Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 96

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

A-Class review for Gamal Abdel Nasser now open

The A-Class review for Gamal Abdel Nasser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover now open

The featured article candidacy for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood tactical outcome

Considering the big hoo har of recent over Operation Charnwood, i would like some feedback on the Operation Goodwood article in regards to the outcome. While it is no where near the finished state of the Charnwood article the few sources i was using did provide enough information to provide sourced info for stating it was a strategic victory. However in regards to the tactical side the outcome was based purely off a quote from Miles Dempsey - co of British Second Army, the guys who conducted the attack.

"Dempsey is quoted stating the battle was not tactically very good but strategically was a "great success". ...[2]"

Seems a bit flimsey when considering the previous discussions plus since last editing the article i have not had chance to go back and do more work on it and consult further sources in regards to the outcome. Any advice would be great.

Cheers EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well... didn't the UK/Canada lose half their tanks? That could be construed as not very good 76.66.192.55 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilmot: "Goodwood was accounted a failure by SHAEF because Second Army had gained neither a strategic break-through nor all its tactical objectives. The fact that the operation had achieved Montgomery's major purpose was ignored, for this purpose was not understood." (p. 362) He then goes on to describe how, on the eve of Cobra, two German Pz divs en route to St Lo were diverted to the British sector and reinforced with elements of a third, leaving only two Pz and one grenadier div opposite the Americans compared to seven Pz divs and all the heavy tanks in Normandy opposite the British. Wilmot would therefore support "strategic victory", though as usual it's not that simple :) EyeSerene^talk 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that as akways these things are never just simple :)

There is additional information, if i recall from AShley Hart that supports the strategic outcome as well that is already in the article. Am quite happy that point is covered for the time being. Its the tactical side am a little concerned with - Hart doesnt state the tactical battle was a victory for the Germans, he states that the battle was mishandeled.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Wilmot supports that (and Hastings certainly does). The trouble is, as before, neither of them use the exact phrase "tactical defeat" or "strategic victory". however, I stand by my earlier reasoning that these are common (if subject-specific) terms and don't need an exact cite as long as the text supports their use. EyeSerene^talk 10:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot about this discussion; looks like the status quo is fine but thought i should check it out to gain consensus. Cheers EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

eyeseren: I stand by my earlier reasoning that these are common (if subject-specific) terms and don't need an exact cite Wrong!! If a historian doenst say tactical then its not up to you to claim he means tactical victory especially if you dont know what tactical victory means, what some comments of yours do indicate. I think its violation of wiki rules if editors take words like victory and then write a tactical in front. If somebody should maybe do this, then the historian should have said some equivalent statements which justify this and the editor should be able to understand what tactical means. Regarding goodwood , german lost more then 6000 men and a decent amount of equipment. So its doubtful that this was tactical victory. Until no historian claimed this. And please stop interpreting historian words!!!Blablaaa (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you re-read my post above you'll find I wrote "tactical defeat". EyeSerene^talk 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

and if you re-read my post you will see that i cleary dispute your "that these are common terms and don't need an exact cite", which is a violation of wiki policies. And especially if people say this who are not fimiliar with these "terms" . And spare these "uff" in your edit summary pleaseBlablaaa (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And does one have a source for these 6,000+ German casualties?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

primary source i only said this to illustrate my pointBlablaaa (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my edit summary offended you Blablaaa. However, I no longer have the time, patience or goodwill to endlessly go round in these circles. You've single-handedly caused more disruption and grief to a set of articles than any other editor I've encountered in four years here. I won't be responding to your posts again. EyeSerene^talk 07:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But i guess its a bit overreacting. I only told you that its not up to you to decide what a historian means if he did say this. And iam not alone with this opinion WP:SYN Blablaaa (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Faciat Georgius

I am wondering if the community could have a look at the following new page: Faciat Georgius? I am trying to not bite the newcomer and would like an outside opinion. The user means well but this award likely does not meet WP:N I could not find enough WP:RS to back it up... I have cleaned up the page but would like another opinion prior to doing anything with it... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight I am glad I waited. The article has been fleshed out and cleaned up and now has a number of sources. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Midshipman now open

The featured article candidacy for Midshipman is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Borodino class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Borodino class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion required

Exceptional, unprovable claim or not? Keep or remove? Please see Talk:Chinese armies (pre-1911)#What to do with this claim?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Tower of London now open

The featured article candidacy for Tower of London is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for British Commandos now open

The A-Class review for British Commandos is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Malta Convoys

I came across this article while researching the next Empire ship article. The article should be much better than it is, and it should be possible to get to GA if not FA class. There must be a wealth of info in books and on websites about the supply of Malta during WWII, but the article is severely lacking in references. It also seems to me to be POV laden. I've done some copyediting, but this is mostly display of names and wikilinking ships. Any members of this project fancy the challenge of improving the article? Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind having a go at this. I did create the article as a summary with links to detailed articles which would have full references - is this a legitimate approach? (Details unsupported in this way should be verified in this article.) Two points: could you id some specific points which are POV and there's a suggestion elsewhere that the improvements need to be done before a deadline; is this true and why? Folks at 137 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If a section has a main article link, then referencing is not an issue as what is stated can hopefully be verified via the main article's refs. There is no deadline either. The feeling of POV applies generally across the article, but it may be that by referencing various statements they can be shown to be fact rather than opinion. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some more coverage of the grand strategy (if there was one) of the convoys. Did the British alter their plans, did they react to changes in Italian and German activities. Equally how did the Axis forces modify their actions. Who was in charge? That sort of thing.

Some summary of the effect would be good too. Did the volume of materials convoyed go up or down over the period. By how much did materiel and stockpiles on Malta benefit. Could the article use, for instance, a table of materiel sent and recieved so a reader could understand how much was getting through? I think these sort of additions would add depth and move it further away from a simple list of the convoys/operations.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Speedy (1782) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Speedy (1782) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 10:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Third Battle of Seoul now open

The peer review for Third Battle of Seoul is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split of 330th Bombardment Group (VH)

This article has reached 114KB, well past the size recommended for spliting and I have proposed that it be split into two separate articles, 330th Bombardment Group (World War II) and List of Combat Missions of the 330th Bombardment Group (World War II). A discussion on the proposed split is here and comments (both for or against) are invited. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 08:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have commented to the effect that the article is oversize due to unnecessary content, but I would like to hear other opinions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

White Ensign errors

I've just corrected a flag error on the HMS Speedy (1782) article. The correct White Ensign for all RN ships in service between 1707 and 1800 is this, which was changed to this effective 1 January 1801. Are there any other articles on RN ships in this period displaying the wrong flag? Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

1707 - 1800	From 1801

Thanks very much for correcting this. The only way I can think of to check is via links to File:Naval Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg... but it's not a short list. Any better ideas? EyeSerene^talk 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not idea about an easy way of checking, but Benea informs me that if a ship served under both flags, the correct one to use is the 1801 flag, not the earlier one. My instinct in these cases would be to display both flags side-by-side, but if this is to happen then it would probably need discussion at WP level. Another option would be to have two separate Career sections, with the correct flag for each. Mjroots (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Displaying two ensigns is not the way to go, IMO. It's not as if there is any change of allegiance, just a change in the design of the ensign. Using whichever was the latest ensign flown is the way to do it, as is done for USN vessels. Incidentally could the template for the white ensign be modified to work in a similar way as {{USN flag}}? NtheP (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that's there's absolutely no need to display both flags if the service crossed the change over - the Royal Navy remained exactly the same body - there was no Royal Irish Navy to merge into it. there was no change of "ownership" indicated by the change of flag. David Underdown (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask why we wouldn't display both flags? It seems like it might be an interesting snippet to add to an article (at least, it interested me). This isn't intended as a challenge to the established practice btw, more just a request for information :) EyeSerene^talk 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with David on this one, seems like a little too much clutter in the infobox to use both IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

William Reginald Cotter VC

Wiki has the name as William Reginald Cotter, however official sources have him as William Richard Cotter, CWGC. Can anyone assist with sources for his correct name. Google is not providing much tbh. Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the CWGC and his citation in the London Gazette give "William Richard", which I'd think should be good enough for our purposes. Error at import, perhaps? Shimgray | talk | 14:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry has his service record and it records his middle name as Richard throughout - I'll move the page Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Gamal Abdel Nasser needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Gamal Abdel Nasser; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Rheinland now open

The A-Class review for SMS Rheinland is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Inca Civil War

This article has two different start/finish dates in the first paragraph and in the infobox. Which one is correct? B-Machine (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All we can really go by are citations, which is why WP:VERIFY is such a vitally important core site policy. The text has a cite and the infobox doesn't, so I'd probably change the infobox to match the text. However, this is on the assumptions that (a) the citation is for the dates and not something else earlier in the sentence, and (b) there hasn't been any subtle vandalism on either set of figures. A quick check through the article history might be worthwhile just in case. EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible somebody vandalized and changed the dates in the first paragraph just to be an a**hole. B-Machine (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox matches the article text, more or less. The introductory paragraph is wrong, but is just confused - if we go back to an earlier version, the first para reads:

The Inca Civil War, Inca Dynastic War, or Inca War of Succession, sometimes the War of the two brothers broke out after the death of Huayna Capac between 1525 and 1527 August 2009; or even earlier

The Inca Civil War, Inca Dynastic War, or Inca War of Succession, sometimes the War of the two brothers broke out after the death of Huayna Capac in 1527 (full-scale fighting did start as late as in 1529) August 2008

In other words: the infobox gives the dates of the war, whilst the lead gives, rather confusingly, the dates of the event which led to the war. Someone presumably misunderstood this, "corrected" it, and we got what we have today. Shimgray | talk | 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of detective work Shimgray :) Thank you for that. EyeSerene^talk 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Massachusetts in the American Civil War now open

The featured article candidacy for Massachusetts in the American Civil War is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for British Commandos needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for British Commandos; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Aren't Eighty Years' War and Dutch Revolt the same thing? B-Machine (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Investigator (1848)

The wreckage of Robert McClure's ship in his Arctic expedition to find Franklin's lost expedition has been found. I have expanded news of the discovery, but I wwill appreciate help from this project from here on to expand the ship's Career section as I have little knowledge on the topic. Thanks! —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Inca Civil War

This article has two different start/finish dates in the first paragraph and in the infobox. Which one is correct? B-Machine (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All we can really go by are citations, which is why WP:VERIFY is such a vitally important core site policy. The text has a cite and the infobox doesn't, so I'd probably change the infobox to match the text. However, this is on the assumptions that (a) the citation is for the dates and not something else earlier in the sentence, and (b) there hasn't been any subtle vandalism on either set of figures. A quick check through the article history might be worthwhile just in case. EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible somebody vandalized and changed the dates in the first paragraph just to be an a**hole. B-Machine (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox matches the article text, more or less. The introductory paragraph is wrong, but is just confused - if we go back to an earlier version, the first para reads:

The Inca Civil War, Inca Dynastic War, or Inca War of Succession, sometimes the War of the two brothers broke out after the death of Huayna Capac between 1525 and 1527 August 2009; or even earlier

The Inca Civil War, Inca Dynastic War, or Inca War of Succession, sometimes the War of the two brothers broke out after the death of Huayna Capac in 1527 (full-scale fighting did start as late as in 1529) August 2008

In other words: the infobox gives the dates of the war, whilst the lead gives, rather confusingly, the dates of the event which led to the war. Someone presumably misunderstood this, "corrected" it, and we got what we have today. Shimgray | talk | 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of detective work Shimgray :) Thank you for that. EyeSerene^talk 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Massachusetts in the American Civil War now open

The featured article candidacy for Massachusetts in the American Civil War is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for British Commandos needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for British Commandos; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Aren't Eighty Years' War and Dutch Revolt the same thing? B-Machine (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Investigator (1848)

The wreckage of Robert McClure's ship in his Arctic expedition to find Franklin's lost expedition has been found. I have expanded news of the discovery, but I wwill appreciate help from this project from here on to expand the ship's Career section as I have little knowledge on the topic. Thanks! —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert war on India and WMD

For the past few days, I've been monitoring a dispute that two users are having in the aforementioned article. It seems that the issue being discussed is whether to state that India has nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in the lede. Personally I find the matter somewhat trivial and would rather not get involved in such a silly issue. Although neither user has violated WP:3RR, it doesn't appear that either user is going to stop the revert war anytime soon (One of NPGuy's edit summaries is : I'll keep reverting until someone engages on the discussion page). Since both users are auto-confirmed, semi-protection won't solve anything and until some discussion takes place on the talk page, I don't think said issue is going to get anywhere. Vedant (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a week to encourage talk page discussion. I'll keep it watchlisted for a while, but if edit warring breaks out again when protection expires perhaps we'll need to think about other means to prevent it. EyeSerene^talk 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) now open

The featured article candidacy for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Arado Ar E.381 now open

The peer review for Arado Ar E.381 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Courageous class battlecruiser now open

The featured article candidacy for Courageous class battlecruiser is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Action of 1 January 1800 now open

The A-Class review for Action of 1 January 1800 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

For the Medal of Honor recipients that require disambiguation, an editor has moved them from "John Doe (Medal of Honor recipient)" to "John Doe {Medal of Honor}". 1) I have not seen any discussion of this. 2) The person is not a Medal of Honor, he is (as the moving editor has pointed out!) a Medal of Honor recipient. The new name is, to put it politely "unclear," and ambiguous, particularly for a person whose first language is not English. Does the Medal of Honor have a name? Is the name "John Doe"?

