}} uses {{reflist}} which uses the parser function {{#tag:references}}. It used to be that using {{reflist}} was more-or-less equivalent to using <references />. Recently, a new parameter has been added to {{#tag:references}}, |responsive= (related to the new tag <references responsive />). When {{reflist}} does not specify the number of columns or a column width, |responsive= is enabled so {{reflist}} will attempt to render the list in columns.
So, {{notelist}} will render in columns because it uses {{reflist}}. You can override the automatic columns by specifying a width: for example {{notelist|40em}}; you can disable the automatic columns by writing {{notelist|1}}.
Yes, none of this appears to be documented. Yet. There is some discussion of this here.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much; opinions differ but I really don't like prose in columns. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Copied to Template talk:Notelist Keith-264 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that an edit like this will fix it, but I need something to test it on - an article with several notes that are presently shown as columns but which should be shown full width. No example pages were given above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Battle of Caen was in columns but I've already altered it. I'll look for some more. Keith-264 (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Battle of Villers-Bocage Here's one Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That uses {{Reflist|group=nb}} - I need one that uses {{notelist}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Apols I was careless. Keith-264 (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've gone through the Normandy articles but there aren't any more I can find. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Introduction to Whataboutism

There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the introduction to the article Whataboutism.

You may comment if you wish, at Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject. Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting adoption of a GAN

I took on a review of an article, Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, without realizing that the nominator both was quite new, with about a dozen edits, and had not made any edits to the page itself. The page is promising, but has some severe problems with dead links. If anyone has the time and is willing to adopt the nomination/fix the issues, please let me know. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: I'll have a go at the dead links. Is there any sort of timetable I need to be aware of? Mojoworker (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mojoworker: None. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Fighter Aircraft

There is a Request for Comment at Talk:Fighter_aircraft#RFC_about_fighter_effectiveness_section

Please feel free to comment if you wish. - Nick Thorne talk 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Help needed on Operation Tonga

I note that the editors who are responsible for writing the majority of this article and promoting it to GA are no longer active. I have done a spring cleaning, however there are a few areas that need work in order for the article to be able to rightly maintain its GA status (or be promoted by fellow editors). Can anyone help in the following areas?

  • German casualties: They are currently stated to be an estimated 400 dead and an estimated 400 captured. However, no source is given. Does anyone have a source on German losses attributed to Tonga?
  • Harclerode: the reference section lists two books attributed to the author, but none of the inline citations identify which book is used or if both are. Does anyone have access to Harclerode's Go To It! The Illustrated History of the 6th Airborne Division and Wings of War – Airborne Warfare 1918–1945, and can confirm if one or both books were used?
I believe, based off the Battle of Merville Gun Battery, which is the correct source; so I will move the other into a see also section. However, it would appreciated if another editor would be able to vet this if they have access to either of these sources.66.77.160.179 (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Analysis of the operation: This section is lacking in information regarding the impact of Tonga, can anyone help flesh it out?
  • Journal info: Can anyone help complete the info for the "Overlord and Operational Art" journal entry? We are missing the publisher and location, as well as any jstor/doi/issn info  Done

Regards, 66.77.160.179 (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I was able to take care of the last point but am no use on the rest unfortunately. Anyone else? Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you 66.77.160.179 (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional request:

  • Additional photos to illustrate the article. In particular: a photo of the 22nd Independent Parachute Company in Normandy (if possible), of the 3rd Parachute Brigade (8th and 9th Para, and the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion), and perhaps something of the assault on Merville?

Once again, thanks 66.77.160.179 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of proposed global replacement

The version to be replaced
The replacement

There is a proposal on Commons to globally replace an image, which is relevant to this WikiProject. Please voice your opinion at Commons here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I commented there. Basically the idea goes against WP:Commons own policy against blanket changes to images (outside of a bit of cropping and contrast adjustment) so I don't think it will have much traction. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@GraemeLeggett: I appreciate it. Is there anyone here who specializes in Japanese military awards and ribbons? I really know nothing about them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for RAF Lossiemouth needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for RAF Lossiemouth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Philip Baxter needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Philip Baxter; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bomarc'd

Can I get some neutral opinion? I've got User:Andy Dingley calling the Bomarc a ballistic missile here and implying it's a SAM here. Now, it was intended to destroy bombers, but I've only ever heard it called a cruise missile. Can somebody weigh in on the Arrow talk page & straighten him out? I'm getting really tired of arguing with him, about every edit I make. Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Just how far are you going to canvass this?
Bomarc was a SAM. It was never a ballistic missile. It was never a cruise missile. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, IDK, I was thinking WP Aviation, WP Canada, WP United States, WP Technology, WP History, WP Energy, WP Acronyms... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Most heavy SAMs can also be fired in a ballistic mode against ground targets as a very secondary role, however this is not their main application. Old SA2s have been used for this purpose recently in Libya, Yemen, annd Syria. I do not know if BOMARC had a ground mode, but it is quite likely given the weight class.Icewhiz (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Y'know, Andy, maybe you should look at the specs. Ramjet engine, range 400km. Doesn't sound like a SAM to me, like Enzian or Standard or...pick one you like. And then there's that pesky CIM-10 designator. You might call it a SAM. WP might call it a SAM. DoD didn't call it a SAM: RIM-2, SAM; MIM-3 Nike Ajax, SAM. RIM-8, SAM. DoD had a designation system for a reason. But you're convinced I can't be right about anything, aren't you? And I should stop bothering you with facts? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Per 1962 United States Tri-Service missile and drone designation system and sources found there, the "I" indicates "intercept-aerial" which means the targets were aircraft. The C, M, and R indicate the launch environment, in these cases coffin, mobile, and ship-launched, all of which are usually ground based. Taken together with the "I", these are all SAMs. Sorry, but the CIM-10 Bomarc was a SAM, as it's article indicates. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, y'know, when the "IM"s kept coming back, it started me thinking "Intercept Missile"... So I goofed. I have felt stupider, but I can't think when. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
BOMARC was produces prior to the tri-service designation system and before SAMs, as a concept caught on. They were treated initially as pilotless aircraft. However their main function (regardless of any possible secondary ground mode that could be used in a pinch) was to function as a SAM. The SAM moniker really caught on around the Vietnam war or thereabouts. But there really should be no argument, that the BOMARC was one of the first generation SAMs (along with the Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, SA-1, SA-2, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
  • Create articles on any day of any month
  • Cover women and their works in any field of interest
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
  • Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, Peacemaker67, following the previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations (it might contain some blocked editors who I will remove later). You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?

Username Recent Edits within Military history Recent Edits in Wikipedia First Edit Date Most Recent Edit Date
Nonemre78 (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-15 2017-7-15
Cabowen2 (talk · contribs) 1 2 2017-7-19 2017-7-19
Alphagurder (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-17 2017-7-17
AKi12 (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-14 2017-7-14
Anaruna (talk · contribs) 329 1467 2009-9-8 2017-7-18
Zwerubae (talk · contribs) 235 797 2014-10-18 2017-7-20
Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 209 11677 2011-8-8 2017-7-23
JF42 (talk · contribs) 199 962 2007-3-12 2017-7-19
KreyszigB (talk · contribs) 273 2005 2012-7-21 2017-7-15
Jerryntcjc (talk · contribs) 207 537 2013-5-27 2017-7-20
Milexpert101 (talk · contribs) 315 789 2012-9-28 2017-7-22

Bobo.03 (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day. Jsnsjsns and Thetruth16 are blocked. I suggest inviting anyone who has a couple of hundred edits in the Milhist area and has edited in the last two weeks. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeh, I will tune the system to remove blocked editors in the future. Other than that (enough edits in Milhist and be active) - we right now select editors who made most edits in Milhist in their most recent 500 edits and who were active in the past week - what makes for a good candidate new editor for your project? Some of our ideas: they've edited lots of articles within your scope; they've edited talk pages of some of your existing members; they've edited articles on topics relevant to your project. Which of these you think are important and any other criteria you think would be useful? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Can I just clarify Bobo.03, are you suggesting automating the invitation process based on set parameters? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think there might be two steps here. One is about how to recommend editors to the project, for instance, what type of information would you like to know about the new editors to make your recruiting decision, or what recommendation strategies we would implement. The other one is about how to execute the invitation process, for instance, it can be fully automated like a bot will send invitations to suitable candidate editors every month, semi-automated like a single "button" to generate an invitation to a candidate, or just managing the invitation process totally manually. Those are just the thoughts and concerns we have when designing the system. I guess I was asking the first part, and you were asking the second part. Does this answer your question? Hope it makes sense to you :) Bobo.03 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey Bobo.03, this certainly sounds very interesting. Please could you clarify, which items that you have are thoughts and which items are concerns? MPS1992 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey MPS1992, Thanks for your interest!. Yeh, for instance, the three automation approaches mentioned above are the ideas/thoughts we have. Also, we have different recommendation strategies to identify new editors to the project. Our major concern is if our proposed ideas would work our for your project and help recruit new editors. More specifically, for instance, which of our design proposals would you prefer? Bobo.03 (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: may want to chime in here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day, we've done invitations manually on the whole, which has a tendency to miss opportunities. I think we need to be careful for whatever solution is not seen as spam, but overall I think this could be a good idea. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I would observe that doing it manually adds a personal touch even if a tool helps identify opportunities. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that seems a fair call. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions, Cinderella157, AustralianRupert! I agree that sending personalized messages manually on Wikipedia in general is more responsive, though there are lots of templates available floating around. Any suggestion regarding what makes a good candidate editor for your project to recruit? Bobo.03 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd probably just go with a monthly automatically generated list (posted on the co-ord page, probably) that cross references editors working in Milhist space against those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members. I would suggest that the list be limited to those that edited two or more Milhist tagged articles in the month (so as to reduce the number of hits for editors who just coincidentally edited a Milhist article), who were not already listed as a member. A co-ordinator, or indeed anyone else, could then decide who to invite to the project with a personalised message, or a templated one, and they could then do that with a manual post. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Rupert, a report posted to the coord page would do the trick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, AustralianRupert! I think they are good suggestions! We will work on them, and yes, in the future, we could make it in a report format in the coord page. Bobo.03 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Just so we're up to speed, Bobo.03, when you refer to we, is there a group working on such things? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, couple researchers are working on this - I am the main leader, my mentors, and some researchers in Wikimedia Foundation :) I will try to push it ready to launch in the next one or two weeks. Bobo.03 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Algerian War

There's a proposal at Talk:Algerian War#Proposal on how to cover the result of the war in the infobox. More community input would likely be beneficial. Huon (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

AVG vs. Flying Tigers in the List of WWII Flying Aces

Presently, most of American Volunteer Group pilots appearing on the List of World War II flying aces are linked through to American Volunteer Group, a Start-class article with a point to the Flying Tigers article. A couple others point directly to the Flying Tigers page. These should be listed in a uniform fashion. Honestly, the Flying Tigers article is better than the American Volunteer Group article. Is there any opposition keeping the squadron designation on the Flying Aces list as 'AVG' but pointing the Wikilink to the Flying Tigers page? Cheers, Finktron (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Update needed at USS Antietam (CG-54)

Stars and Stripes has obtained, via an FIOA request, the report on the USS Antietam's grounding, https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/navy-probe-blames-captain-s-judgment-in-uss-antietam-grounding-1.480879 . I have tagged the article as needing an update and giving a heads up here. Safiel (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Appomattox Court House National Historical Park the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Appomattox disambiguation page?

Discussion on the above topic is currently active at Talk:Appomattox#Requested move 2 August 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Little help?

Hi all,

Currently working on the 18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article. Does anyone have any sources they can use, to provide some context, for Major-Generals Thomas Gerald Dalby and Lionel Hugh Knightley Finch? It would be nice, if possible, to explain why both left the division after such a short period of time; I do believe they both retired, and that is why.

Any help is much appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Supplement to the London Gazette, 12 December 1939: "The undermentioned relinquish their appts:- Maj.-Gen. T. G. Dalby, C.B., D.S.O.. • (22544), ret. pay (Res. of Off.),' as Comdr. 30th Nov. 1939...". He seems to have been called back out of retirement, perhaps as a stopgap, or maybe wasn't up to the job. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Dalby was approaching 60 at this time had already retired (in 1937 and was brought back as a temporary Commander at the end of August[11] - the date coincides with the mobilisation of the TA - so I think it was a case of a Major General was needed to fill an appointment for a while. With Finch following him through the Gazetee, at the outbrak of the war he was Director of Recruiting and Organization then became Deputy Adjutant-General in March 1940.[12] 9 June - 14 July he is made a commander,[13][14] this I suspect was the aftermath of the Battle of France and the British Army reorganising and expecting a German invasion at any time - put an experienced general officer in charge of a TA division still in training but based in one of the likely invasion zones, East Anglia. From there he went to a special appointment until he retired in January 1943. All supposition though I'm afraid. Nthep (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit page tampering

Is anyone else suffering from the usual edit tools disappearing when trying to edit, then reappearing (maybe) if the purge button is clicked before editing? I've had a look in Preferences and found "CharInsert: add a toolbar under the edit window for quickly inserting wiki markup and special characters (troubles?)" and clicked troubles but the remedy instructions aren't helping. Can anyone translate them into literate English pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have Firefox? The answer is yes, and you can check any number of threads on Village Pump. That and other visual things have been happening to me since the end of June. It's not just Wikipedia, but also happening on Commons and Wikisource as changes get rolled out. For whatever reason, Firefox doesn't like the changes. So, usually for me to get things to show up, I have to do one or all of the following: (1) Refresh page (2) Click Preview (3) Refresh page. Sometimes several times. It's gotten really bad over on Wikisource. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I have Seamonkey and it began happening tonight. What's it all about? Keith-264 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Technical rollouts from Wikimedia that aren't always compatible with all browsers. You'd find more answers if you'd post over at Village Pump that I linked above. They'll try to help you fix the issue, if it's possible. — Maile (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer review for Supermarine Spitfire

G'day, please be advised that a peer review has been requested for the Supermarine Spitfire article. Interested members can take part in providing feedback on the peer review page, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Supermarine Spitfire/archive3. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

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) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Several templates that may be of interest to this project have been nominated for discussion. They can be found here:

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Tyler Rogoway RS?

Is Tyler Rogoway [15] RS? regards Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Follow the link. Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I did, and it tells me nothing about him, so who is he?Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
It would also be helpful to clarify which article(s) by this person are being used/proposed to be used to source which Wikipedia articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I mean his site as a general source.Mztourist (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't see anything about Rogoway on the website other than a list of his articles. There is no editorial board link for the website I can find, and I'm not aware of any published works by him. I'd say no at this stage, unless I'm missing something. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the guy who ran Foxtrot Alpha - [16]. And now runs "the Warzone" at "the Drive". I would consider him a RS - but low quality. Sort of the same level as WarIsBoring or Popular Mechanics. For contemporary issues - sometimes this is what you've got. Coverage on these outlets tends to cover popular subjects.Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure about oversight at "the drive" (which is mainly automotive, with "the warzone" being a military sub-brand), but they do have editors: [17].Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