The editor claims "consistency" with other misfiled articles. I am not aware of this. I would like some support for accuracy in titling. Student7 (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's conceptually consistent with article titles such as "John Doe (United States)" - John Doe, of or pertaining to the United States - but I agree with you that "recipient" is perhaps better. Interestingly, the Victoria Cross recipients are usually disambiguated as "(VC)", which strikes a balance between this style and the standard postnomials. Shimgray | talk | 12:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is only meant to give guidance to the reader to tell apart one Joe Doe from another so the shorter or clearer the dab statement the better, even better not to have one at all!. In this case just Medal of Honor does the job, it is only a finding aid not a lesson in the English language. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: There is a concurrent discussion thread about this at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Medal of Honor article disambiguation. Hqb (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I believe that I am the editor in question let me start by saying I do not have a strong preference either way. I simply used the DAB that was most common amongst the recipients and seemed to to jive with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#people. As I stated on one of the article talk pages recently the parenthesis does not infer what he is in my interpretation of the MOS, its what he is known for!. Also, there are a lot of Medal of Honor recipient articles that are disambiguated and this is to allow consistency between them. The vast majority already said Medal of Honor so I changed the rest that said Medal of Honor recipient to the same. I can provide you with a listing of all the disambiguated ones (both the ones that are already created and the ones that have yet to be created) with Medal of Honor, Medal of Honor recipient, soldier, sailor, etc if you need it. There are a lot by the way. I went on to instruct the user to present their argument to either the WP:Biography talk page or the talk page for WP:MOS. But here and Article title is ok too. I also told the user that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#people is a little vague and could stand to be clarified in my opinion but basically the gist is to make the disambiguation only long enough so that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name. Thats why we only need to say Medal of Honor, vice Medal of Honor recipient. We arent saying he "IS" the medal, were just clarifying the subject the individual is known for. I hope this helps but again please let me know if you have any more questions. --Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume I were to disambiguate your name. Would it make more sense to you to say "Kumioko (Harvard)" or "Kumiolo {Harvard professor}". It seems to me that the former example leaves too much to the imagination, IMO the latter way is clearer. Student7 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking up Shimgray's post above about standard postnominals for medal holders (VC, DFC, DSO etc), is there a standard way of abbreviating the full title of Medal of Honour holders? Is MoH or something similar ever used? If so, it might make an acceptable compromise: John Doe (MoH) is brief, to the point, and doesn't have the potentially confusing implications that seem to be the main concern. EyeSerene^talk 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In a tangential conversation at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Medal of Honor article disambiguation and through inferrence in WP:MOS we shouldn't use abbreviations for DAB's. To abbreviate VC for instance there are a number of things that VC could mean (Victoria Cross, Viet Cong, Very Creepy, Vietnam Campaign, etc) so what might make sense in the country it originates may not in another. Additionally the modern American military is famous for its dizzying array of abbreviations for things. For this reason its my opinion we should spell these out. Whichever we decide to go with (Medal of Honor or Medal of Honor recipient) it should be clear that there are HUNDREDS of articles affected. Also, if you review the Article title page conversation, I have started a page in one of my sandbozes which identifies all the Medal of Honor recipient articles that currently exist (over 200)and I am in the process of cleaning the list for those that still need articles (over 350 more) and combined we are looking at about 4-500 articles with some kind of disambiguation not counting redirects. Also, as I pointed out in the other conversation some of these dabs need to be cleaned up as well and its possible that some dont need to be dabs at all and I will review those as well (probably based on the military action they recieved the medal for) to ensure that we don't have a bunch of unnecesarily dabbed pages. But that will take me some time and I would like to wait for clarification here before I start moving pages to new names. Certainly though haveing a DAB like veteran, US, sgt, USMC, etc is less approriate as Medal of Honor or Medal of Honor recipient. I also belive that using the Medal of Honor or recipient as the DAB makes more sense that soldier, sailor, etc since it is the act of receiving the Medal that establishes their notability in WP, not the soldiering. But thats another argument. --Kumioko (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your question student7, in my opinion, the dab title should be based on the basis of the individuals notability. If they are notable for being a professor (regardless of the location) then it shoudl be professor. If they are notable for being asociated with Harvard, whether based on the length of tenure, significant contributions to the college, or if there are multiple professors with that name then I would say Harvard would be more appropriate. But that is a good example because that one could be argued multiple ways because they could be notable for multiple reasons. Although some Medal of Honor recipients are notable for multiple reasons such as Charles Lindbergh, Powhatan Beatty, Audie Murphy and Douglas MacArthur to name a few, they largely are notable solely for the acts that they received the medal for. Looking at sports athletes such as baseball or football players for example we usually just say baseball or football (althought this is also clarified between american football and international football/american soccer) because that clarifies there name to the reader so as not to be confused with a politician, writer, soldier, etc. of the same name. I also want to state that you have identified a weak point in our naming conventions of articles because the instructions are extremely limited and need to be expanded, there are a lot of articles that I would consider to be poorly named such as those identified above and this is a good opportunity for us to fix some of those issues. Well done. --Kumioko (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really accurate to state there's a consensus against using VC, two people have said they think it might be confusing, and I've argued, that in context it's unlikely that any of the other meanings would actually be used as a disambiguator. If you're actually looking for an article on a specific person, you probably already have some idea what they are famous for, so VC is going to be sufficient to make people realise that they are the Victoria Cross recipient that you are looking for - not to mention theat VC is the specific postnom and the name is widely written including that anyway. David Underdown (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This conversation has really gotten off point anyway. The orginal submitter was trying to get a concesnus on whether using Medal of Honor or Medal of Honor recipient was more appropriate. Does anyone have any further views on this? --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Medal of Honor" seems fine and is in line with other disambig titles, though I don't really have strong views either way. EyeSerene^talk 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eyeserene, I don't really care either way but to me there is no reason to take the time or spend the effort to move several hundred articles for what amounts to symantics. Based on what I have seen here and on the other related conversation on the Article titles talk page there doesn't seem to be any obvious concensus about what is preferred but most don't seem to have a problem with the status quo except student 7 so I suggest we stick with Medal of Honor. --Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A class reviews that need some more input/GAN backlog

Hi everyone, the following A-class reviews need some more participation:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British Commandos (currently has two reviews/supports, needs at least one more);
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gamal Abdel Nasser (currently only has one review, needs at least two more reviewers).

Please take a look and leave some comments if you can help out. Also, the list of military-related Good Article nominations is still quite long and could do with some more reviewers if anyone is keen. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Military conflict and the Cold War

It seems an oxymoron to combine the two opposing concepts as done in the article Vietnam War, opening sentence and infobox. Then I realized there are many instances where such parings have occurred. Therefore I would like an opinion from this project on the best course forward. To me it doesn't convey the idea I believe was intended which is to say occurring during the era but not part of it. Keenly interested in other views. My76 Strat 20:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth stepping back to Clausewitz for this, military activity is always in support of political objectives; politics by other means. In that sense I can understand the usage although it's a little clunky and really would benefit from a proper explanation somewhere. The cold war was a political exercise, the relationship between two opposing ideologies, and it was played out economically, diplomatically and militarily. Those military activities included the proxy wars (Note that's a dreadful article and I would disagree with much of the analysis) like Vietnam.

ALR (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reichsluftfahrtministerium

Air Ministry (Germany) was moved without discussion to Ministry of Aviation (Germany) today, with the edit summary "wrong translation". Is the new title a better translation? Even if it is, is the former translation a more common term? I honestly don't know, but I wanted to be sure this is the best title. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no major difference. It's like the Department of Justice or the Justice Department in the U.S... one way is how people say it, the other way is the proper name. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have though a "proper" translation would translate the Reich part, perhaps it should be at Reichsluftfahrtministerium. For comparison Ministry of Aviation is different to Air Ministry in the UK. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking "Reichs" is "Imperial", but it's not quite like "Bundes" which means "Federal" and I see no need to translate it as National Air Ministry. I guess it depends what the remit is of each of the UK equivalents. AFAIK the German ministry controlled all things air or aviation-related. Perhaps the UK equivalents didn't exercise such total control, especially since I know that the Ministry of Supply controlled aircraft procurement for a time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a bit of leeway with translations. It is probably better to keep them consistent once a format can be decided upon. This seems to get in to "Article titles." I would prefer the "French way" of adjectives last. It seems more objective if less interesting. "Air Ministry" makes the reader wait for what the "Air" modifies. Very English, but wrong for an encyclopedia IMO. Not terrifically important here, but elsewhere, objectivity is dramatically wanting in some titles. Student7 (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, what a depressingly long list :( I realise they aren't all milhist articles, but there's a lot of work there. Maybe we could try to drum up participants for the cleanup via the newsletter? EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Having had a quick look, some of the edits are quite trivial in nature, barely more than a sentence eg added to Peter Fleming was "He personally met the Chinese muslim General Ma Hu-shan during his travel in Asia." A good excuse though to visit an article you wouldn't normally go near and give a tweak or two to - I found some bad grammar (an article lacking a lot of definite articles) and patched it a bit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Raid at Cabanatuan now open

The featured article candidacy for Raid at Cabanatuan is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for December 1964 South Vietnamese coup now open

The A-Class review for December 1964 South Vietnamese coup is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Armed Forces of Liberia now open

The A-Class review for Armed Forces of Liberia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 11:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability of units and formations

The strategy think tank has started a brainstorming session about notability criteria for military units and formations. All members of the project with an interest in this area are invited to join the discussion at the strategy think tank talk page. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Arnold's expedition to Quebec now open

The A-Class review for Arnold's expedition to Quebec is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle now open

The peer review for GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Milhist banner from talk pages

I noticed recently that User:PINTofCARLING had deleted the MILHIST banner from several talk pages stating "already assessed via military bio work group". I left a message to the user on their talk page stating I did not agree because "I noticed that you removed the MILHIST banner from several talk pages because the Biography banner had the milhist workgroup. I do not agree with these changes and heres why. Althought the bio banner contains the Military workgroup it does not contain the task forces that are available in the MILHIST banner such as Location (such as US, Korea, China, etc) Maritime, WWI, WWII, etc. Additionally the Biography banner does not support the B class checklist and therefore the articles would not show up on any of the maintenance categories for that either. I do not know if any of these apply to the articles you removed the banner from but I wanted to point that out in case you were unaware.". But in case I am wrong in my warning I wanted to leave a message here to allow others to correct me if necessary. --Kumioko (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the MILHIST banner to several pages recently and then realized that for some of them the bio banner had already been added. At first glance I thought this meant that these articles are registered "somewhere" in MILHIST because the military biography task force is part of the MILHIST project. I didn't want to cause confusion by putting another banner on them and therefore decided to revert my edits for those pages. At second glance and considering the arguments above it seems that this was unnecessary especially since I have found several articles which have both banners. But it shouldn't be too complicated to put the banner back on those pages if necessary. Seems like I created the confusion I wanted to avoid. Sorry for that. I'll take more care next time. PINTofCARLING (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and I didn't mean to call you out I just wanted to make sure that I was interpretting the issue correctly myself. --Kumioko (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

World War II article

There are currently several discussions of the content of the World War II article at Talk:World War II which editors may wish to participate in. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a challenge regarding all Soviet and russian related military articles.

There is a strong push in all articles regarding Soviet and/or russian related battles and wars, in which the russian casualties are attempted to be severely downplayed. Furthermore there is a revisionist push for an acceptance of Soviet/russian pre-1991 explanations of foreign policy.

An example of this is the article regarding the war in Afghanistan where there is a push from Russian contributors to refrain calling it an invasion: "The Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan. Rather, it deployed troops in order to assist a regime whose regime was under attack by an externally supported and organised rebellion" and to calling the mujahedeen "external Arab invaders". Both of which is contrefactual and nonsensical.

There is also a MAJOR problem in the general tendency and bias where it is now a "Military stalemate and consequent withdrawal of Soviet forces". This war in fact was one if not THE pivotal points that led directly to Perestroika and Glasnost and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union in general and the Soviet Army in particular.

Also the numbers for the Soviet casualties seem WAY off: "Casualties and losses Soviet: 14,453 Killed (total) [3]

9,511 killed in combat [3] 2,386 died from wounds [3] 2,556 died from disease and accidents [3] 53,753 Wounded [3] 311 Missing Afghan Government: 1000+ Killed[citation needed]"

Firstly the numbers for the afghan government seems insanely low with 1000 killed being completely ludicrus, and secondly the general casualties seems COMPLETELY off when compared to the material losses:

Material losses were as follows:[3] "451 aircraft (includes 333 helicopters) 147 tanks 1,314 IFV/APCs 433 artillery guns and mortars 11,369 cargo and fuel tanker trucks."

Which means that LESS than one person lost their life for every piece of euipment lost in battle... Other figures can be seem here where they are FAR greater:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6737621/Soviet-Losses-in-Afghanistan

Or here:

http://se2.isn.ch/serviceengine/Files/ESDP/16007/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/17E7754A-A217-4FAC-8D2F-9D4CF8E1144E/en/rp_26.pdf

Here the losses are something along the lines of 450.000 wounded russians.

Are we really to believe that a war that lasted for as long as the US´s engagement in Vietnam only cost a fraction of the same casualties:

US 58,159 dead;[7] 1,719 missing; 303,635 wounded[8]

This in spite of the fact that the US had FAR better medicinal and first-aid facilities...

There are similar problems on all other articles involving the soviet union/russian includin the one on the Winter war and the war in Chechnya.Nick-bang (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet KIA totals always seemed semi-reasonable to me because the Soviets never deployed anywhere near the same number of troops in Afghanistan as did the US in Vietnam, aside from the initial invasion forces. But the wounded numbers are way off. Note, however, that the two sources you linked to combined wounded and sick, which may be the cause of the major discrepancy. Especially since I have a vague memory of some absolutely astonishing numbers of Russian sick, partially because of poor hygiene among the Russian troops.

We're having a similar debate over on the Battle of Kursk talk page and you may have to add notes to the article discussing the numbers, their sources, and their biases.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. However allthough I can consede to your point about the number of deployed tropps being dissimilar, then that does not explain the inconsistensies between the material losses and the casualties.

Also it still does not adress the Meta-problem around Russian readers trying to massively and concertedly redraw history to the nationalistic pre-1991 revisionist status. This is also a problem regarding the articles on Gulag, the history of the Baltic states and the Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff.