As above. It does have an editorial board and it is copyright to Time Inc. So it would be comparable with any other reputable news source or magazine. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you link to where it says it has an editorial board please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
[18] ? Sammy D III (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems a bit thin to me on the military side, clearly cars are one thing, military stuff is another. Rogoway seems to be the only one with military interests, and seems more of a fan than a serious military technology journalist. While he might pass muster for lower class articles, I doubt he'd get over the line for a Milhist A-Class article or FA where sources will be scrutinised closely. In this realm, I'd expect a journalist who has been published in Jane's or Australian Aviation (for example) etc. I don't want to be too hard on new media, but thedrive.com seems a bit fannish, so there it is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
More or less, agree on quality level (though I would be a bit more forgiving for A-Class for sourcing some aspects). "The Warzone" seems to run as a mostly separate sub-site/brand of the "the Drive" - with Rogoway and Joseph Trevithick ([19]) being the only (or main) writers. He does have a previous track record at Foxtrot Alpha and at AviationIntel and has been cited at theaviationist.com (e.g. [20]). But yes - "a bit fannish" would sum this all up - but he's been a writer in the fannish realm of aviation for quite a while.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider any of those websites to be the high quality sources needed at GA or higher classes. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
My comment was quite qualified (not categorical) - "comparable with any other reputable news source or magazine". As a journalistic source, I would think it to be quite reliable but not beyond that - it is not an academic source by any means and its use would depend on the context. To quote Major General Joe Bloggs - yes. For a critical analysis of a weapons system - reserved (depending on the context). To analyse why Germany lost the war ... That is another question! IMHO Cinderella157 (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Cinderella157. There are some content questions - e.g. unit X deployed to Y this year, or weapon system X (with detailed description) was sold/seen in country Y this year, or F-16 are using a SR-71-like paint scheme as aggressors ([21]) - that sometimes all you have is journalistic coverage (If it is a major country - then you'll get a think tank report eventually - but sometimes with a year's lag and quoting the journalistic coverage). Jane's doesn't always pick this up (in a timely sense), and is partially paywalled. I've used the war zone specifically for content such as this - when their coverage was in depth, in English (which is generally preferred to using foreign language sources), and timely (in the sense it was there when I wrote it) - and typically not for important points in the article - usually for ancillary information. I would definitely not use them for "why the Battle of the Bulge was won by the allies" - the only thing I'd consider touching them for an article like that is for some minor, obscure, but interesting detail - and probably not even that.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Contentious statement on Joan of Arc

Hi, I'm just popping in because I noticed something a little odd on Joan of Arc, details on the talk page and was hoping that someone more knowledgeable might be able to help out. Thanks! Mehmuffin (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

War Is Boring as RS

Is War Is Boring considered a reliable source? I was surprised to see that the USS Stark incident article is mostly unsourced and am wondering how much I can rely on this source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought not, but maybe it has just never been discussed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I would view them as a RS. They have an editorial board, info is vetted, etc. A serious journal article or book with a noted author would be stronger - but in some coverage areas WIB is what you've got, particularly with contemporary events. You do need to ignore opinion pieces there (as in other sources).Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I've read warisboring's stuff before; they're pretty good. I would feel fine using it as a source for the Stark incident. I would shy away from political opinion pieces, as Icewhiz warns, but for most other stuff they've been pretty responsible in their coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that War is Boring is a reliable source - at least in its current incarnation. While some of the site's contributors are professional journalists and/or have a good track record of being published in high quality works, its quality control is weak and I've seen some obvious errors in articles and (more importantly) lots of sloppy analysis - its articles tend to be tabloid in nature. Some of the previous incarnations of the site were under the aegis of websites with decent quality control, but since it's moved to being a stand-alone website its standards have become somewhat more lax. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Just looking in passing, it leaves me feeling like it's a blog or fansite, not a serious place. I might read it, but I wouldn't source from it, not without being able to back up the claim. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I follow them regularly - it's a bit beyond that - It is a regular crew of professional journalists (Some of whom may be moonlighting elsewhere). Their podcast is produced with Reuters - [[22]]. Their content also shows up on www.realcleardefense.com. Some of their content is reprints (the National Interest, Historical firearms, and Insight crime IIRC) - other is original. The coverage is "popular" - aiming for a popular readership, but it isn't a blog or fansite. I'd put it on the level of something like Popular Mechanics (which also covers warfare items every once in a while) - their angle, in general, is to cover items that are "cool" (and thus appeal to a a casual reader - including recently movie/game criticisms (opinions)) - but they do have serious coverage as well. They aren't the best source, but they are well beyond a blog and fansite (graphics of their new website aside).Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I think I'll go ahead and use them. There are a couple places where they disagree with the official US version of events, and I think I'll include their version but attribute it to them and note that it differs from the official account. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a matter for the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Kierzek (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Ping Kendall-K1 to make sure they see the above link. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Making a template.

Should I go ahead a template in case I have an idea. In this case, it's for an infobox for military equipment like helmets and vests. Ominae (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Great idea. I suggest you create it in draft space then ask for feedback here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for the late reply, but does anyone know how I go there? Ominae (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You can have a go in your personal sandbox - reached from top of page next to your preferences but see Help:Userspace draft for help starting one and information. For a creation in the Drafts workspace, see Wikipedia:Drafts. I'd suggest you take a copy of the source code for a similar template eg Template:Infobox weapon which would then give you a similar look and feel to other MilHist templates and have a play with that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll see if I have time to do it before I got to Japan with folks for a two-week break. Ominae (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

UK hillforts...

If you're interested in UK hillforts, you might enjoy the new site here - it's an atlas of hillforts, superimposed on satellite imagery, with links to their archaeological summaries and wikidata pages. Rather sharp work by the Universities of Edinburgh and Oxford. They also provide a bibliography here. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

When you said 'superimposed' I was expecting to see lines indicating the shape of the features described - as opposed to orange dots. Not so important when it's on top of an undisturbed hill and the shapes are visible on the satellite view, but would be useful in built up areas. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Military museums and sites in Australia article on Wikivoyage up for featured status

As something a bit different, the Military museums and sites in Australia article I've led the development of on our sister project Wikivoyage has been nominated as a Featured Travel Topic. Comments in the FTT assessment or improvements to the article from Wikipedia editors would be very welcome. In particular, while I've tried to include all the most important military sites in Australia, I may well have missed some - I only realised I'd omitted Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour (a major landmark) a couple of days ago! The article is hopefully also an entertaining read, and includes listings for some submarines in surprising places and a top secret site which you will be arrested for approaching or photographing, but can be easily viewed from commercial aircraft! Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, nice work. Not sure if you want to add the Army Museum at Bandiana (Gaza Ridge Barracks) in the Albury-Wodonga Military Area? It has a large number of vehicles, and logistics corps-specific displays. It also has a very large area devoted to the local 2nd AIF infantry battalion, the 2/23rd. [23][24][25]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Ditto above. I had to scratch my head re Bridges and the other that was returned to Australia for burial - until I realised. You might consider making it more obvious for those of us who are a little slow. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks very good to me. Perhaps consider adding the Maryborough Military & Colonial Museum [26]? Anotherclown (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all - I've made those changes. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Campaignbox question

Template:Campaignbox The Actions of Spring 1916 I'm thinking about adding something linking this to the Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War I). I don't want to list the contents of the Actions box in the Western Front one, because they aren't that significant individually but I would like to add a link from the Western Front campaignbox to the Actions box; can it be done? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tried something, we'll see.Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure that this is a good idea? When readers click the link you added to {{Campaignbox Western Front (World War I)}}, they leave the article that they are reading and land in what could or should be a template documentation page. Perhaps it would be better to create a right and proper page, The Actions of Spring 1916, that has all of the links in {{Campaignbox The Actions of Spring 1916}} with a short paragraph for each ...
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right tho' if you click any of the blues in a campaignbox you leave the article page. I was hoping to leave something in the campaignbox that links to them in a group because the individual articles aren't notable enough. Any other ideas? Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
... if you click any of the blues in a campaignbox you leave the article page. True, but you end up at a real article. That is much preferable to landing at a template documentation page. I don't understand what you mean by: the individual articles aren't notable enough. If that is the case, then why are there articles that match all but the one red-linked article name in {{Campaignbox The Actions of Spring 1916}}?
Perhaps we aren't communicating. I think {{Campaignbox Western Front (World War I)}} should not link to a template documentation page. Instead, you could change the link you added to {{Campaignbox Western Front (World War I)}} to something like:
** [[List of the Actions of Spring 1916|Actions Dec 1915 – Jun 1916]]
then create a list article List of the Actions of Spring 1916 with a section for each of the links that you find in {{Campaignbox The Actions of Spring 1916}}:
Phosgene attack 19 December 1915
Actions of the Bluff, 1916
Hohenzollern Redoubt (1916)
etc
Perhaps, as a start to get things going, transclude the lead from each of those articles into the relevant sections of your new list article. This, I think, can give a broad overview of the 'actions', with links to the main articles (use {{main}}) without astonishing the reader by dropping them into a template documentation page. Am I not making any sense?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I know what you mean but I'm busy on other articles at the mo'. I'll take it out of the WF campaignbox. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Marine fighting Squadron Nine (VF-9M) Airman BGen Alexander Kreiser

I am new to Wikipedia and want to create this Biography before all my information goes to waste. I started a draft Biography of Quantico USMC pioneer Aviator Brigadier General Alexander Kreiser, this has been slow going because I'm just kind of winging here, I would like the help of Military Aviation Buffs and editors to help with my article published. I have done research I have a good amount of material on Squadrons like VF-9M and those Quantico Airmen. there many examples on Wikipedia of Marine Aviators in his early Squadrons those Marine Pilots include:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Minnehahas (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnehahas (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "Christian F. Schilt". Wikipedia. 6 August 2017.
  2. ^ "Lawson H. M. Sanderson". Wikipedia. 16 June 2017.
  3. ^ "Roy Geiger". Wikipedia. 10 May 2017.
  4. ^ "Ross E. Rowell". Wikipedia. 29 April 2017.
  5. ^ "Vernon E. Megee". Wikipedia. 21 June 2017.
  6. ^ "Ford O. Rogers". Wikipedia. 27 February 2017.
  7. ^ "Frank Schwable". Wikipedia. 22 April 2017.
  8. ^ US Air Services. 1931.
  9. ^ "US Air Services". 1931. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  10. ^ Elliott, Usmc Major John M.; Elliott, John M. (2012). Marine Aviation at Quantico 1918-1941. Outskirts Press. pp. 92, 111, 112, 154. ISBN 9781432778279.
IMO. he gets a page just for making brigadier general; there are a lot of generals who don't have therm, but that's another issue. I've dropped an almost empty infobox into the article and flagged it as being under construction. You could use some sections with headlines, such as Early life; Military career; Later life and death. I'm a little leery of citing "Together We Served;" the site isn't real big on referencing. I couldn't find a copy of Marine Aviation at Quantico 1918-1941 that I could read on line so I can't comment there.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the infobox I would like to keep it up as long as possible so I can get up to speed with it, I own the TWS Page so it might be useful, it has helped me, its not perfect but its real for the most part just ignore the basic training part till I fix that. I used AK service records for the TWS page the time line and the medals, if anyone can transfer his BGen photo over and medals and ribbons over that would be great, all the photos are mine or public domain so if anyone has any ideas to post them to AK Wiki please do so cause I don't know how to post a photo here on Wiki yet. Thanks Minnehahas (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been editing for more than seven years and have uploaded about five images. I find the process absolutely mind-numbing every time I do it. Just click on the "Upload file" and work your way through it. If you do something wrong, most people are willing to help. I messed up my last upload a week or so ago. I'd also still be careful of TWS; to me it sounds like you're referencing your own work.<grin>--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

How can I make this article better?

Hi all, A few months ago I put quite a bit of time into creating an article about the Kantokuen Plan, Imperialist Japan's contingency to invade the USSR in 1941. I noticed that this article is at the moment lacking the criterion for B-class referencing and now that I finally have the luxury of being able to spend more time on-line I thought I'd get around to doing something about it. The problem is, I'm not entirely sure where the biggest gaps in the citations are and don't just want to rush in without knowing what I'm looking for. Any advice/help?

Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

G'day, great work so far! On a quick look through, it seems only slightly short of B-Class. The first thing to do is to ensure that every paragraph ends with a footnote. There are several paras which don't have any citations, and a few where the final sentence or sentences aren't cited. Once you've done that, I suggest listing it at WP:MHAR for a re-assessment and feedback. After it makes B-Class, it looks like it might have the goods for GA, so I suggest you consider nominating it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll start working on it. The Pittsburgher (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
G'day, just want to echo PM's comments about the article...very impressive. PM's suggestions are spot on, in my opinion. Additionally, there are some style/MOS issues, but these are very minor, and would be ironed out through GAN and ACR if you chose to go down that path. Anyway, thanks for your efforts and all the best with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I've noted this on the article's talk page, but will add here also. I don't think a conflict infobox is appropriate as it was never implemented and this should be replaced by an operational plan infobox as used for example for Operation Sea Lion. Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Regia Marina flag

I have noticed that the naval ensign of the Regia Marina in the infoboxes of Italian ships/naval personnel and such has been changed. Now the naval jack of the Regia Marina is used, but that's not correct: it would be like this was used in place of the naval ensign of the US Navy. The correct image was the previous one (Italian flag with Savoy shield), that was the naval ensign of the Regia Marina. --Olonia (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This may be the result of this change by Editor StjJackson.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have changed it to this, that was the actual naval ensign. --Olonia (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
However, I see that on pages like this, the naval jack still appears, instead of the naval ensign: where should I go? --Olonia (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Purge the page and you'll see the corrected version. It'll just take time for all the caches to refresh. Nthep (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Olonia (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Started draft template for military gear

Started a template draft as an infobox for military gear like vests, helmets and web gear.

Draft:Template:Infobox gear

Appreciate some feedback. First time to do this, although I need to improve in doing a wiki link to it. Ominae (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What you want is a sandbox space where you can make as many examples of possible infoboxes and see what changes to the template code do. See Wikipedia:Template_sandbox_and_test_cases for possible help. I've dropped in the layout code for the infobox into the Draft but obviously needs extraneous material trimming out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
An example of a completed infobox helps too as not every field is immediately obvious and sometimes tips and hints. IE Don't link countries, or unit cost in Dollars (?) etc, etc. Great idea, though. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You can create examples in your, or other, sandboxes by calling the template like this
{{Draft:Template:Infobox gear 
| name               = Brodie helmet  
| image              = File:British helmet.JPG
| image_size         = 200px
| caption            = A British helmet 
| origin             = UK <!-- Country name --> 
| type               = helmet 
}}

And then start playing with the code and examples. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Tried the short template and it's good. Should I publish the final template or wait 'cause it's fine to me. Ominae (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost done with the draft template right here. Looks okay to me. How should I publish it when I'm ready to do so? Ominae (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Documentation. The template is not done if there is no documentation that tells other editors how it is supposed to be used. For example, see {{Infobox firearm cartridge}}. Also, categories; certainly Category:Military infobox templates and perhaps others.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, we need documentation. Also, I would think the template should be named something like {{Infobox military gear}} rather than just {{Infobox gear}}? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I can do the former like you suggest so that it's not too vague. Should I put specific categories in the draft page or not? I'll have to continue this tomorrow since it's getting late. If anyone is going to add said documentation while I'm gone, I appreciate it. Ominae (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
apart from documentation, the actual template code needs cleaning of all the left over material from Infobox weapon. Categories will be similar to Infobox weapon but it would be best to do that if/when it moves to Template space, along with its talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Getting the documentation up already. Also included the final name for this template. I may have missed something. Also putting the documentation somehow ended up here. Ominae (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Malta and the Russian front

Over at Talk:British_Empire a rather confused debate has started up, one of whose points is that Italy (effectively) prevented lend lease from getting to Russia , due (I think) to the fact that Britain send huge amounts of aid to hold Malta. Any one got any clues?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Italian ships, submarines and aircraft helped sink British and American ships carrying Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union in 1941-43. (2A00:23C4:6384:600:C9A:E5C6:B62C:C371 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC))
It would be relatively easy to find sources showing that the Italian military sunk ships, shot down planes, killed allied soldiers etc. And to some extent it is reasonable to assert that Italy had an effect on strategic thinking and apportioning of resources (on both sides) - that doesn't even need sourcing. However, this is not relevant to a high-level overview of the history of the British Empire, certainly not to the extent that it needs mentioning in a ~300 word section on the entire war. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
That is the gist of the dispute, none of the Russian front stuff has anything to do with impacting the British empire.?Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Italy's entry into the war opened up new fronts in North Africa, the Balkans and the Mediterranean. (2A00:23C4:6384:600:4575:B420:B263:DF2F (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC))
No doubt, but that was not the point made (well it was one of many...but not the one I raised here). The argument is all over the place with random facts about the Mediterranean front (and further afield) being thrown in. Can we have a source for the claim that the Italians attacked lend lease ships.Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe the claim is that the Italians diverted British attention from the northern supply route to Russia - Arctic convoys of World War II. However, the Mediterranean front (and the threat to de-link the Suez canal or the path to the Suez canal - disconnecting India, the Jewel of the empire) was actually quite significant in terms of the internal structure of the British Empire at the time - so actually I do think this is relevant (but it already went in there as a one-liner).20:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The user did not say that, they said "The Italians were able to prevent Lend-Lease from reaching the Soviet Union for two years".Slatersteven (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
So for basic WWII history, this claim isn't true. Italy declared war on Britain in June 1940. The Soviet Union wasn't at war with Germany until June 1941, and the Arctic convoys didn't begin until August of that year. So the 2 year claim is false, and some amount of supplies/equipment were still consistently reaching the Soviets from the beginning of the Lend Lease program with them, either through the Arctic, ALSIB, or the Trans-Iranian route. Kges1901 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This is being driven by multiple User:HarveyCarter sockpuppet accounts. This person has a long-standing interest in this topic, and the editing pattern and some other details are identical. I've blocked the accounts. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that the two IP accounts and JitF seem to be the same I cannot see them on the list of socks. I assume this is just an oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The category is retrospective. I've tagged JitF (and so they'll appear in the list), but can't be bothered tagging the IPs given that they're dynamic addresses. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Western Front (World War I)/archive1