How can we and how should we react to that?Nick-bang (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this on the talkpage of Battle of Kursk, but it is equally relevant here:

To my astonishment I find this discussion resurfaces across WiKipedia, whenever and whereever Soviet and by extension Russian battles and wars are concerned. There is a tendency from russian contributors to downplay russian casualties, wounded and to portray many battles who are internationally and by a consensus in academia regarded as Soviet/russian losses and defeats into the exact opposite and at best as draw or variations thereof. It is something that is disturbing and annoying and if not handled properly, will cast into doubt every article in which Russia/Soviet union is a part. This was the case with the article on the Winter war where Russians tried to establish completely irrational and unrealistic low casualty rates for the Red Army. It is the case in the Article on the war in Afghanistan 1979-89, where russians are trying to establish the contrefactual and revisionist claim that it was not an invasion as well as posting completely unrealistic low casualty rates as well. The same can be seem across the articles with revisionist and sometimes pure pre-1991 Soviet propaganda finds its way into the articles. This includes allusion to the wild claim that the fall of the Soviet union was a conspiracy by NATO in general and USA in particular. As a writer it annoys me, but as a historian it deeply troubles me. The last time I saw a similar conserted effort to rewrite the facts to fit a specific political agenda was when Hitler and NSDAP rewrote the story of WW I to establish the myth of 1) german military invincibility and 2) Dolchstoßlegende ("dagger-stab legend") which claimed that the army, "undefeated in the field," had been "stabbed in the back" by civilian leaders and Marxists back on the home front. Now I am not looking for a fight or undue polemic debate - but it is a generic problem which is also very clearly here. And on a final note: Krivosheev is NOT infallible - he has produced much of the volume of his impressive work of figures previously confidential and from the Red Army. But that does not mean its accurate - by a long shot. Therefore the same procedures and techniques which any historical event should be subjected to so be applied liberally here. Which means that it is not the number of sources but rather their validity and international acceptance that should define their worth.Nick-bang (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Nick-bang (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Rivadavia class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Rivadavia class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Siege of Leningrad

There is a user who keeps inserting the claim of the siege of Leningrad being the most lethal in history and removing the wikilink to List_of_battles_by_casualties#Sieges_and_urban_combat which claims otherwise. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Without looking at the articles in question, any such claims should (a) be reliably sourced, and (b) be attributed to their source in the article text. Doing this avoids giving the false impression that Wikipedia itself is making the claim, rather than just reporting some else's claim as we are supposed to do. We shouldn't actually care if it's true or not, only if it's reliably sourced. For example, it's better to write "According to historian J Bloggs, the siege of Leningrad was the most lethal in history" instead of "The siege of Leningrad was the most lethal in history". There will always be competing claims for 'biggest', 'best', longest', etc, and as editors it's not our business to decide which are the most valid.

That said, this should really be resolved by you discussing it with the other editor and, if necessary, following the methods outlined at WP:DR. If the other editor is edit warring or being otherwise disruptive you can ask for administrator assistance at WP:ANEW (edit warring), WP:ANI (general disruption) or WP:RSN (sourcing issues)... but be careful you don't end up sanctioned yourself if they can claim the same about you! Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good advice. May I add that "[[Bloggs]] claims that...(footnote)" should only be used if Bloggs is notable. Otherwise you are reduced to saying "a historian claims that....(footnote)" Obviously their should be some kind of prima facie case for being "the most lethal." If it isn't even close, the other editor may be suspected of disruption. Student7 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

Could someone look over these major unsourced changes to autoloader? mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some unfounded and to my knowledge erroneous statements in there - how should I give my Input to you?Nick-bang (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it bad enough to just undo it?Sadads (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits for now. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I WANT TO KNOW!!!

Is Civil war in Ingushetia still ongoing? And aren't Eighty Years War and Dutch Revolt the same conflict? B-Machine (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the 80 Year's War and the Dutch Revolt are not the same conflict. Did you read the articles?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

On your first question, B-Machine, how would you define a 'civil war?' Then do a bit of research about continuing reported incidents, and if that matches your definition, then you've got your answer. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Quebec (1775) now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Quebec (1775) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Category:Artillery by war

I've been working to expand Category:Artillery by war, and it now has the following subcats:

Mortars by war (4 C)
American Civil War artillery (2 P)
Second Boer War artillery (17 P)
Cold War artillery (9 C, 2 P) F
Falklands War artillery (5 P)
Iran–Iraq War artillery (2 P)
Korean War mortars (3 P)
Spanish–American War artillery (2 P) V
Vietnam War artillery (2 C, 9 P)
World War I artillery (8 C, 1 P)
World War II artillery (8 C, 41 P, 1 F)

If any other redlegs and enthusiasts have ideas on arty articles that can be combined into a subcat to cover other conflicts, or ways to fill in the above subcats, I think this has the makings of a useful navigation too. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would create cross populated subcats of each war in Category:Artillery by war with Category:Military units and formations by war, Sadads (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea! I just created Category:Artillery units and formations by war, is that kind of what you're thinking? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Sadads (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A minor point, but the naming conventions (WP:MILMOS#CATNAME) for by-war categories put the name components in the opposite order (e.g. "Artillery of the Second Boer War"). It would be good to fix the names before we create too many sub-categories; if I recall correctly, WP:CFDS should cover a case like this. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Went hunting for more arty units not yet filed in arty categories; dumped them into Category:Artillery units and formations for now to be sorted out. If anyone wants to help sort, that'd be appreciated. If you want to track down more orphaned arty articles, know that I went up to 17 pages of Google searches under "artillery regiment site:en.wikipedia.org", so searching that query further, or using different keywords, might find more. Not that most the American Civil War artillery units did not have any link to the artillery category tree until I found them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadads, most of the artillery units you put into Category:Artillery units and formations from the Union side of the Civil War ought to go into Category:Artillery units and formations of the Union Army. Just a thought. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Any reason for starting in the late 19th. Century? Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars would be worth having, especially as there are a lot of articles on Gribeauval system guns out there. Monstrelet (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call, created Category:Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars, just needs populating now. In answer to the why, one problem is that the earlier we go the less standardised artillery was, so it's harder to get a clear distinction between articles on X tube and Y tube. My general impression is that prior to the mid-19th C. you get a lot of basic vague terms like "six pounder" or whatnot, while by the late 19th there are specific mass-produced designs/models that are easier to categorise. But I'm certainly open to any ideas on how to address that issue. Plus, we could always have basic overall articles like Artillery of the War of 1812, not unlike current articles focusing on tank warfare, airpower, etc. in specific wars. More like an expanded section of the main war articles, in which we can delve into documented technical details too geeky for the main overviews. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Russian military lists issue at ANI

See here for details. Lists falling under this WP are affected. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've hit this particular issue head-on. Interested users are invited to monitor List of ships of the Russian Navy and it's talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed - it seems like a variation of the problem that I described above.Nick-bang (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1965 South Vietnamese coup now open

The A-Class review for 1965 South Vietnamese coup is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 09:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about the US Government attribution templates

Although this may not be the best place to pose this queston it bares heavily on military history topics so forgive me. I have a question regarding the use of {{ACMH}} or the other related templates for establishing US government attribution. My question is, should any article that has a link or inline citation to say the United States Army Center of Military History (ACMH) also use the ACMH template, and if so, should max parameters be used (which could be redundent of the inline citation? The reason I ask is because the ACMH template adds the article to the category establishing attribution to the ACMH site whereas simply linking to the site or using an inline citation does not. Another problem to consider is that by using only the ACMH template (even when max parameters are used), without the inline citation, less information is provided about the source because the Cite web and Cite book templates have many more paramters for information about the source than the attribution templates do. The easiest (although it would require some effort too) would be to add additional parameters to the attribution template which would also require modifying the Template:Include-USGov meta template that most of them use. It is also possible that we could just split them off and use the Cite web (as is done with {{Find a Grave}}) template. Just to discuss the scope of this question for a moment, the ACMH template currently only links to about 750 articles total. There are more than 2000 articles relating to the Medal of Honor recipients alone that could and probably should link to it. --Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ACMH applies to any article that uses/reproduces text produced and/or published by the Center of Military History, i.e. Medal of Honor citations (they/we are the official repository of the text as much as other groups would like to be credited as the publishers), Lineage and Honors certificates, CMH books, CMH articles, webpages etc. Everything they/we produce is public domain, the idea is to give them credit for producing it legally, without having to cite every single line that you reproduce. I agree, there should be more variables in the ACMH template, but not every article that cites the CMH needs the ACMH template, as long as you are summarizing like on regular scholarly citations, however any copied texts or extensive quotations should have the ACMH tag. I don't represent the official voice of the Center, but I think I am fairly representing how are text should be dealt with, Sadads (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First I want to clarify that I used the ACMH as an example but this applies to others as well such as DANFS, the USMC, Congress, etc. I think we are saying basically the same thing, just explaining it two different ways. Since all of the MOH recipients contain the citation, mostly from the CMH site, it is my opinion that it should have the ACMH attribution, but most do not. And, just for clarification, it would be rather easy to add, I just want to clarify before I add it to 1300 pages with redundant info because in many cases I would need to add it from multiple sites (ACMH, USMC, DANFS, Congress, etc). Adding the ACMH template would also be a more efficient way of tracking what articles use it as a source then counting the articles that link to it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if text or information taken from the ACMH was properly formatted in the first place. Eg in a similar manner to {{London Gazette}}?

Yes, but im a little confused about the question. --Kumioko (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not formatted to sit well as a source (we still ought to credit it correctly) why specify public domain at the start. Why doesn't it appear in this sequence

John A. Lynn, "Medal of Honor", United States Army Center of Military History public domain material (retrieved on 2009-07-20) ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly we already do this sort of. If we use the Cite web format it will look like this:

"Oviatt, Miles M. entry". Medal of Honor recipients, Civil War M-Z. United States Army Center of Military History. July 28, 2010. Retrieved August 4, 2010. (and basically we can use the full list of fields available in the Cite web template)

and if we use the ACMH template it will look something like this:

This article incorporates public domain material from No author in this case. Medal of Honor. United States Army Center of Military History. Retrieved August 4, 2010. {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help)(here we are limited to basically 4 fields)

What I am trying to say above though, which maybe I didnt do a good job of was if we use the ACMH template we get the attribution and the categories that go with it but we have limited fields of data to use. If we use the cite web template we get more fields and a better inline citation reference but we don't get the attribution. And since the ACMH uses the Include-USgov meta template we cannot easily modify it without affecting other templates as well. If we do not use a template at all and simply type it out as you have then we lose the ability of using tools like AWB to ensure that the references are properly formatted, there are no categories associated with it (unless we manually transclude them), and theres no standard structure (basically each one could have the items in different orders because presumably different editors would do it differently. I hope that makes more sense. --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The template could be altered and still retain the categories, the attribution for US Gov could be directly incorporated into the template, there's nothing particularly sophisticated going on "under the bonnet".GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately thats not exactly true the acmh template uses the Include Usgov meta template and that template also drives a dozen or so others. So if we modify the Include USgov template, we could then also modify all the others to be more inline with the te web citation template. Your right in that it is doable but there is a degree of difficulty. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That definitely sounds like a very good idea, though it may mean a fair bit of work. Sadads (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can modify the code for the appropriate changes but I will have to do it in the templates sandbox and someone else with admin rights can make the changes live. This template is restricted so I cannot access it. Which is fine, just means someone else has to share in the effort. --Kumioko (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Without altering any templates (code), you can use some other template and wrap it in {{citation-attribution}}. Or just cite it in the usual way and add {{source-attribution}} in the "References" section. How to instructions are included in the documentation for both templates. -- PBS (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A functional tool for APP-6A, Military Symbols for Land Based Systems alternatively for APP-6B?

Being in the process of making a draft for the current danish force composition, then I really need access to a tool that will enable me to draw it in the symbology of similar articles.

But i cant seem to find and/or make anything accessible work.

Any one have any ideas? Thank you all in advance. Nick-bang (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The man for this is User:Noclador in Kiev. Go ahead and e-mail him through the emailthisuser feature if he hasn't contributed recently. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I have contacted him, and hope he will get back when he has the time. Thanks for the help!Nick-bang (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered Nick-bang through mail, and thanks Buckshot for helping Nick contact me, cheers noclador (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) now open

The A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 12:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Major cleanup at Category:Spanish Civil War, a little more help needed

I noticed a large number of articles in this cat that should really be in subcats. Accordingly, added Foreign volunteers in the Spanish Civil War, Fortifications of the Spanish Civil War, Internment camps of the Spanish Civil War, Spanish Civil War military equipment, Spanish Civil War prisoners of war massacres, and Veterans of the Spanish Civil War. There are a lot of remaining articles still on the main cat, many of which involving foreign policy, military units and political parties, etc. Any help in filing those remaining pages would be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Action of 9 February 1799 now open

The featured article candidacy for Action of 9 February 1799 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I WANT TO KNOW AGAIN!!!

Who deleted the template box for Kosovo War? Can it be saved? I'm tired of vandalism. B-Machine (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. I got the son of a bitch. B-Machine (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

B-Machine, please refrain from unnecessary all-caps in section headers, and avoid offensive language. This is not a blog, nor a place where using such terminology will gain respect. Show us you know how to use the English language fully, appropriately, and properly; not its' informal and potentially offensive elements which you would not expect to find in a written encyclopaedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify in order for me to understand the issue at hand - Is this another example of users with a political agenda attempting to do their own historical revisionistic projects? And if so what are our recommended course of action? And finally is this in the same vein as two of the posts from above? If so then to reiterate: there is a serious problem regading what I can only see as a concerted effort to rewrite history primarily to absolve some of the great despotic regimes of any and all blame, point of fact being the article on China, North Korea and Iran which all to greater or lesser degree have very uncritical approaches. In particular its applicable in many of the articles regarding the warcrimes, lost battles and generally embarrasing items of fact for the Soviet Union and by extension the Russian federation, which are under continuous and concerted attempts to downplay anything which goes against the prevalent consenseus in the Russian Federation (and coincidentally also against the pre-1991 Soviet propaganda version of varying subkects) .

This is not an attempt at unfruitfull, lopsided and polemic debate, but rather an attempt to evaluate wheter it is me who constitute a minority and are seeing ghosts? If not then where isthe proper forum for this debate?Nick-bang (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick-bang, without writing screeds and screeds more paragraphs about allegations of POV editing, would you please present as concise list of articles which you feel are in danger of damaging changes. I would note however that part of the reasons for the changes you perceive is English's status as an increasingly world language; dictionaries have had to include a significant number of new 'upstart' words and phrases due to this factor, and wikipedia's portrayal of controversial events will be altered as well away from the U.S./Western Europe common consensus on these matters to some degree - it's absolutely inevitable. However, with that fact noted, please give us a list of articles: Buckshot06 (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure no problem: In no particular order then its the following articles (the list is not neccesarily comprehensive, but rather indictive of the problem):

1) The article about North Korea which decidedly downplays the North´s well-docuumented attempts of innfiltration, kidnapping of foreign nationals, nuclear program, inability to feed themselves etc.. Nor does it describe the completely erratic behavious of the present Dictator. Nor does it actually call it a dictatorship - which is made all the more glaring as Mthe article on Myanmar is called a "military dictatorship"

2) The Article on China does not mention the brutal and bloody regime of Mao and the later gang of four, other than in half a sentence. Nor does it mention the pressure against the gowernment of Taiwan. But most embarrasing of all then it makes NO mention of the genocide in Tibet, the murder of dissidents, the butchery on the place of the heavenly peace in 1989, the irrational persecutiuon of Falun Gong and so on.

3) The entire article on the Soviet union is likewise slanted and with the same results.

4) Specifically for this forum then ALL the articles on soviet battles and campaigns during WW2 are CLEARLY under pressure from revisionist russian contributors to downplay soviet mistakes, number of deaths etc. Amongst these are the articles on the battle of Kursk, the Winter war, Operation Barbarossa etc. Likewise for the article on the Soviet war in afghanistan. This tendency repeats itself with modern articles regarding russia, specifically the incredibly bungled russian attempts of russian hostage-rescue operations in the 90´s and 2000´s and coincidentally also regarding articles like the murder by FSB of Alexander Litvinenko.

I could go on and on - but I MUST make it clear that this is NOT an attempt to propegate a political agenda or slander Russia et al - rather I believe that this is a clear and present danger against the objectiveness and therefore the validity of several WiKi articles. Hence it should be discussed in an open, informed and academic fashion to avoid controversies in the actual pages.Nick-bang (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand you're talking about North Korea, People's Republic of China, Soviet Union to start with? We need to be clear on the exact articles you're talking about, so it would be very useful to link them when you mention them. Now, for the other specifically Milhist articles, have you raised this issue at the Russian & Soviet taskforce? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is correct - I did not realize that those taskforces existed. If you bear with the question, then how do I contact them?Nick-bang (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

At the top of this page, you will see a sidebar on the right. There are a couple of major headings, but one is task forces. Both functional (including the maritime warfare task force) and regional (including the Russian and Soviet task force) are accessible through pull-down menus. Post a note on the talk page of each task force; this is the kind of place where such discussions are supposed to take place. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists of war films based on books

Hello, I hope you don't mind me bringing his up here, but I think this is something members of this project could help with. There is some work going on by User:Nihonjo, User:*Kat* and me, to improve a series of lists, most of which contain war films based on books. The lists have had a number of issues for a long time, relating to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OWN, to name a few. The original author of the lists, User:Varlaam has long been reluctant to allow others to make improvements, although changes are finally being made. I would like to get others involved if possible, as three editors does not necessarily make "consensus". More info can be found at User:Nihonjoe/Films and User talk:Nihonjoe/Films, as well as at various article talkpages including Talk:List of war films based on books (1775–1898) and Talk:List of war films based on books (1898–1926). (Also, check out the article histories of any of the relevant articles.)

It would be a great help if other editors could join in, either to help out, or just to say they agree with changes being made, or they don't agree, or they have better ideas, or that perceived problems aren't really problems... or whatever! One of the problems we'll be tackling next is trying to remove films that aren't really about the topic of the list (ie. not really a war film), so if anyone wants to run their eyes over the lists and remove films that they know shouldn't be there, that would be great too.--Beloved Freak 09:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC Review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) open

Hello,

The FAC review for this article is open open. Your comments are welcome. All editors are invited to participate. TIA Perseus 71 ^talk 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Winston Churchill

I opened a discussion on what seemed like a fairly trivial matter about Churchill's birthplace as displayed in the infobox. It's already got fairly heated, so if anyone wants to come by to add some other opinions to move us towards any sort of consensus, that would be appreciated. Discussion is here. Benea (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture?

This image. I have absolutely no experience with Featured pictures which is why I'm refering here. ResMar 03:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I got it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Walter Ohmsen now open

The peer review for Walter Ohmsen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Maps of battles on Commons needs attention

I was quite shocked to see that commons:Category:Maps of battles is very underpopulated; commons:Category:Battle maps by war has only two wars... I think we need to do something about that ASAP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of maps in there though - ones like the normandy campaign ones for example - I for one do not know how to get those cats in - is it the same as here, just copy and paste ? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories on commons work just like categories here. Our goal of course is to categorize the military related maps, which usually represent battles or campaigns. So, a map should usually have a "Map of the battle of x", or "Map of Operation/Campaign/War y" category, that should be part of relevant overcategory (Maps of battles by war, maps of operation/campaigns by wars, maps of wars, etc.). In addition, maps should be assigned to "maps by language" categories (or blank maps). Overcats, such as wars/operations/campaigns, at their top level, should, in turn, be assigned to time period (incl. a year where possible) and geographical/country categories. I hope that helps, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok - pretty tentatively I have created the first category "Battle maps of World War II" [1] and entered the parent category so it now shows on main category

I am still not quite sure on how this works in parent and sub categories. The WWI maps I looked at seem to have the categories in reverse order of size - ie Map of battle XXX : Map of campaign XXX : Map of War XXX

They also seem to contain extras in the Category field such as [2] which has [[Category:Battle of Broodseinde|*]] and "Category:Battles maps of World War I" [3] has [[Category:Battle maps by war|WWI]] and [[Category:Battles of World War I|*Maps]] [4]

Can you explain why they have the |* in there and what the |WWI does in relation to the main cats ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also just hit first main problem. I created "Battle maps of Operation Overlord" and added it to [5] but if you look at Charnwood you can see that there is already a category called "Maps_of_the_Battle_of_Normandy" - the next I was going to create was to be "Battle maps of the Battle of Normandy"

I will not proceed until instructed/discussed now as it seems AWB would be better to do any cat changes etc and I do not want to cause problems by cahnging things without discussion Chaosdruid (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Explore the various categories and subcategories on Commons and any appropriate categories here throughly ChaosDruid, and run any potential categories you wish to create past User:Kirill Lokshin, who set up most of the original category trees, and you should be all right. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Maps of the battle of..." seems better then "Battle maps of..."; I've already filled a request to have those categories renamed. I'd suggest the ones we create are in the "Maps of..." format. You can ask for renames here. The pipe is used for ordering the cats (so, if you want Category:Battles of World War I to appear in the listing of categories under W, not B, you would have |W. In fact, "| " is often used to have the category listed at the very beginning of a list, and it is even more often used in articles, to list them at the very top and to indicate they are main articles for a given category). Sometimes you'll see * and other symbols, because the system is not (AFAIK) standardized, and some people will prefer to use stars (where I prefer to use spaces) and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that you are not changing the ones for Operations in that way as "Maps of the battle of Operation Overlord" does not sound correct lol

"Battle maps of World War II" was in keeping with "Battle maps of World War I" which already existed. I am sure that "Maps of the battles of World War II" is not such a big problem though.

The point I was trying to make is that I created them under the parent "Battle maps by war" and as the next down is operational then "Battle maps of Operation XXX" or "Battle maps by operation" is IMO better than what you are suggesting "Maps of the battle of Operation Overlord" and the alternative "Maps of Operation Overlord"(as this could include any map not related to the battles). When it gets to individual battles though it may be better to keep them as "Maps of the battle of Kursk" etc. It would not be a problem apart from the "Battle of Normandy" is not really an operation but a collective "unofficial" name given to the Normandy campaign

(lost session addition) However it seems that as there were two in the initial post "Maps of battles" and "Battle maps" then some clouding has occured. I am suggestiong a line where "Maps of..." is only at individual action or individual battle levels and "Battle maps of" is at Operational or above.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Maps of the battles of Operation Overlord"? After all, the operation was composed of numerous smaller battles...? There could also be a parent cat "Maps of the Operation Overlord" for maps of the entire operation. Not all military maps are maps of battles, so there is nothing wrong with having two partially overlapping category trees. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I have missed somtething in the comments I can see that there is little point in me getting involved. There is nothing wrong with "Maps of the battles of Operation Overlord" per se

What was wrong with "Battle maps of World War II" or "Battle maps of Operation Overlord" ? they were specific categories for the battle maps and yet you decided they should be renamed. The original statement was "Battle Maps" and "Maps of battles" and now rather than create the other options separately you renamed the ones I created - that is not having trees overlapping. Now you are suggesting that there should be "Maps of Operation Overlord" and "Maps of the battles of Operation Overlord" what happened to the categories "Battle maps of" ? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Maps of is better than Battle maps due to style (Commons MoS, if it ever had one). I expect they will be renamed by bot, if I missed any (because they were recently created) please use the link above to queue it up for a bot.

The reason I reported the issue here is to interested editors in categorizing mil-hist-images, and likely, in creating more categories. Thanks for the help! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hand-drawn maps

This discussion reminded me to do some house-keeping, so moved some public domain maps to Commons and categorised them as per scheme above. More to be done later. My query, Commons agrees to accept hand drawn maps for military history articles. Can they be displayed on WP? Does our Wikiproject have any request service where I can request someone to make computer graphics from them? And where can I get comments for their improvement? AshLin (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

They can be displayed; question is will other editors agree they are of sufficiently high quality? I would probably say yes (any map is better then no map) but I am not sure what the consensus is (if there is any) on the issue. I don't think MILHIST has a graphic taskforce (but I could be wrong). See Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop for a place where you can request maps to be created based on your hand drawn ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ACR needs more participation

The following articles have been nominated for an A-Class Review for at least one week and have not had enough editors comment/review:

The nominators would certainly appreciate any and all feedback that could be provided to them. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 17:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for St Nazaire Raid now open

The peer review for St Nazaire Raid is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a second opinion on a source

I am looking for a second opinion on a source I located reagrding a Medal of Honor recipient. This link 1862 USMC MOH has some additional details regarding an article I created today for Christopher Nugent but I am not sure about the credibility of the site. Does anyone have an opinon on whether this site has sufficient credibility to use this info as an inline citation. --Kumioko (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well he's listed his sources at the bottom of the page. If you have access to any of those and they verify what you wanr, don't worry about the middleman. NtheP (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess thats true, I have some of them and I will try and get the rest. --Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:FortBragg

I created the template {{FortBragg}}. What does everyone think about it? I assume this is the correct place to discuss this matter. I am also the creator of {{NCMilitary}}. PG Pirate 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look and I think it looks okay, but the best place to discuss is probably the United States military history task force. Good work, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They both look pretty good, I would suggest redlinking topics you think are notable but don't have articles yet. That is a great way to prod other people into creating them.Sadads (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

SVG resource for conflict maps

Hi, I'm about to try to draw my first battle map with Inkscape. I've searched this project for resources without much success, but Google found File:Template of Military Symbols.svg, which looks excellent but appears to be unused by any Wikimedia project. Wouldn't it be useful to link to that resource from somewhere within this project? Sandstein 16:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty bizarre to me, but I know little of SVG. Could you (or somebody) categorize it? I am stumped as I don't know what that file is for :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a collections of icons, such as unit symbols. Mediawiki doesn't render the preview correctly, you need to open it in Inkscape to make use of it. I've categorized it as Commons:Category:SVG map symbols. Sandstein 11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've used File:Maps template-en.svg and File:Maps template-history patch-en.svg as toolkits for military map styles and icons. I'm not the world's best svg-ist, but you can see maps I made using them at Battle of The Cedars. Magic♪piano 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, these look useful as well. Sandstein 11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Creating maps. The template you referred to was created in SVG and PNG format (one can select elements or symbols from the template) and can be accessed from there Farawayman (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Blablaaa

I still had User talk:Blablaaa on a watchlist and was not at all surprised, to see some edits just a heads up. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If MBK or Kirill happen to read this, the message he left concerns aspects of the arbitration committee and I can not answer them in good faith because the truth is I am not sure myself. Both of you have had experience in the matter and would be a position to answer his question with the proper advise needed for arbcom related matters. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

An un-recused clerk is handling this matter (I'm recused due to the MILHIST issue here), but the main thing is that he will be unblocked only for the limited purpose of defending himself and presenting evidence during the arbitration case. If he makes any edits outside of this to any page not in the arbitration remit he can be immediately re-blocked by any administrator. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. For reference, I'm recused myself, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Indefatigable (1909) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Indefatigable (1909) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Westfalen now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Westfalen is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for German Type UB I submarine now open

The featured article candidacy for German Type UB I submarine is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC plea

There are currently four ships (I'll also post to the Ships Project) and four other MilHist articles at FAC, and I've been concerned for some time about review of these nominations, considering the FAC backlog and the need for independent eyes to check for issues like jargon. Some of the prolific FAC nominators rarely review other nominations, and many of the MilHist FACs rarely get review from independent editors. Perhaps if MilHist and Ship FAC nominators would spend more time reviewing other articles, that would encourage more independent review of these nominations and help reduce the backlog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for FN Five-seven now open

The peer review for FN Five-seven is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kirishima now open

The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kirishima is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Courageous (50) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Courageous (50) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Boeing B-52 Stratofortress now open

The A-Class review for Boeing B-52 Stratofortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Cartagena de Indias now open

The peer review for Battle of Cartagena de Indias is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Unternehmen Paula now open

The peer review for Unternehmen Paula is now open; all editors are invited to participate. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for No. 410 Squadron RCAF now open

The featured article candidacy for No. 410 Squadron RCAF is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive war

Hi, a discussion on the presentation of the Six-Day War at Preemptive war has been started in the talk page to the latter article. Please join in and comment. Thanks! Shoplifter (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Brownbot not respecting opt-out requests

I unsubscribed from receiving the Newsletter, as a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/Options will show. However, it still appeared on my page. Please fix this, or I will have to shut down the bot until it is fixed. (And I'd rather not do that.) Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll let the bot's operator know about this; my apologies for the inconvenience. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I don't know why that happened, no one else on the opt-out list got it. It could be because your username was shown with the first letter lower-case on the options page and the first letter upper-case on the members page, so I changed that. (That shouldn't change anything, but AWB does have its quirks...)