This one just got another "delist" vote: "still far too many 'citations needed's". A lot of work has been done on it, and it will never be easier to finish it up than it is right now. It would be a shame not to have any articles of this scope that we could run on the Main Page this year or next year on 11 November. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Long-standing problems with chronology at Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)

I don't know what to do about this but if anyone has an interest, their help would be welcome. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Operation Red Hat

Editors may be interested in a WP:MfD about a long-userfied, disputed version of an article that was originally deleted back in June 2013. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/OpRedHat. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Vella Lavella articles

G'day, there has been a proposal to rename the articles on the Land Battle of Vella Lavella and the Naval Battle of Vella Lavella. A few more opinions are needed to determine consensus. If anyone has an opinion, please join the discussion at Talk:Land Battle of Vella Lavella. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Missing articles about Confederate monuments and memorials

Not everyone appreciates that I created these redirects, but regardless, I'm working to identify potentially missing Wikipedia articles about Confederate monuments and memorials. If any project members are interested in helping, here's a list of articles for consideration: Talk:List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Articles_to_create. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that some of these statues and memorials are being removed or likely to be removed soon, better to reflect modern views of the world? If so, would it not be more efficient to wait until the removal process is complete, and then document the memorials which remain, thereby creating articles about monuments and memorials that have stood the test of time? MPS1992 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought the idea was to catalogue them while they still existed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Why? Surely if they are of note, then they will have been mentioned in independent reliable sources already? And if so mentioned, then nothing is to be lost?
If they are not of note, then we do not need to include them in this encyclopedia.
The exception is that for monuments of note that are to be removed, we might miss the opportunity to photograph them in their original locations, which I encourage everyone to pursue. MPS1992 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
"wait until the removal process is complete" doesn't work. It is not a process, and it will not be complete. And the actual removals will probably be of note. Sammy D III (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Most of these monumrnts easily pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI: Confederate monuments list

Please join the discussion at ANI: Confederate monuments list. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi! We have our system ready, and we can start recommending editors to your project now. We'd like to invite some of project organizers to our study. Participants will receive two batches of recommendations. If you think the recommended editors are good candidates for your project, we'd like you to invite them to the project.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating, add your WikiProject and username to the table on my user talk page. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: which study are you referring to? Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Nick-D:. Sorry for the lack of context. Our study is to build a recommender system to help projects identify/recruit more editors to contribute. We want to understand how effective our system would be, and how that will effect editors' editing behaviors. Here are the discussions we had previously in WPMH talk page: thread1 and thread2. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, here is a quick summary about what our system has been improved based on the discussion last time (see the link to previous threads for more details).

  • We only select editors who were active in the past week (comparing to the time the list generated) as the recommendation candidates, and remove editors who are blocked.
  • Currently, for the purpose of our study, we will send a recommendation list to our study participants to understand how different algorithms work, and how the invitation (sent by our study participants) will affect these candidate editors. If it goes well, we may start to post a monthly list to the project page in a regular basis.
  • We will create semi-auto template for you when you post on a new editor's talk page. You will see how it looks like when you are reaching those new editors.

We really appreciate your suggestions, and thank the members who have signed up for your study :) Please let me know if these sounds reasonable to you, and thank you for your interest in our study again! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For info, there are a couple of invitation templates we use. They can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Handbook. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:WikiProject_Recommendation is one link that some would be looking to find in the above. Personally I think that it all looks OK. MPS1992 (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, that's helpful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge maps 1916

Unternehmen Schleswig-Holstein I can find plenty of maps of Vimy Ridge 1917 but nothing for 1916, does anyone know of any? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Members of this project...

...might be interested in this and dealing with the problem outlined there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Should Confederate monuments be added to this project?

Do any project members oppose me going through Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials and tagging articles with the WikiProject Military history banner? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be selective and limit the tagging to military cemeteries and monuments installed on the former battlefields, if there are any that have not yet been tagged. Many of the Confederate monuments were installed not to commemorate the military dead but as public displays in the service of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy; see: How U.S. got so many confederate monuments, History.com. Confederate Memorial Fountain (Helena, Montana) has little to do with military history, for example. I believe that such public symbols would be out of scope for the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Given the sensitivities of the situation, we should be consistent with our treatment of monuments of other conflicts. Do we, for example, usually list memorials to the dead, whether or not in cemeteries or on battlefields, or monuments to particular military units, again not restricted to battlefields and cemeteries? Monstrelet (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we are consistent regarding this. Battle site monuments should definitely be in (as the battle site is in). Cemeteries - probably yes (not a core area, but sure). Monuments for various individuals, battles, or groups? Some of them are in - e.g. Ulysses S. Grant Memorial, Nelson's Column, George Armstrong Custer Equestrian Monument, Union Soldiers and Sailors Monument. I wouldn't consider these as important to MilHist - but they could be in. I personally wouldn't devote the time to tagging Confederate monuments (as long as they are for soldiers / generals, Jefferson Davis (though he was an officer, it wasn't what gave him fame) would be questionable, Confederate Women's Monument is probably a definite no) - but I wouldn't object to them being in.Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, if it is a military monument tag it, if not no.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Alexandre Remi

Article Alexandre Remi. Is this Alexander or Alexandre? Adamdaley (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Guess no-one knows? Adamdaley (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The Russian form of the name is usually translated to Alexander. I’d only go with Alexandre if he were primarily known from French sources (or if the French/Swiss form predominates in English sources)—but the only reference in the article is Russian. BTW shouldn’t his position be major-general rather than mayor-general, portrait file description notwithstanding?—Odysseus1479 18:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The article on the Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 is currently at WP:FAC; it makes reference to the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Maryland regiments. The 5th is linked to the 175th Infantry Regiment (United States), but there are no links for the other three. Is there a suitable link target for those regiments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You might consider 7th Regiment Maryland Volunteer Infantry, 8th Maryland Volunteer Infantry - which probably overlap whatever was called up in 1877. There is a 6th Maryland Regiment - but that refers to the war of independence. I believe the 6th as also a volunteer infantry in the civil war - but I don't think there is a wiki article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
According to the article the 7th and 8th were formed during 1877 in response to the disorder caused by the strikes, so they would appear to be unconnected to the Civil War regiments. I don't know anything about US regiment names but this does seem a confusing area. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
These were national guard units (or state militia - that were called up by Baltimore/Maryland per the strike article - "The 7th and 8th regiments .... the city set about forming two new regiments of national guard to expand available forces." - not federal US units. The names overlap the previous volunteer regiment of the civil war. These were probably disbanded (or if not disbanded - inactive / not enlisted) by the state after the conflict. If you want a wikilink - then the civil war formations are probably best (I don't this would merit a standalone stub) - with maybe a note there that the units were re-formed in 1877 for the strike.Icewhiz (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Note - don't be confused by the modern national guard - prior to 1933 (or if you want, the 1903 militia act) - these units were bona fida state militia units as opposed to their current status (where they have some supposed state link, but are actually for almost all intents and purposes federal units (with the ability to bypass Posse Comitatus due to this legacy)).Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
FWIW here's a list of Maryland Union regiments and artillery batteries that served in the Civil War; may or may not have a direct link to the 1877 units. You'd have to find out which companies were in these units and whether these companies remained in the state militia 1865-1877. The state's annual Adjutant General reports would have this information; they'd be found in larger libraries in Maryland or, if you're very lucky, online. The narratives for these units only include periods of federal service in the war. Maryland Union regiments in the Civil War This site is derived from the exhaustive "Dyer's Compendium", found in the basements of better libraries. RobDuch (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all; I don't feel confident enough in these links to add them to that article, but if others who know what they're doing add them that would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I am working on Union (GAR) Civil War monuments and discovered

that there are two articles devoted to that cause, which should be just one. My question here is, which is the better name?