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't threaten to "shut down the bot" for a minor issue that's only happening to one person, just a simple notification to the bot operator's talk page is good enough. Cbrown1023 talk 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

George Washington

A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Task force parameters for the Milhist banner

Hi all, this is just a quick reminder that when adding the task force parameters to the Military History project talk page banners that you need to be careful to get the mark up coding exactly right. For instance "|us = yes" will not place an article in the United States military history task force, but either "|US=yes" or "US=y" will. If you wish to find out the exact mark up code to use for the various task forces, these can be found by going to the task force pages (found here) where it will be listed in the Tagging and assessment sections. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway we could diversify what parameters work, allowing more options that are intuitive to editors?Sadads (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would think so, but I don't know really, sorry. Can anyone help with this? AustralianRupert (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Regular expression maybe?Sadads (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's easy enough. {{{US|{{{us|}}}}}}. However there are drawbacks in that this then creates a for-ever-after need to support the two (or more) variants. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

That breaks if the user specifies both parameters, unfortunately. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In the sense that if you want a different behaviour for "US=yes|us=yes" to "US=yes|us=no" it does break it. However if you allow "US" to dominate "us" then it's not a problem, since in both cases the value of {{{US|{{{us|}}}}}} will be "yes". Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

I was actually thinking of a simpler case: the way MediaWiki distinguishes between "missing" and "empty" parameters means that US=|us=yes would not be interpreted as a "yes" response if we used the default parameter value method. (This tends to be an actual problem because people copy the entire template boilerplate from the documentation, leaving empty parameters in place; an editor that comes along and adds a flag to the end of the template invocation without carefully examining every preceding parameter will then see a rather unexpected result.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I like it, Any thoughts on getting support for both US and us on the template?Sadads (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's already support for aliases for the TF parameters in the template; it would be trivial (if a bit time-consuming) to add at least a subset of possible alternative capitalizations. What we need is a list of the aliases that should be added for each tag. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

the template code is complex enough as it is. Wouldn't it be more effective to run a bot to look for "us" and correct it. If it is expected that an editor should spell "British" correctly for the template to work, it shouldn't be too much to expect another editor to get their Capitalization correct.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really add much complexity; the aliasing feature is already there in any case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Kirill)Don't think its trivial, makes it more intuitive to sort pages and allows more users who don't normally task force tag to do it without double checking (i.e. me adding all kinds of tags, thinking "oh I have seen "us" as the taskforce so I might as well add it"). It is a user friendly experience kind of thing, Sadads (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"trivial" = "easy" :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, Sadads (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But most of the rest of Wikipedia doesn't use capitalized template parameters, take Infoboxes and cite templates for example,Sadads (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Except for things that are normally capitalized. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

A-Class review for SMS Kaiser (1911) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Kaiser (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for USS PC-1264 now open

The peer review for USS PC-1264 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible addition to MILMOS

Hi all, per the discussion on the Strategy Think Tank page here, there is a proposal to add a section to the Notability guideline relating to units and formations. Currently we have a notability section for people, but it would seem to make sense to also include sections on units and formations, and also possibly (later) battles. The guideline below has been tweaked several times while it was in the brainstorming phase, but now comments are sought from all members of the project about whether or not they are happy to have them added to the Notability guidelines. Please add comments and suggestions to the Comments section below the proposed addition. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Units and formations

As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion:

National armed forces or branches thereof. Examples include Canadian Forces, People's Liberation Army Navy, Fleet Air Arm, Royal Marines, Special Republican Guard and United States Army;
Higher level land forces command formations, such as regiments, brigades, divisions, corps, and armies, or their historical equivalents.^[1] Examples include 2nd Brigade (Australia), 1st Infantry Division (Germany), I ANZAC Corps and Eighth Army (United Kingdom);
Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations (including combat, combat support and combat service support units). Examples include battalion-level or equivalent units^[2] such as 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry;
Warships, including submarines, commissioned in recognised naval forces. Examples include HMAS Sydney, USS Enterprise and SMS Blücher;
Civilian vessels serving as auxiliary warships are notable in the same way as commissioned warships. Otherwise, a civilian vessel's notability is derived from participation in a notable naval action or association with an otherwise notable military figure. Examples include SS Ohio, RMS Lusitania and Queen Anne's Revenge;
Higher level naval command formations, such as flotillas, squadrons and fleets. Examples include Caspian Flotilla, West Africa Squadron and United States Seventh Fleet; and
Air force, naval, or marine aviation squadrons, wings, groups, and commands. Examples include No. 1 Squadron RAF, No. 1 Wing RAAF, No. 6 Group RCAF, 16th Air Army and Western Air Command, Indian Air Force.

As a general rule, sub-units that exist below the level of those formations listed above—such as sections, platoons, troops, batteries, companies, and flights—are not intrinsically notable. Such information as can be suitably sourced should normally be included, with appropriate focus, in an article about a notable parent formation.^[3] Rarely, some sub-units will meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements. These however will be exceptional cases, such as E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), which is notable because it was the subject of a best-selling and detailed book and TV miniseries.

Independent sources for units and formations

"Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject" includes published books, journal articles, and/or reputable websites, by recognised subject experts that discuss in depth the units and their involvement in significant military operations. It does not include websites, newsletters and webcasts published by the unit itself or other non-independent agencies (such as a parent formation).^[4] Also, it does not include passing mentions in otherwise suitable sources.

^ For example cohorts, legions or alae or medieval mercenary companies, such as the Catalan Company.
^ The availability of sources on different sized units, and hence the intrinsic notability of the unit, can vary from country to country. For example, in Australia most infantry battalions have had at least one detailed book published about them along with a high degree of coverage in various official histories. In other countries with larger military forces, such in depth coverage for similar sized units may not exist. In deletion discussions here and here, battalion-level units were deemed not to be notable due to a lack of suitable coverage.
^ Precedents were set for this in deletion discussions here and here, where it was held that information contained in such articles should be merged with the units' parent formations.
^ While usually acceptable as sources for content, material published by armed forces, individual branches, or historical divisions (such as the USN's Naval History & Heritage Command or United States Army Center of Military History) should not be used as the only evidence towards a subject's notability. A possible exception to this rule might be where it can be established that these works are reliable per the established guideline and provide significant coverage of the subject.

Comments

I would consider some RHA/RA Batteries notable given the longevity and history. They may well have been used as independent units in notable actions, O Battery (The Rocket Troop) Royal Horse Artillery for example Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree but the above proposed guide does make it clear that sub-units can achieve notability on their own but this is likely to be rare. O Battery would need, IMO, a lot more referencing to justify not being merged into the article on 1st Regt RHA. NtheP (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to say something about pre-modern military formations? All the examples are 20th. century onwards. The regimental system only goes back to the 17th. century AFAIK. It is fairly easy to form parallels e.g. a mercenary company of some notability like the White Company, the Landesknecht Black Band, the Companions of Alexander the Great, a Legion with a well recorded career. Should we be explicit in this?Monstrelet (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Monstrelet, your point is well made. We're all so incredibly recentist (I'm actually thinking of very much stronger language) that we don't tend to think about such issues. Please feel free to amend the proposed guidelines above to reflect your concerns. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point. I've tweaked the guideline above slightly to deal with it, but I don't have much knowledge of such units so could someone who knows a bit more please take a look and adjust accordingly? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "Civilian vessels serving as auxiliary warships are notable in the same way as commissioned warships. Otherwise, a civilian vessel's notability is derived from participation in a notable naval action or association with an otherwise notable military figure?" I'm afraid I'm not a ship fan myself but I was thinking of maybe the tanker Ohio as participating in a notable action and I think I recall decorated heroes serving in gun detachments of WWII merchant men, so perhaps one of those as an example of the second? Also, I was tempted to put Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge, showing piracy may also be a way a civilian vessel could achieve MILHIST notability. What do folks think? (BTW, I haven't forgotten I'm supposed to offer a line on pre-modern formations, just need a bit more time for that) Monstrelet (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a line based on this suggestion. Please feel free to tweak as necessary. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, realise that my post above was in the wrong place. I've added a small addition to the footnotes in the text above to take in medieval mercenary companies. Monstrelet (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, thanks for adding that. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a bit overkill, but I'd like to throw it out there in case it needs to be codified. In regards to non-independant sources, how strictly is "parent formation" defined, particularly in regards to high-level publications, such as at Corps, Branch, or Force level? While it would be unwise to use The Fearless Times, ship newspaper for HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156), as a source for that article, what would the stance be on the Navy-wide newspaper, Navy News, or the RAN website? How about for corps- or department-wide publications (like the annual Australian Sapper Magazine for the Royal Australian Engineers or the journal Navy Supply Newsletter for RAN supply personnel)? Would works published by Service and Force historical departments (like the RAN's Sea Power Centre or the USN's Naval History & Heritage Command) or military museums (like the Royal Navy Submarine Museum) be acceptable? -- saberwyn 00:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. I guess it comes down to what is viewed as "independent of the subject" as written in WP:GNG. To be honest, I'm not really sure what the answer for this should be. As far as significant coverage is concerned I feel that such sources would be okay for relatively trivial information, but an article would need more than just a citation to Australian Sapper or Army News (or any of the other Service newspapers/journals for that matter) to prove notability. However, some of the other works by historical departments may be more likely to be considered independent and reliable as presumably they undergo some form of review before publication (I might be wrong, though, of course). I'm not sure it needs to be defined in this guideline, however, because largely this is covered in the higher level notability guideline itself (i.e WP:N). Having said that, a footnote next to the parent formations clause clarifying the project's position might help give some guidance. I guess this begs the question as to exactly what the footnote should say. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Something along the lines of: "While acceptable sources for content, material published by armed forces, individual branches, or historical divisions (such as the USN's Naval History & Heritage Command) should not be used as the only evidence towards an article's notability" ? -- saberwyn 00:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added this in as a footnote. Please feel free to tweak as necessary. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So if I'm reading this correctly, if a unit has served in combat; has taken casualties; is noted with various unit awards and commendations (e.g.: Distinguished Unit Citation), but, the only information available about it is in documents published by the uniformed service, then the unit is non-notible? Sorry, but that sounds ludicrous. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Many times I'll run into a stub article such as this: 533d Training Squadron. In this example, the unit is currently an ICBM training squadron at Vandenburg AFB, California. That itself does not make it notable. However, the unit's history is that it was formed originally in 1942 as a B-17 bombardment squadron and was engaged in combat over Occupied Europe during the strategic bombing campaign carried out by Eighth Air Force. The squadron took many casualties during Big Week. After the war, it was activated by SAC and for over 25 years it was a Titan II ICBM squadron based at McConnell, being inactivated in the mid 80s when that missile was phased out. In addition, I have information about the nine ICBM silos it controlled. I do suspect that this information might be of interest to someone who'se father served in it, or some other researcher....... However, the information I have about this unit comes from the Air Force Historical Research Agency. I don't have any 'third party' information, most of which, if it exists, would be derived from the same AFHRA documents. So, in this case, this highly decorated unit would not be "notable" ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however, ultimately this guideline has to conform to the guidance in WP:N, where it specifically states "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is a little bit of leeway with this, and with that in mind the footnote was written as it was, however, I don't think that ultimately we can go against that guidance in any significant way. Of course, I'm open to suggestions about wording it differently, but I'm fairly sure that the spirit of the guidance will need to stay quite close to WP:N. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Exempt combat units if no other information is available about them other from military sources. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think we are misinterpreting "Independent of the subject", that is written with the intention of preventing PR type activites, hence why the examples are "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc" which does not include organizational histories by a related organization and written by historians reputable throughout their field. It seems silly to exclude legitimate scholars when they aren't directly related to the units. Sadads (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that we can simply "exempt combat units" without being accused by other projects of going against what is essentially a community wide consensus. Essentially I agree with you that some of publications by sources that might be deemed to be "non independent" are in fact reliable (for instance the Royal Australian Engineers published its own official history, but employed qualified historians to do so), however, there are a lot of sources that wouldn't be, for instance unit websites, etc. Hence the wording that is used here needs to be very tight otherwise we risk running afoul of breaching the community consensus of WP:N. As such, can you please clarify what you would like the guideline to say? AustralianRupert (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You know my personnal opinion: the mention of official historical programs should be removed. I will not argue about it, because of my COI, but I support whoever else wishes this to be removed.Sadads (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have adjusted the note somewhat, however, I'm not sure that total removal of the clause would achieve consensus given that a number of editors have expressed the opinion that the note was making. In adjusting the note, I feel that it provides sufficient "room for manoeuvre" while maintaining the spirit outlined in the higher level guideline (i.e. WP:N). Are there any thoughts on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Another question, would it be possible/worth rolling points 2 and 5 together into a single point dealing with "high-level command formations"? Point 6 could probably be split so that the command stuff gets rolled in, while the original point is refocused to be the aviation equivalent of points 3 and 4 (I don't know enough about military aviation to suggest where that line would be drawn). -- saberwyn 00:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason why it was separated like that was so it didn't get too cluttered with different ground, aviation and naval examples in the point. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Question the third: While point 4 deals with commissioned warships, what about civilian-manned or auxiliary ships, like the US Military Sealift Command or the British Royal Fleet Auxiliary? -- saberwyn 00:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I had been going to add the following footnote to point 4: "Civilian vessels that are part of naval fleet auxiliaries, such as the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Military Sealift Command are also most likely notable, but reference to the notability guidelines of WP:SHIPS should be undertaken prior to article creation.", however, I have not actually been able to locate the Ships project notability guidelines. The best I've been able to find was a User talk page where guidelines were being put together, but seems to have been inactive for almost 18 months. It is here: User talk:Viv Hamilton/Ship notability. If anyone can locate the Ships project notability guidelines (if they do exist), I'd be grateful. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Civilian ships is something I mentioned in passing in the think tank. The problem with using the SHIPS notability is that the vessel isn't necessarily notable for military reasons. We should have some qualification on which civilian ships are notable enough for this project. For example, is participation in convoys notable or do they have to be particularly convoys? There is also a class of ship issue, where we have a milhist tag on all ships in a class when their notability may vary considerably. So we might say that class articles on military warships are OK (because all commissioned warships are notable, and that could apply to designed but never built ships in classes), but civilian ships have to have individual notability (we wouldn't accept all quarterbacks because some quarterbacks had military careers). Just ideas. Monstrelet (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Would you suggest just adding another point/line on the list? I think that would make it clearer than lumping them in with the warships and submarines. I'm not really sure how to word it, though, and also what ships the project would consider as being notable or not (ships not being my area of interest/knowledge). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added in a line about this a while ago. Apologies, I replied to this thread in the wrong spot. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think some guidelines would be a good idea. The Air Force squadrons I've been writing about recently are all combat units and the pages have more than just the bare-bones lineage information about them. In many cases I won't include the support units as most times I can't find much information about them, and actually, a supply squadron or aircraft maintenance squadron simply isn't notable... no matter that they all are important to a mission of a combat organization and most people who are in the military serve in them. I would also include on the non-notable list most training units, unless they were converted into a combat unit that actually engaged in combat operations. Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any further comments on this? If not, should it be moved across to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide now? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I propose to add this to the Notability guide tomorrow. I will wait until then in case anyone has any last minute concerns. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added it to the guidelines now. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Burwell B. Bell III

Is this guy notable? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As a retired four-star general and the former commander of multiple divisions, corps, and armies, Bell does meet our notability standards. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It does, however, badly need some citations/references... there's only one in the whole article that I can see, mentioning that the general is currently retired. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) now open

The featured article candidacy for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Academy reorganization (Phase I)

I've started a discussion at the training division of the strategy think tank about cleaning up the organization of the Academy; input there would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Possible articles"

Perhaps someone can split a list of droppings off of Grand Slam bomb and/or Tallboy bomb? Only 42 (Gland slams) were deployed, and I'm sure with the right references, it can be developed into a very interesting list. Shame I don't have the references. Possible listing. ResMar 01:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no point in having a separate list for the 42 Grand Slam bomb bombs that were dropped when the parent article is only 12K in size and already lists most of the bombs dropped (maybe all it depends on how many were dropped on the Valentin submarine pens). -- PBS (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of the air raids in which these bombs were dropped are probably individually notable due to the large and detailed literature on No. 617 Squadron RAF, the bombs and British WWII weapons design in general. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It may well be in the future there is enough information on individual raids for separate articles, but that is not what was suggested. For the moment I see no need to have a separate list article.-- PBS (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We might not need an article listing all the drops of these bombs, but there are enough references to make this a viable proposition in my view. A table with the date/time of the drop, the bomb's target and the result would be interesting. As such, I'd suggest going ahead with the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The book Barnes Wallis' Bombs: Tallboy, Dambuster & Grand Slam provides a high level of detail on all of the operations in which these bombs were used (at least two pages per raid) and would make a great source for any articles on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a great deal of 18th and 19th century military history in India that WP covers poorly, if at all. Some of this is difficult to source well since modern treatments aren't widely available outside India, but there are whole wars that are only covered here in sketchy form where decent (if sometimes biased) 19th-century sources exist in Google Books to provide at least some background and detail. Anglo-Mysore Wars and Anglo-Maratha Wars are good starting points, but these don't even cover disputes between local powers. (Just today I created three new stubs, and have a list of 10-12 potential more; this is for one conflict.) Magic♪piano 02:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Great work on the systematic bias re India MagicPiano... this is a long term process. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AshLin is focused mostly on the '48 war, but might be able to assist. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding a list on Battle Honours of the Indian Army. I have material for stubs of each. These will nicely fit into MagicPiano's work. But I warn you, I don't think I'm very productive. :-) AshLin (talk)07:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny how this managed to go in a completely opposite direction :) ResMar 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for December 1964 South Vietnamese coup needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for December 1964 South Vietnamese coup; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Armed Forces of Liberia needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Armed Forces of Liberia; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Arnold's expedition to Quebec needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Arnold's expedition to Quebec; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Haruna now open

The featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Haruna is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Camp Chapman attack now open

The A-Class review for Camp Chapman attack is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can someone have a look at the article and check whether the issues that have been mentioned during the review have been addressed? I'll be able to spend time on the article until the end of August. After that, I will have less time, and the review would need to be completed until about September 10. Cs32en Talk to me 08:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing query

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask but a more knowledgeable editor view is needed. A new article Corseque has been created by copy a section from Pole weapon. This copy is acknowledged on the talk page. Nothing wrong with the article (though if I were writing it, I would have thought of a merge with Ranseur) but I was sure I read somewhere that copying of text from one article to another violated some editing principle. Should the piece be rewritten to avoid being tagged by some bot for an infringement? If so, how does one flag this on the page. Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's enough content to split out material from Pole weapon, that seems fine (per WP:SS). Obviously we don't really need the same content in two places at once though, so probably the parent article section should be reduced to a sentence or two and tagged with {{main}}. EyeSerene^talk 09:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The class the stars fell on

In the WP article it's written, that there were 164 graduates, but Callum (one of 2 sources) lists only 107 names. Who is right? Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're seeing here. I've just downloaded the Cullum file (which is implausibly enormous...) and it lists 164 names under 1915; the last is C. C. Herrick. Shimgray | talk | 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about the current image illustrating the article on Ahmed Yassin

There is a discussion ongoing as to the current image illustrating the article on Ahmed Yassin. Should you be interested, your input would be appreciated at Talk:Ahmed Yassin#Better picture?. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New Article notable?

I want to start an article on the Luftwaffe's attack on the Küstrin bridgeheads in April 1945. I am not sure this meets the notability guidlines. I'd call it German air raids on the Küstrin bridgehead. Dapi89 (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it treated independently by a number of different scholars? Would you be able to write an article without using primary sources?Sadads (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, probably not those particular raids. But I believe there are sufficient sources that deal with general raids against the Oder bridgeheads. I don't believe there are any secondary sources that are written specifically about these actions, however, a number of aviation histories write about them consistently. Dapi89 (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I think an overview would be more appropriate, that deals with the whole scope of Oder bridgeheads as a body until their is sufficient scholarship for articles about any one of the raids, when that raid can be split into its own article. Remember we are an encyclopedia, so, as interesting as it might be, unless there is a body of knowledge to support it, articles are not the right venue to develop the scholarship on a certain topic. Hope the advice helps, Sadads (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I think I should name it: German air attacks against the Oder bridgeheads. Dapi89 (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest German air attacks against Oder bridgeheads, but yes that sounds good, Sadads (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I chose air attacks vs air raids, as it seems V1 and V2 assaults were made as well making "air raids" a misleading title; suggestive of piloted aircraft only. Dapi89 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War needs more eyes

A guy changed the infobox result to US military victory over the weekend and it lasted two whole days, so it could do with more watchlisters for this persistent/occasional nonsense YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow... good pick up. Anotherclown (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Battle of Morotai

There have been a lot of recent edits by an IP, who insists on changing "Allied forces" to either "U.S. Army" or "Australian". I've reverted most of the IP's edits, but I could use some help in watching that page. Please take a look at the IP's changes, I don't think they were correct to begin with, but I could use an expert on the subject. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all who looked into this. As the person who took the lead in getting the article to an FA, there's some merit in the changes overall, but all the substantive ones were unsourced and I'd argue that the wording changes weren't an improvement as they were generally more wordy. Further discussion of the changes is, of course, very welcome on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Arado Ar E.381 now open

The A-Class review for Arado Ar E.381 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence task force not active?

Since nobody answered my queries from its talk page in several weeks, I invite editors here to consider whether the task force is active, and take a look at this and other queries there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The current battle of mogadishu - no reliable sources!

Hello. According to various informal and unreliable sources, the 6,000 African Union Mission to Somalia peacekeepers are currently cut off in a 2 km square area near the air port in Mogadishu, and the Islamic rebel Al-Shabaab's forces are closing in on them. Many groups have been seperated from the main force entirely. It looks like they're all going to be massacred unless they and the Somalia government can be evacuated by air. There was supposed to be a big offensive by the Islamic rebels today, and apparently some important government buildings were captured yesterday and the politicians and civil servants all murdered. This is obviously huge news. Yet there are no reliable sources for this anywhere. There are obviously no foreign journalists in Mogadishu, and nobody is reporting it, not even Al-jazeera or insidesomalia.org. There is this vaugue Reuters article which doesn't reveal much. How can we update the relevant articles appropriately?--92.251.170.187 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for HMS Liverpool (C11) now open

The peer review for HMS Liverpool (C11) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron now open

The peer review for 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

New task force

I am asking here wether we should create a new task force to cover the period of military history after the Cold War. The name could be Post Cold War task force, but I welcome suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCopter (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this question has sparked several broader discussions of whether the task force system as a whole should be retained, I've moved this discussion to the strategy think tank (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank#Is the task force model still useful?) in order to collect the multiple simultaneous threads about this in one place and to allow us to brainstorm ideas on this topic in a somewhat more relaxed environment. Anyone with an interest in this is very much encouraged to stop by the strategy think tank discussion and post any thoughts they might have on this topic. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

American airborne landings in Normandy

Hi I have found a problem with American airborne landings in Normandy its been nominated for a GA assessment by what appears to be a new user User:LP mAn. From the edit history he/she has not been working on the article (by that name) and it is no where near ready for GA . Fails a B Class assessment no in line citations. Question is how to proceed no doubt LP mAn was acting in good faith.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok bit more I found the quick fail actions but am stumped by the page? {FailedGA|16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)|topic=War and military|page=} I have added the template but of someone can advise what the page details are thanks. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that bit gets filled in automatically, though I haven't done a quick fail in a long time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks wait and see then --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge LGI and Lance-Grenade Individuel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGI_Mle_F1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance-grenade_individuel

These really need to be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.73.53 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

War in popular culture

I've resisted AfD-ing War in popular culture because I think it is an important topic. Anyone fancy doing some work on it?Monstrelet (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is important, yes, but the article is not even a stub. I suggest prodding it, and if nobody cares to save it... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that would work, as the article is only days old. If the article is deleted, I suspect that it will hinder a future editor trying to rewrite a serious article on the subject. Perhaps renaming it to "List of ..." will allow it to whither on the vine, allowing a more serious article on the topic to take its place in the fullness of time?Monstrelet (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideas from WikiConference NYC 2010

I've jotted down some ideas from WikiConference NYC 2010 at the strategy think tank; feedback there would be very appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Wendell Fertig now open

The peer review for Wendell Fertig is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for No. 4 Commando now open

The peer review for No. 4 Commando is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

War infoboxes

There seems to be a problem with the infoboxes in articles on wars, such as World War I, World War II, and Korean War (there may well be more): In the "Commanders" section, people have been listing prime ministers alongside and/or in place of monarchs and presidents. However, prime ministers are in no way military commanders; they advise the head of the military on what action to take. Some sort of clarity needs to be sought here: Should the section be re-titled to allow for non-military leaders (i.e. "Leaders and commanders")? Should there be a separate section for such people? Should heads of state in Westminster-style parliamentary systems be or not be included?

I personally have no issue with re-titling the section of the infobox or with including prime ministers, so long as they are listed beside the president, monarch, or whatever commander-in-chief they advised. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It already says "Leaders and commanders". What's more, it is plainly wrong to say that prime ministers "advise" the head of the military. The PM, not the monarch, is the one who directs military commanders, and the monarch, even as commander-in-chief has no significant role in the conduct of the war. It would be silly to say that George VI, not Winston Churchill, led Britain in the Second World War. -Rrius (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again: It says "Leaders and commanders" within the "Commanders" section; ergo, prime ministers are falling under "Commanders" as though they were commanders when they undoubtedly were not (there are plenty of reliable sources to prove that it is indeed not wrong to state that prime ministers advise the commander-in-chief). Further at issue is that, within the "Commanders" section, sometimes some constitutional monarchs and non-executive presidents are listed and sometimes they are not. It's a mess. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius, and do not support this change. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In most countries with PMs they're the head of their government and direct the military (with varying levels of involvement by the defence minister and cabinet). In constitutional monarchies and countries with a ceremonial president the head of state plays no real role in directing the military. Only in military-led governments do the civilian authorities merely 'advise' the military. 22:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this would apply to all instances. The Japanese emperor may have had more influence on Japan's decisisions during World War II than Japan's Prime minister. In my view, the infobox subsection title could possibly be changed to "Political and military leaders", although that may well cause other problems. Cs32en Talk to me 02:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also the issue that the actual involvement of a head of government or a head of state can vary dramatically; compare, for example, the involvement of Winston Churchill in the direction of WWII with that of Asquith in WWI or Salisbury in South Africa. Shimgray | talk | 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of battle source

I ran across this today - http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/nafziger.htm

The Nafziger Collection contains orders of battle from 1600 to 1945 with over 7000 individual pdf files. It began with the author's interest in Napoleonic Wars, and steadily grew to other areas because of the gaming public's interest in these highly detailed historical orders of battle. Sources range from published works to actual archival documents, which represent the largest single source. Nearly all orders of battle break down to the regimental level. The availability of strength figures and artillery equipment varies from period to period.