Your input will be muchly appreciated. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Union includes GAR. But not all Union monuments are GAR related.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and the lists seem to know that too. Carptrash (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Help protecting from destructive good faith edits at Second Italo-Ethiopian War

The Second Italo-Ethiopian War article has been under a lot of pressure lately. This started when one edit warring user kept on trying to insert their own statistics for casualties in the infobox (they were later blocked for sockpuppeteering) and has now progressed to several (or one with multiple accounts) inexperienced editors repeatedly adding photos with dubious copyright info. One of them clearly lacked an understanding of copyright infringement (they assumed that because they were on Commons they were automatically ok to use), and I was only able to stop them from readding the photos when I had them deleted from Commons for said copyright infringement. I'm tiring of trying to salvage this article from further devolution but I'm loosing patience and it probably looks like I'm displaying qualities of WP:OWNERSHIP with my frequent reversions. If anyone one else wants to act as steward for this article or get someone from the Teahouse to watch over it and diplomatically engage the newbies I would be most appreciative. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Rum-Rom

I don't know if I've asked before but why do people keep changing Rumanian to Romanian?Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I can’t answer your question directly, but the spelling with O has generally been preferred in English for several decades at least. IIANM when Moldavia and Wallachia were united the government adopted the O to emphasize the people’s Roman / Romance-language heritage, deeming the U (or OU) to be overly Slavic or Germanic, and a few other languages have gradually tended to follow suit.—Odysseus1479 00:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Google's data for English language publications suggests that the one overtook the other in about 1973. MPS1992 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
1973? I remember it well. I wondered if O was a US usage, I hadn't realised that anti-slavism was involved. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article on everything; see Name of Romania which says: "The name of Romania (România) comes from the Romanian Român, which is a derivative of the Latin adjective Romanus (Roman)...
In English, the name of the country was originally borrowed from French "Roumania" (<"Roumanie"), then evolved into "Rumania", but was eventually replaced after World War II by the name used officially: "Romania". With a few exceptions such as English and Hungarian ("Románia"), in most languages, the "u" form is still used (German and Swedish: Rumänien; Bulgarian: Румъния; Serbian: Румунија / Rumunija, Polish: Rumunia, etc.). In Portuguese, to distinguish them from the Romans, the Romanians are called romenos and their country Roménia". Alansplodge (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not that old....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Military history! Wiki Education is creating a guide to help students contribute content about history. It's a handout intended to supplement our other resources, such as the interactive training and basic editing brochures. The guide is about history broadly, but there is a special mention of this WikiProject (and in particular WP:MHAC as an additional resource).

I'd love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/History. In order to make our printing deadline, we'd appreciate feedback by the end of Sunday, September 3. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Aktion T4 nuisance editor?

Aktion T4 I've tried to engage editor User talk:Signedzzz, who seems to have previous, to no avail. Can anyone suggest an alternative approach? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleting articles

I've just reversed a deletion of the article Heinrich Schroeteler. The man was a U-boot officer, well-decorated, spent 3 years as POW, and after the war reinvented himself as an artist. Article did not delve deeply into his interesting artistic career, but it could. Deletion was explained on talk page as non-notable. But once the deletion occurred talk page could not be accessed. I would argue that this man was notable, not only as the recipient of a high grade award but also for his career as an artist. I've tagged the article for the Visual arts project, and put in an artist info box. Do we/can we have a section on articles for deletion where we can discuss deletions before they occur? auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a lot of sources establishing notability here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Note - this was a Redirect - not a Delete. You might want to improve sourcing on the article (including post-war career). It has been fairly recently been decided in a RFC - [27] - that the Knight's cross no longer confers notability in and of itself (e.g. it is not equivalent to the US medal of honor). As a result, a large number of articles of recipients of the knight cross had their content trimmed and replaced with a redirect to a list of receipients. 'However - this at times has been done with an, umm, broad axe so to speak (to be fair - since there were a large amount of articles created off of a book (Fellgiebel) that lists recipients - and based on nothing much else - there are/were many articles that were "fair game" here). So if he is notable - restoring the page, preferably with sources establishing notability would be pertinent.Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Fordell Castle article

Hi, all. Are any of you willing to look at this revert I made (to an IP's changes) and assess if any of the IP's changes should be kept? I saw this WikiProject on the article's talk page. The other WikiProject it's tagged with is inactive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I've noted that the IP edits seem to have solid information, though they've just imposed it over the recent update by Baron Fordell, rather than editing them together, so there is repetition and contradiction. I would have been tempted to open a section in talk to deal with this, along with the revert. You may then be able to engage Baron Fordell and the IP in discussion about citation for the material and work out the best text to follow on the repetition. Monstrelet (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Monstrelet. I see that Alansplodge just added some material (followup edit here). I'll leave a message on the IP's talk page that lets the IP know that I started a discussion about this here. And I'll leave a WP:Dummy edit note in the article's edit history about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if I've complicated the issue; I was intrigued by "Saint Therotus" and one thing led to another.... Alansplodge (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Alansplodge, I don't think you've complicated anything. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm lost on your comment about Baron Fordell, though. I don't see that name in the edit history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems you mean the subject, but we're not in the habit of contacting the subject for input on a Wikipedia article concerning them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
In the text, a man called Stuart Simpson is described as the current baron of Fordell. The 26th August edit was by user Stuart Simpson Baron of Fordell. This could be an impersonator, of course. Whoever he or she is, you were confident enough in his/her contribution to revert to it.Monstrelet (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you mean Stuart Simpson Baron of Fordell (talk · contribs). My revert of the IP was not about that editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I read the edit history. But you didn't revert his edit of 26th, so I assumed you had confidence in it. Monstrelet (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
No, while using WP:STiki, the IP's additions are what popped up, not this small addition by Stuart Simpson Baron of Fordell. So I focused on the IP's additions. I'm not in the habit of checking the edit history for all questionable material when using WP:STiki. If I am at an article, I do look at the first page to assess any problematic edits, and I sometimes look at the previous page, but I'm usually not looking to check each and every edit...when patrolling with STiki or otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

  • Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. History journals).
  • One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
  • VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST
  • There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
  • |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
  • If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.
  • Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
  • WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Second Korean war

You might want to look at this [[28]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Keren order of battle

Are there any oob aficionados who wouldn't mind taking a look and suggesting improvements pls? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Don´t know much about the battle; added some first names and made as small fix. However the article on the battle mentions two Italian generals, Carnimeo and Lorenzini (who was killed in the battle), who are not included in the OOB yet. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Me neither but the oob is in better shape, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

American historians and diffusion

  1. Should subtopic categories of Category:American historians be marked as non-diffusing?
  2. Should Category:American historians be diffused by state?

@Johnbod:, @Philafrenzy:, who posted to my talk. Please {{Ping}} me if you need me directly for this conversation. Note that I will happily edit the categories however the community decides but that at the moment, Category:American historians is diffused by topic as it was 24 hours ago and there are only the two categories by state which I am not populating until I get more feedback. I will continue diffusing Category:American historians by century, which is a pre-existing scheme. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

USS Washington (1776 row galley)

Is USS Washington (1776 row galley) properly titled? At the time the vessel was in service (1775–1776), there was no United States yet.

See Category:Ships of the Continental Navy, most are labelled this way. She was commed by the continental congress whose decisions, I believe, were treated as continuous by the post war regime.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, got it. Thanks.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
If anyone has some time, the connection between Row galley and Galley needs some work. "Row galley" doesn't link to "Galley" at all, while "Galley" claims that " the early US Navy and other navies built vessels that were called "galleys" or "row galleys", though they were actually brigantines or Baltic gunboats" which seems odd because they bear almost no resemblance to either of those types. Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Questions on template (Almost done)

Hey guys.