Perhaps of interest or of use to some? I'm not sure how robust they are as citable sources, but they do seem to cite the original material at the end. Shimgray | talk | 23:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nafzinger's research is going to be as citeable as anything we cite that's based only on that collection. It's also important to remember that all CGSC is doing is hosting and posting the collection. And quite a bit of it is just compiling stuff. The Civil War collection, for example, is mostly pulled from the Official Records.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's an excellent resource. Anything published by the US Army's Combined Arms Research Library can be assumed to be reliable and George Nafziger is well regarded. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been browsing through this, and the depth of coverage is amazing. I think that these are the OOBs George Nafziger was selling for fairly steep prices, so it's a great asset. I know that I'm going to be making use of this in the future. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend caution. I know George and he's not particularly careful in his editing. Two of his books on the German Army in WW2 have a lot of typos and some material that's just plain wrong. I can't speak to the Napoleonic stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the image illustrating Yassin be changed

Please review the request for comment at Talk:Ahmed Yassin#RfC: Should the image illustrating Yassin be changed and comment if you feel moved to do so. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) now open

The featured article candidacy for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Speedy (1782) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Speedy (1782) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Nguyen Chanh Thi now open

The A-Class review for Nguyen Chanh Thi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Postmaster now open

The A-Class review for Operation Postmaster is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Stratioti

An edit war has broken out at Stratioti between Greek and Albanian editors. This is having the effect of focusing the entire article on the ethnic origins of the troops, rather than military aspects. Could a co-ordinator take a look please? Monstrelet (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DodoBot

I am asking here for consensus to use User:DodoBot to assess our articles. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 00:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In theory that sounds like a great idea. However, could you please explain how this will work in practice? Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

From a brief look, it seems like it's primarily a category-based tagging bot—someone inputs a set of categories, and the bot tags (and assesses, to some degree) all the articles in those categories. It shouldn't be too complicated to use if low-level categories are input; obviously, using very broad categories is likely to catch a lot of false positives, which is why we've tended to avoid doing that with past bots that offered this functionality. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this before. In principle I think it would be a good idea. (We have about 25,000 articles with incomplete B class checklists). I have the following questions: (1) how accurate is it? (2) how hard is it to use and (3) what are the dangers of using it? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For that, you need to ask EdoDodo. Let me question him. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 01:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Has there been a response to your query? I'd be keen for this to happen assuming that it is not likely to cause major dramas and so long as no one is against it. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, here. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds promising. What does everybody think, should we use this? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support as nom. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I support this also, although I must say that I'm not really up on the technical side of things. Are there any more opinions on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I think this should go ahead. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DoneWikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there was an error, so the bot has been suspended. This is unfortunate as it looked quite promising. I can only hope that the issues will be ironed out. Anyway, it has accidentally removed the banner from a few pages, although most of these appear to have been found and fixed. I found a couple more yesterday evening, however, so if you come across any, please just make the necessary corrections. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As this didn't work...

Liberation of Denmark

A while back I wrote Operation Doomsday about 6th Airborne Division helping to liberate Norway in May 1945. It's a long-term project of mine to get a topic on the liberation of the occupied Scandanavian countries, but of course most of the material is in Norwegian and Danish. At the moment, I'm looking to see if there's enough material to do something similar for the liberation of Denmark. I have a few books mentioning that some para units transferred to Denmark, as in Doomsday, but that's about it. Does anyyone know of any english sources on this? I can't even find out if there was an operation name or what force were assigned to it; we certainly don't have an article on it, and the Occupation of Denmark article sort of ends without mentioning the liberation. Skinny87 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few mentions of the "sealing off" and liberation of Denmark, albeit without mention of Doomsday, in the campaign official history. The Canadian OH has some references to it - send me a message if you need a copy. Do you know what Corps the airborne were attached to?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, my books aren't with me. If it's anything like Force 134 that liberated Norway, it was a rather ramshackle affair pieced together with whatever was lying around. Is the official history online?Skinny87 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian one is, or at least use to be, however the British one isnt; ill have a proper route through it and post whatever it mentions most likely on the talkpage of the article - although that may be in a few weeks, i dont have that much spare time atm. I will also check the VIII and XXX Corps OHs which i have too.

I think that a fair amount has been written about the liberation of Denmark. An interesting aspect was that the western Allies dashed into the country to prevent the Soviets liberating too much of it (they liberated the island of Bornholm) Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Theres not much in the article but I was sure when reading this post that the Belgian 5th Special Air Service were involved. This suggests 8 para were involved [[6]] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Showcase#Featured_pictures

I'm at a loss to figure out how this was come up with: It seems to be missing most of Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/War, Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/World_War_I and Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/World_War_II, (as well as the first two images on Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/USA_History); and ince those are the most relevant categories to MILHIST, I honestly don't know how they could get left out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The FP listing has been somewhat irregularly updated, since we don't always have someone watching FPC for related pictures; presumably, the missing pictures were simply overlooked, and not consciously omitted.

If anyone has a bit of free time, it shouldn't be difficult to go through the FP listing pages and add anything missing to the showcase. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind doing such, it's just that, if there was a system, it would be much easier to just look at the areas being missed by the system. Oh, well. I'll probably just list them all, category by category, then randomise the order a little bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there really isn't much of a usable system in place. (The files are somewhat organized in the showcase itself—they're listed alphabetically by filename—but that only helps in determining whether an individual file is present, not whether an entire area has been missed.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I'll try to get it completely accurate up to present, and mark it at the bottom as such. That'll make it much easier next time, as everything from before that date could then be ignored. First, though, lunch, and mybe another Wiliam Simpson Crimean War ilustration. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Have guests visiting, off to Ireland, back in a week, will do it then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to ensure the list is up to date. I don't think Chateau Chambord is is in this project's remit so File:Chambord pano.jpg shouldn't be included. Châteaux built from the Renaissance onwards were country houses which included features derived from castle architecture but not meant to have any actual military use so I removed the project tag on Chambord's talk page. Nev1 (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing one article

...Well, you probably still miss a lot of articles, just like every project, but this one amazed me: we currently, as far as I can see, don't have an article on military architecture! If anyone likes writing a lengthy introductory article to such a general, broad topic, this is your chance :-) Fram (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

When I saw this, tried to remember anything unique about the AF bases I've been on over the years, and in general, the building architectures ranged from a the Federal Office building cinder block type (referring to the barracks, which seemed to follow a more-or-less standard design; to the wooden/metal structures in Thailand and South Vietnam; and the ones in Europe that generally were locallay built, and I presume designed by local government conractors in Germany, France and Italy. Can't comment about the buildings on Army posts or Navy Shore facilities, but he few I've been on seem to follow the same kind of design. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Began to think and - yes - there is an aricle about Shit On a Shingle Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is of course Fortification. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nice one. Perhaps a redirect from military architecture to this one can be useful? I don't think they are exactly the same (military architecture is more specifically for permanent structures, fortification is also for temporary ones; I wouldn't include sandbags into the architecture article, but they were important in fortification), but they are obviously closely related. Fram (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't obviously mean an article on current military architecture alone, but an article on the types (from barracks to underground headquarters) and the history of it (castles, bunkers, Vauban cities, Roman walls, ...). There have been countless books about this topic (and subtopics, limited in time or space), including a book by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. Fram (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for help on the end date discussion for Iraq war

We would appreciate some help from editors who are familiar with determining end-dates for wars. Particularly modern conflicts with less clear end-dates. Thank you. Publicus 15:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers needed

Two members of this project, myself and White Shadows, are in the final round of the WikiCup, a contest for content creation across all of en:Wiki. We would invite all members to review any and all articles submitted for Good Article status at WP:GAN or for Featured Article status at WP:FAC. The articles reviewed needn't be ours, any review will help reduce the current backlog.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Gonzales now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Gonzales is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Kourkouas now open

The A-Class review for John Kourkouas is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

U. S. Army question

Can someone serve in both the United States Army Rangers and United States Army Corps of Engineers?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Simultaneously, or at different times? Some context for why you're asking the question would be helpful (eg, does it relate to a specific article?) Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, but a bit unlikely as I'm not aware of many engineer slots in the Rangers. It really depends when, but I can ask my friend if he knew of any engineers in his Ranger battalion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In truth, I am wondering more of whether it would be credible in a Hollywood bio in a script rather than in real life. Could a character who is extremely proficient with technology and also tactically skilled have acquired that combination of skills serving in both of those units. I am trying to build a character who is sort of a Jack Bauer of 24 type character and wonder whether that would be a believable background.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Some Ranger demo skills, for instance, are engineer-related. Also, if he's a smart guy (& being a Ranger operator, I'd expect it), he might just have picked it up from Engineer buddies or guys he's met on ops or R&Rs (in the fashion of Bolan). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rangers are not US Special Forces; they're specialized light infantry with a scattering of supporting types. The average troop would only have basic demo skills. I really don't know if any engineers are assigned to Ranger units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the difference is between special forces and specialized light infantry. However, is it common for the USACoE guys to see combat duty?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Light infantry came from the concept of skirmishers that advanced in front of the standard (line) infantry; traditionally they were held to have more initiative, better fitness levels and more experience than their counterparts. Nowadays they tend to be rapid-response type troops (US Rangers, British Paratroopers etc) who are highly trained but lightly equipped (meaning no heavy weapons, AFVs etc, although they may well carry heavier loads on their backs than normal infantry). The light infantry approach is summed up quite well in a quote from a British paratroop officer from around the time of the Falklands war: "In standard infantry regiments there is an undefined limit about what you can do. In the paras there is no limit." (quoted from memory, apologies for any errors!) For all that, unlike Special forces troops they still operate as regular infantry soldiers.

There is a difference between combat engineers and military engineers, but combat engineers are certainly counted as a "Teeth Arm" and see combat duty (especially if their engineering expertise falls into certain categories like demolition, bridge-building, mine clearance etc). Most armies train their engineers to also act as infantry since they are so often in the forefront of the action and need to be able to look after themselves. EyeSerene^talk 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, to answer your original question, I don't see why not. My experience is largely limited to the British Army but in my former unit, the Royal Signals, we had loads of guys who'd transferred from other regiments - mainly because the Signals was the largest corps in the army and long-term promotion and career prospects were better. EyeSerene^talk 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the British equivale3nt of the U.S. Army Rangers and could a Royal Signals member be a part of that group?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes its possible...just like a service member can switch from the Army to the Navy or the Marine Corps to the Army, someone can switch between the Rangers and the Corps of Engineers. Although as was stated above...it would probably be fairly rare. BTW, I have actually met a couple that switched from the USACoE to the Navy Construction Battalions (Seabees) or vice versa.--Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Combat engineer vs. miltary engineer? Who are the IT and Systems guys?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be the Signal Corps (United States Army). EyeSerene^talk 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Electronics guys are all Signal Corps. There seems to be some confusion here; in the US Army the Corps of Engineers is not a formal unit, it is a group of similar MOS. In this case construction and combat engineers; guys who specialize in blowing things up and rebuilding them. The Signal Corps is much the same with everybody from Satcom repair guys to network engineers belonging to it. Corps is generally used for every MOS that doesn't belong to one of the main combat arms branches, like Infantry, Armor or Artillery. And don't confuse this usage of corps with the large, multi-divisional combat formation called a corps. If you don't know the difference between US Special Forces and light infantry like the Rangers then you've got some reading to do, and I suspect that the articles on each might be useful starting points. And, in the Regular Army, it's difficult, but not impossible to change your MOS; generally when there's a shortage of people in the new MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question: none of the ranger units fall under the United States Army Corps of Engineers, but it would be possible for an individual who is ranger qualified to be in the USACE. After reading United States Army Corps of Engineers, I am rather confused on the relationship as a major command/federal agency and as an Army branch. The only Army engineers I have known were generator mechanics or combat engineers. And not all electronics folks are Signal; I was a missile electronics tech in Ordnance. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How common would it be for a Signal Corps (United States Army) guy to be in the Rangers? to have combat duty?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are probably some guys in the battalion headquarters, but they're going to be doing stuff like radio maintenance and managing commo with higher HQs, not knocking in doors and engaging in firefights.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

O.K. So they know how to fire a gun if need be, but will be employing their brainpower if at all possible. A few of these Signal Corps guys will engage in combat by necessity, but not by design. Is that about right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ranger units, but I was a tactical communications maintenance chief (Signal) responsible for wired and wireless communications systems operation and maintenance with a mechanized infantry unit. When we entered Iraq in 1990, the company train immediately followed the 18 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and consisted of:

commo chief (Signal), driver (Infantry), NBC NCO (Chemical Corps) responsible for nuclear, biological and chemical defense and FIM-92 Stinger crewman (Air Defense Artillery Branch) attached from division in M113 armored personnel carrier and sometimes a fire support specialist (Artillery)
squad of vehicle mechanics (Ordnance Corps) in M113 and M88 Recovery Vehicle
team of three medics (Medical Corps) attached from battalion in M113 ambulance
armorer (Quartermaster Corps) responsible for small arms maintenance (M16, etc.) in M35 2½ ton cargo truck
two supply clerks (Quartermaster) responsible for food, ammunition, parts, etc. in M35
first sergeant and driver (Infantry) in HMMWV
commander and driver in HMMWV (Infantry)
fire support team (FIST) in M981 FISTV attached from division (Artillery)

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a civilian. Can you link some of that kind of stuff so I can understand what you are saying.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As Sturmvogel 66 says, essentially the so-called "trade" specialisms in the army (those jobs that require more knowledge than just knowing how to shoot at things!) are grouped into "corps", like signals, engineers, logistics, medical, intelligence etc. However, soldiers from these corps tend to be detached to other units that require their specialisms. Thus in the British Army a member of the Royal Corps of Signals joins up and completes their training with the corps, where they learn their trade (be it electronic warfare, communications, radio telegraphy etc). They are then posted to a signal squadron that operates under the control of a combat unit (which can be as varied as an SAS signal squadron, a paratroop signal squadron, a Gurkha signal squadron, a mechanised signal squadron etc). Additional training will be given within the combat unit (such as driver training for mechanised units), and some units (like the special forces and paratroopers) are very selective about who they accept and operate competitive entry. However, even when operating as part of another unit, specialists retain their corps cap badge and identity; they are specialists first and infantry/tankers/paratroopers/etc second. Although there are a number of light infantry regiments in the British Army, there isn't really a direct British equivalent of the US Army Rangers. However, the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines probably come the closest, and British signallers can serve with the parachute regiment in 216 (Parachute) Signal Squadron (http://www.army.mod.uk/signals/organisation/9068.aspx). I hope this answers your question that followed my earlier post!