Got busy with work. But template is almost up. Not sure if I should include a disclaimer on the page that it can also be used for law enforcement gear like helmets/vests or should I not include it?

PS - Doing testing on transferring the draft to a final template page. Should I use the documentation and paste the info on the final page? Ominae (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the documentation accurate? I notice that for |image= the documentation says this (highlighting added):
  • image – optional – an image of the weapon. The image must be given in the form [[Image:Example.jpg|300px]]; in particular, the thumb attribute must not be selected.
I think that this is not correct. Getting the documentation right is hard but is important. Consider reading it aloud to yourself as a way of finding stuff like this that should be fixed.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Before moving (or cut and pasting the code) to the target, think about the best name for the template: "gear" is ambiguous - could be sports gear, a series of cogs, or clothing? What is a template name that is recognizable and descriptive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Just had a quick look at the code for the template - it's still full of the code from the weapon infobox. That should be removed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I most likely didn't see that since I was busy previewing on a template. Thanks. Also, the final would be "military gear". But I'm not sure on including gear that looks like it can be used by the military, but are used by law enforcement. I'll review it again soon to make sure no code from the weapon infobox is left behind. Ominae (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the template is good to go. Need help on which part to cut and paste with (either the main template page or documentation). Ominae (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Lint error

Does anyone know what one is? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This - Lint (software)? - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Nazi section/article merge needed

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Kriminalpolizei (Nazi Germany)#Re-merge Kriminalpolizei#Nazi Germany into Kriminalpolizei (Nazi Germany). May require a subject-matter expert or at least a non-cluebag (I'm a cluebag when it comes to WWII German governmental divisions).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. I can tell you that Kriminalpolizei was the original article with a section on the criminal police during the Nazi era. Then, the article Kriminalpolizei (Nazi Germany) was added by another. Kierzek (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It did have WP:Undue weight/balance as to the Kripo during the Nazi era in the main Kripo article. I have worked on the matter and transferred much of the section information from the Kripo article, with cites, over to Kriminalpolizei (Nazi Germany); and also did some ce edits, as well. I believe the issue is now moot. See what you think. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

BL article naming

I note some inconsistencies in the naming of articles about breech-loading naval guns. Presently articles are located at:

Any suggestions on how to make these more consistent? Thanks! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 16:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

they don't have to be consistent, they have to be correct and meet WP:COMMONNAME. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I respect WP:COMMONNAME, and as a non-expert on this subject, I trust you if you tell me that the Armington and EOC names are more common than Mk IX and Mk XIII, respectively. I'm not looking to move those two just for the sake of "completing the series". However, I think it's pretty likely that having a mixture of "naval gun Mk __" and "Mk __ naval gun" is an example of sloppiness, not adherence to WP:COMMONNAME. Similarly, I doubt that there should be a space after "inch" in the Armington and no space after "inch" in the ECO title. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA recommends consistency within titles of article bound by some kind of pattern, and discrete series of this kind should be easy to align. Any ideas which title formats are currently the best ones? —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 18:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of expert direction, I looked at a wider pool of naval gun articles, and it looks like the "Mk" or "Mark" designations usually precede "gun" or "naval gun" so I have renamed the first two articles accordingly. I also saw that most articles that had "/40" or similar had no space and usually used ″ instead of -inch, so I renamed the third accordingly. I think there could be further improvement in a lot of cases, but I'm hesitant to move to quickly given how little I understand about the relationship between calibre and length. Cheers —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 23:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I reversed the AW Whitworth move as the " for inch 'convention' ( if it can be called that) is for US guns. I also note that the quote character as a unit marker is counter to WP:MOSNUM but whether that applies to article naming... i'd also say you're jumping the gun by making changes only a scant few days after posing the question. It being a weekend, and a bank holiday one at that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If these were more sensitive or contentious subjects, I'd agree that waiting longer for additional commentary would be good, but we're talking about some military equipment from a century ago, and several editors made contributions on this page in the interim. Seemed pretty low-stakes.
I'm a-okay with using inch instead of ″, but I'm surprised you opted to reverse my move instead of renaming the article to either Armstrong Whitworth 12 inch/40 naval gun or Armstrong Whitworth 12-inch/40 naval gun. There's no way the space before the slash can be correct, so I'm pretty sure one of these two would be more appropriate than the version you restored. Any thoughts? —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 18:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
a) if another editor disagrees, you should consider it a contentious subject. You're looking for confirmation your suggestion is good, not an absence of opinion that it's bad. These article names have been stable for a while - nearly a decade for the one in question b) the space is correct because the slash is not either/or but a designator for length of the barrel. It's an Armstrong Whitworth 12 inch [bore] 40 [calibres long] naval gun. see Caliber (artillery) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday, in order to get a feel for the variety out there, I searched for intitle:naval gun. Here's a sampling of the results in no particular order:

The first conclusion that can be drawn that there's little consistency here. The second is that a space preceding the slash is less common than no space. I also looked up Caliber (and now, since you recommended it, Caliber (artillery)) and searched for instances of '/' and not a single one of them was preceded by a space. Google searching has turned up pretty similar results.[1][2][3][4]

I'm making a sincere effort to find some basis for the formatting with the space, and I'm coming up with nothing. If you've got something, I'm still open. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 01:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The Italian naming format for guns is fairly consistent (and omits the calibre unit) but that is the Italian style. The French style varies a bit, some have calibre lengths in the article names (9), others are disambiguated on the strength of the year alone eg Canon de 164 mm Modèle 1893 (18). Japanese guns are named without space but having followed through to navweaps.com on one I find the original Japanese designation in form "50 caliber 3rd Year Type 14 cm Gun" so something happens with word order between the original and western practice. For the BL gun in question, navweaps gives the Japanese designation as "40 caliber 41st Year Type 30 cm Gun" (after 1917 when Japanese guns get new designations in cm) , in RN use (the majority though entering service a few years after Japan) ""BL 12 inch gun Mark IX". GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Graeme, you note some interesting examples, but I'm not understanding if you're drawing a conclusion of some sort.
I'm still perceiving that the only instances in which the slash is preceded by a space is in a small handful of Wikipedia articles, all of which are created by two editors and only one of which has received more than 30 edits. Maybe Rcbutcher can comment if he is around, but this seems like an accidental convention without real-world precedent. Sometimes these things crop up when an article is being created with a get-it-done approach; there's nothing wrong with starting articles this way, so long as the first draft isn't treated as sacrosanct!
Anyway, let me know if I missed a point you were trying to make. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 18:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately Rcbutcher is no longer with us. You could ask for more eyes on the subject through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan which has a number of naval history editors. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Snowdawg: has been writing dozens of articles on naval guns lately - he would probably be someone to ask. @Simon Harley:, our resident pedant, also comes to mind (since we're talking British guns for the most part), but I don't know how much he's around anymore.
I've had a look at a few sources in my library. Conway's uses no space, as does Garzke & Dulin's British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II, Friedman's US Battleships, Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War II, and Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War One (though in the section headings for each British, French, Italian, or American gun, Friedman does not include the caliber, forex: "13.5 BL Mk V" instead of BL 13.5-inch Mk V naval gun - for German, Austrian, Japanese, and Russian guns, for instance, caliber is included since that was part of the official name).
In terms of standardization, I'd probably start with Friedman and Campbell as a baseline, seeing as their books are specialist sources. Ian Hogg also comes to mind, though I checked Naval Gun (which is more a broad overview of the history of cannon at sea, but it's all of his I've got on hand) and I can't find anything useful there. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately not all of the articles I have written have been consistent in their naming convention. Sometimes I have simplified the names to be easier to search, rather than what they were actually called in service. Each country's naming convention has its own faults. About the best that can be done is add redirects and disambiguation pages to steer people to articles.Snowdawg (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunate, indeed: it looks like Rcbutcher was a dedicated editor and an asset. But I appreciate the research by the Parsecboy and the wisdom from Snowdawg. If I'm understanding things correctly, it's probably safe to nix the space from BL 4.7 inch /45 naval gun and EOC 14 inch /45 naval gun, but best for me to leave it at that rather than go tinkering with Italian conventions, etc. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 16:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • MOS:NUM covers this already (in general, not about guns in particular; we avoid making special topical "exception" rules unless there's an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so). Mk XI–XII should not have spaces around the en dash. And a space-slash construction isn't used for anything. A space-slash-space construction can be used when an element on either side (or both) has a space in it, e.g "foo bar / baz quux"; this is the same as using a spaced en dash under the same circumstances ("the New Zealand – Australia agreement", but "the Canada–Mexico agreement"). The 16" (more properly 16″) construction isn't used in Wikipedia at all; use 16 inch or (abbreviated) 16 in. The abbreviated form should only be used in parenthetical conversions and in tables, not in running prose or in titles. Finally, measurements are never run up against units, as in "240mm"; it's always 250 mm. I'm not sure what the "/45" things are; calibers? I checked; they are calibers. This should be done as "BL 4.7 inch / 45 caliber naval gun" or "BL 4.7 inch (45 caliber) naval gun", with "caliber" or "calibre" per the WP:ENGVAR in use. Some may argue to not have the conversion in the title, and use either "BL 4.7 inch naval gun" or "BL 45 caliber naval gun", but an argument can be made to use both if the RS usually do so. Despite adjectival construction, don't use a hyphen ("45-caliber") when using numerals and units (one does when using spelled-out words, as in "twelve-inch single"). The and "Mk __ naval gun" style is more consistent with WP's overall naming pattern; "naval gun Mk __" is a military style-ism that borders on archaic. The "naval gun" part is actually descriptive disambiguation, anyway, so it goes at the end and need not be included at all probably, unless there's something else with a colliding or near-colliding title.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Definitions and Information about Naval Guns". NavWeaps. Retrieved 28 August 2017.
  2. ^ "Mark 7 16-inch/50-caliber gun". FAS: Military Analysis Network. Retrieved 28 August 2017.
  3. ^ "MK 45 - 5-INCH-GUN 54/62 CALIBER GUNS". America's Navy. Retrieved 28 August 2017.
  4. ^ "Naval Guns of the United Kingdom / Britain". NavWeaps. Retrieved 28 August 2017.

Subpages of User:American Military History

In doing WP:NPP I encountered a large number of subpages of User:American Military History, such as User:American Military History/Navy/09 06. At first glance, these seem to be a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. If these pages are seen as valuable, should they be moved to project space? Some other WMF project? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Mortal wound

While responding to apparent vandalism on the part of an ip user, I came across this misplaced cry for assistance. I was not aware of this recent AfD which concluded as delete the term from the pedia. I checked both pages (here and here) which linked to the term and found two lists that almost exclusively contained pages concerning this project and with few exceptions were related to the American Civil War. I asked the deleting admin and have decided to bring the subject here for discussion. Is this some term only used by a small group of historians? BusterD (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is a particular term limited to a small group of historians - I've seen mortally wounded in many contexts. What is particular about the civil war period is that this is when field hospitals really came into play and treated large amounts of casualties. In this regard you might have a separate tally of dead from the medical corps (mortally wounded) and from the field (bodies strewn in the field of battle). Survival rates for the wounded also weren't particularly great - with death, IIRC, often occurring from infection a few days after the initial injury. Contrast this with modern trauma (where if the wounded survives the first 12-24 hours his prognosis is quite good typically) and ancient practices (where the severely wounded (at least the mass of regular soldiers, kings and nobles - yes - but with not so great prognosis in any event) were afforded little care) - and the rationale for this being relevant in the civil war (where wounded were treated (typically amputation and cauterization of wounded limbs) in an organized/industrial fashion but with not so great treatment prognosis).Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a concept (and dictionaries deal with words, encyclopedias deal with concepts) that goes back to the vikings, at least. They had a medical notion of "soup sickness", where the victim of an abdominal wound would be fed onion soup. If the wound then smelled of onions, they recognised a perforated bowel and that it wasn't going to be recoverable, even if they had survived the battle that day, and that many other sword wounds did seem to be recoverable (vikings had quite good asepsis in their medical care - better than Victorians).
Certainly the Crimea and the civil war, or many wars post Solferino and the concept of a Red Cross, represent early attempts at mass hospitalisation and triage. The notion of a recognisable "mortal wound" was around then, and resultant treatment would be deliberately dependent on such.
This article should be reinstated, there's encyclopedic scope to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion itself was conducted properly with several experienced wikipedians (including a medical professional). So deletion review is not a proper forum for correction. Better would be to create a new article with strong sourcing. Is there anyone here willing to help? I have created a sandbox at User:BusterD/sandboxMortalwound as a place for us to start accumulating data. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion was listed as a medical article, and the determination was made by members of WP:MED. I don't know if it was tagged as a MilHist article. It was not listed as a military article at AfD, which is likely why there was no participation from people here. You can take it to deletion review, and ask for it to be re-listed for discussion. But we already have an article on killed in action, which also encompasses died of wounds, and perhaps it would be better to link to that, and develop as an article entirely within the scope of this Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Hawkeye7! Nice to see your datestamp. Your suggestion seems a wise course. The term certainly seems anachronistic, based on my early searches. I see some legal documents, a few older medical journals. Many fictional works use the phrase, but surprisingly (outside of the ACW figures) the most common uses I'm seeing appear to be about Abraham Lincoln's assassination and about the Hamilton-Burr duel. Most of the better sources date from before 1900. I'm also concerned that the two most popular search results (Hamilton and Lincoln), the subjects and incidents of their wounding are both distinctively non-military. BusterD (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm following the gist of this conversation correctly, but I found: "It was from this Ship (the Redoutable) that Lord Nelson received his mortal wound" [29] from the report of William Beatty (surgeon) on the death of Horatio Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Also an 1806 account of the wounding of Sir Ralph Abercrombie at the Battle of Alexandria in 1801 which killed him a few days later: "in the moment of victory, received a mortal wound in his breast". [30] Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There are two meanings. With hindsight, anything you die of is "a mortal wound", even if it's just a stubbed toe that turns to gangrene and sepsis. The other meaning is that of a wound recognised to be imminently mortal, according to the medical capabilities of the time and location. Once medicine progresses beyond the "if god wills it" and leeches stage, this becomes a recognisable situation and a basis for triage. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Given its notable use would seem to be part of a triage system, should it have a stand alone page or be covered under Triage?Monstrelet (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Why not a sot redirect to wikt:mortally? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

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) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration 100 - Featured Article Candidate

The Balfour Declaration article is currently a receiving a Featured Article Candidate review. The declaration is considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and its 100th anniversary is in less than two months' time. It is a level 4 vital article in History, and a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. Any input would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese Navy ships

A discussion has been opened at the Ships WikiProject re the correct form of article title for articles about ships of the Portuguese Navy. Input from members of this WikiProject is requested. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

Sino-Indian War would bring no change in territory between two countries. There was dispute over 2 regions. One region (Arunachal Pradesh) that had been already under Indian control years before the war would remain in India, and other one (Aksai Chin) that had been already under the control of China before the war would remain in China. That's why Status quo ante bellum should be written on the infobox parameter according to reliable sources as recent as [31] by Oxford University Press, 2017. Indeed, this sounds too obvious but not obvious enough for an editor who has apparent incompetence issues. Discussion is at Talk:Sino-Indian War#Territorial change. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User Blanking Carrier Pages

Hey guys, @KAP03: already fixed the USS Hornet (CV-12) page, but @Careless data: is going around completely wiping aircraft carrier pages. He just hit USS Intrepid (CV-11) so if somebody could revert the edit and stop this user, that'd be appreciated. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just blocked this vandalism only account. For future reference, editors like this can be reported at WP:AIV for a quick admin response. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young. I've come across them very many times and this is almost certainly a sock puppet. They have something of an obsession with articles starting with "USS" –72 (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, it does seem to be the same person. I've tagged the account accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Another location map question

Trying to do a location map of Wiltshire but can't find the right form of words to get the map

  • {{Location map+ |What goes here for Wiltshire?|width=250 |float=right |caption={{centre|Relief map of Wiltshire showing towns mentioned in the article}}|relief=yes |places= {{Location map~ |Andover |lat=51.2167 |long=-1.4667 |label=[[Andover, Hampshire]] |position=right |label_size=80 |marksize=6}} }}
  • can anyone help? thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Found it.Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_141&oldid=1232551090"