This is also basically what Gadget850 is illustrating; his role, as a communication specialist, was to provide communications for the mechanised infantry unit to which he was attached. Various other specialists (NBC = Nuclear biological Chemical; NCO = non-commissioned officer - corporals, sergeants etc; armorer = weapons specialist; Stinger = shoulder-launched anti-air missile) were also attached to the mechanised infantry unit to fill roles and provide services that it couldn't do for itself. EyeSerene^talk 22:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Special Forces Support Group has a similar role to that of the rangers. Its structure seems rather complex, as it comprises the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment (which of course is made up of men from various corps), a company of Royal Marines, a platoon from the RAF Regiment a CBRN unit and various other odds and ends! Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For an interesting British character who started his army career in the Royal Corps of Signals, went through SAS selection, and as an SAS trooper participated in the storming of the Iranian Embassy in London which ended the Iranian Embassy Siege, see if you can get hold of Baptism of Fire by Frank Collins. He subsequently became a devout Christian, left the army, and after a brief period in private security (including for Mohamed Al-Fayed) was ordained in the Church of England, also returning to the miltiary as chaplain to 22 SAS, the Territorial Army (roughly equivalent to US National Guard) SAS unit. Sadly, he did not obtain MOD clearance for his book, and as a result was removed from this post, and (I believe) committed suicide not long after. David Underdown (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, David, 21 or 23 SAS? In other words, which Territorial Army SAS? Do you want to clarify? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Definitely a TA unit, but it's years since I read the book (it belonged to one of my housemates at the time), so I was going from memory. Army List would clarify of course. David Underdown (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1943 now open

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1943 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Third Anglo-Maratha War now open

The peer review for Third Anglo-Maratha War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

2,500th anniversary of the Battle of Marathon

September 2010 is the 2,500th anniversary of the Battle of Marathon. We don't know what date exactly but we do it was September 490 BC. Is there anything we could put on the main page? It's a bit late to start a featured article, so maybe an on this day?--92.251.246.38 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly it doesn't look that far from Featured quality, although without some dispensation it won't get through FAC in time even if we nominate it now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage an FA nom with a statement that you hope to get it on the main page by the end of the month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for January 1964 South Vietnamese coup now open

The A-Class review for January 1964 South Vietnamese coup is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles

A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on categories and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

To auto-assess, Xenobot Mk V (talk · contribs) looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No objections from me. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, WikiCopter, what is the status of this? Has the request been made? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Alton now open

The peer review for Battle of Alton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Courageous class aircraft carrier now open

The A-Class review for Courageous class aircraft carrier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) now open

The A-Class review for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources on World War II and History of South Africa

Apologies if this is not the correct place to post. (If so, please direct me appropriately.) User:Communicat recently made edits to History of South Africa. He cited a whole paragraph to Angelo del Boca & Mario Giovana, Fascism Today: A world survey[7], but there are several things the source does not support. Bergh is not mentioned at all.[8] It's unclear if Vorster is mentioned.[9] The Ossewa Brandwag did not evolve into the Broederbund, it joined the National Party.[10]. The Broederbond was founded long before that.[11] The sentence about "the fundamental precepts of fascism became firmly enshrined in South African law" appears to have no basis in the work.[12] Communicat's sources failing to support his edits was also discussed on Talk: World War II where another user shows Communicat has similar problems in their edits of other pages.[13] I do not feel Communicat has adequately responded to these concerns on either talk page. I would appreciate some neutral eyes to examine the sources and Communicat's edits. Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Signup for the September 2010 Coordinator Elections is now open!

The signup phase for the September coordinator elections has begun, all members interested in running should add their name to the candidates section no later than 23:59 13 September. We are looking for 15 coordinators to serve on the X Tranche, which will last for 12 months. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of a war

B-Machine (talk · contribs) has long been active on the 'List of Wars' pages, and seems to be working to his own definition of what is classed as a war for the purposes of these pages. Hence on List of wars 1900–1944 the Bonus Army is listed as a war, as is the Waco Siege on List of wars 1990–2002. Other so-called wars he has been keen on including despite concerns, are the 2010 Kingston conflict, Mexican Drug War and others. As well as concerns about original research (who is terming Waco, or the Bonus Army, wars?), the user seems to be conflating instances of civil disturbances or police operations into wars, when to do that for some of them seems to cross the line into original research and point of view. Some more eyes on this would be helpful, as he has already reverted several users. Benea (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the problem the definition of a war or the behaviour of this editor? I'd suggest that the former is a potential think tank topic, may take some time and may not lead to an obvious consensus and the latter needs more urgent administrative action about editing style.Monstrelet (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion of wars, battles and skirmishes is now beginning at the thinktank Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank Interested parties are, as always, welcome to contribute.Monstrelet (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The "lists of wars" really do need an overhaul - they're a confused amalgam of wars, named bits of larger wars, individual battles, border skirmishes, colonial interventions, insurgencies, riots, revolutions, political movements, protests, domestic repressions, militant separatist campaigns, and outbreaks of communal violence. About the only thing I didn't see from a cursory flick through was any political coup d'etats, though I'm sure they're there somewhere. Shimgray | talk | 10:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Waco thing in particular is looking like becoming a slow burning edit war. [14] [15] [16]. I'd rather not revert again myself. Benea (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you and others have tried to clean up the article and your improvements have been reverted without discussion, I think this has become more of an editor conduct issue than a content issue (although defining Waco as a "war" is well outside the normal meaning of the word). I've warned B-Machine about the consequences of continuing to remove beneficial edits, so we'll see where this goes. Please post back (or nudge me on my talk page) if problems continue. EyeSerene^talk 10:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A war is an armed conflict between two parties that are fighting for a cause, be it freedom, independence, control, dominance, total destruction of a party, politics, and economics. Those events Benea mentioned fit the bill. B-Machine (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are certain issues of scale and time that are needed to qualify for a war that you seem to be missing. Otherwise a single person "rebelling" against "The Man" would qualify if he did it with weapons. And most internal instances of civil unrest do not qualify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is, not all acts of violence qualify as a war. I could easily go rob a bank and shoot one of the tellers; does that qualify as the "PNC-Parsecboy War of 2010?" I could quite easily say I'm fighting against corruption in the American finance system—that's certainly a cause. As has been said before, if you (B-machine) can find a reliable source calling the Bonus Army or Waco an actual war, then sure, add them. But as it stands, you're editing based on your own opinion, which is not allowed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

War, n. I. 1. a. Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state. (OED)

I fear the general interpretation of the term is a lot more restrictive than your one, which would seem to include two groups getting knives out outside a bar one night because of their deeply opposed beliefs in the relative superiority of their football teams or, indeed, the chastity of their mothers. Shimgray | talk | 18:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state." That describes the Mexican Drug War. On December 11, 2006, Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico sent Mexican soldiers to an area where drug cartel activity is rampant. Now, you have a war between Mexico's armed forces and Mexican drug cartels. Same thing with 2010 Kingston conflict. Waco Siege was an event where the FBI, the CIA, and the Texas National Guard destroyed the Branch Davidian compound. The FBI, the CIA, and the TNG are part of the U.S. armed forces. The Bouns Army, a group of World War I veterans, wanted bonus pay for their service. They didn't get it. So, they attacked the U.S. troops that were on guard. President Herbert Hoover sent troops to the streets of Washignton, D.C. to stop the Bonus Army, with some thinking it was a communist takeover. So, yes, all of these events are wars and conflicts and they all belong on the pages. B-Machine (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Correlates of War project defines a war as a conflict which results in 1000 fatalities. And, in fact, they have their own list of wars here. Raul654 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that out! It looks pretty promising for rebuilding the lists we have. Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

B-Machine, this is textbook original research. Drawing up a list of what you personally consider makes a war, and then applying your criteria to a set of incidents and conflicts, and coming to your own conclusion about whether those criteria are satisfied. The Correlates of War list does not have Kingston, or the Mexican Drug War. No Waco. No Bonus Army. The use of military terminology is not a defining factor, and I recall now that you had 2010 Kingston unrest moved to 2010 Kingston conflict so that you could have it categorised as a war. Benea (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not original reasearch. I applied the OED definition of the word war to the events I mentioned. As for casualties, you mean events with less than 1,000 fatalities aren't wars? Now, that's stupid. That list and the project mean nothing. As far as I'm concerned, this argument is over. You're just mad because I'm right. Go play in traffic. B-Machine (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand I'm afraid that basic wiki policy does mean something. You need to present better references to support your stance, it is not up to others to disprove you (unless you did have high quality sources to back your position). And please refrain from personal attacks. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems to me to be the very essence of original research you are applying a dictionary definition and coming up with a list. What you need is references which apply a definition and call these things wars. You seem not to understand the concept of military aid to the civil power, just because military personnel and assets are used does not mean they are acting in a miltiary capacity. Most people would I think expect to see some intent by the non-state party to overthrow the government or civil authority (hence the use of "opposing party" in the OED def). I don't think taht was really present at Waco, though the Mexican and Jamaican cases where there are well establisehd links between the cartels/gangs and politicians are perhaps coming clsoer, but again, in the absence of third party sources describing these things as wars, it is not for us to make that determination for ourselves as you are doing. You will also find that the CIA and FBI are not among the legally defined United States armed forces. David Underdown (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you say "this is how I interpret the definition of 'war', therefore X, Y, and Z are wars, even though they are not usually called that", then yes, that is original research. You may well consider these to be "wars" - which is fair enough, we all have our opinions - but you are not magically right; you are not specially empowered to define these things; and you are certainly not able to disregard the fact that no-one else seems to think of them as wars. Shimgray | talk | 16:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

B-Machine, you can pronounce yourself right and the argument over, but that does not make it so. If you continue to add these events to the lists of wars, you will be reverted. If you do it enough, you'll be blocked for disruptive editing. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please try to distinguish between the specific editing dispute in this article and the definitional problem? Ideally, we would have acceptable definitions in place. We don't. This does not excuse incivility and bad editing practice. Can I suggest appropriate administrative action at List of Wars articles and the transfer of the abstract definitional discussion to the think tank?Monstrelet (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You want sources? Go to the talk page of "list of wars 2003-Ongoing" and you'll see the sources that describe the 2010 Kingston conflict as a war, which it was. You're all crazy. B-Machine (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that the first three are in any way reliable - the fourth refers to it as a "drug war", not a "war." Apparently, if it has "war" in the title, it is an actual war. Why do we not include War on Drugs, War on Poverty, or War on Cancer? I mean, for Pete's sake man, you're trying to include Dog Tax War, which seems to have consisted of a few dozen arrests, some confiscation of weapons, and two shots fired over the heads of the colonial troops. How exactly is that a war? Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of WP:BEANS I almost hesitate to mention the Cod Wars, since I think under your approach this is surely another 'war' you would want to add to the list (armed forces involved, dispute between two nations over a cause, etc). It's another political tussle that the media applied the word 'war' to, despite there being no official state of war between the United Kingdom and Iceland. Your media sources are doing the same with regards to the drug incidents, despite sources like the Correlates of War project excluding them from their list of wars. When I look at that talk page I see that you failed to convince the editors there about Kingston and drug wars, and they only remained in the list because the discussion became circular and stale. And while I was amused to be told to play in traffic, your continued incivility despite numerous warnings is not acceptable. Benea (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fuck some stupid ass "Correlates of War" bullshit and fuck you. Fuck all of you and kiss my ass. B-Machine (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's way over the line. And now we've arrived in ANI territory. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's that. Although I appreciate why it's been suggested, I'm not convinced we need to go as far as developing a guideline or definition about what constitutes a war. This dispute has been a one-off in my experience and consensus—call it common sense even—seems pretty clear both in this thread and on the articles concerned. I think we run a risk of OR if we start coming up with our own definitions... and even if we manage to come up with something scrupulously source-based we'd likely clash with WP:SYNTH by trying to apply that definition to article subjects where it's not explicitly mentioned in the sources. Just my 2p worth :) EyeSerene^talk 17:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If our notional definition includes a conflict which is not described as a war by all the sources then we've failed. I don't think our current system is broken—examining each conflict on its own. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick note; SIPRI uses the same 1000 casualties (a year) as the dividing line between a major armed conflict and a minor armed conflict. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I mispoke above when I said 1000 fatalities (it should actually be casualties, not fatalities). And I think, like Buckshot pointed out, it's per year, not total. Raul654 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And B-Machine is straight off his block and straight into this dispute again. [17]. Benea (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 206 articles to be referenced. Other project lists, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military biography/Unreferenced BLPs and most regional project's lists can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Thurisind now open

The peer review for Thurisind is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Goeben now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Goeben is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Marengo now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Marengo is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Deutschland (1904) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Deutschland (1904) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry guys; I hate to drop another one of these on your project. :/ If it's any consolation to you, you seem to attract some of the best and brightest, too! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

As the blocking admin in this case, I'd note that copyvios in articles on ongoing warfare are all too frequent. I've blocked several other editors who've also copied and pasted material from news stories into articles. This case is particularly serious as it appears to have been going on for years and many of the copyvios were directly linked from Wikipedia's main page as 'In the news' items (the editor in question frequently nominated the articles they'd created or worked on for ITN). Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be another case of a similar nature, but on a much larger scale here. Seems that a long-term contributor has made significant amounts of infringement, and roughly a thousand articles are being assessed. Most of them relate to athletics, but many of the biographies will overlap into our scope, I'm sure. There is a proposal for a bot-assisted mass blanking and/or prodding, so be sure to keep an eye on your watchlist. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fireforce

I started a new article on the Rhodesian Fireforce military concept.. Most of the info came from the Rhodesian Light Infantry page but im hoping to expand it before it goes live. Any help anyone can give me with developing this project will be most welcome. --MFIreland (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is now live. Link-Fireforce --MFIreland (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

general officer criteria

I think that point 3 of the Notability criteria :

3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents;

Should be removed as just being a general officer is no indication that you will have received coverage approaching what is normally accepted under the WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the GNG obviously takes priority; but I'm not sure that general officer rank isn't a useful enough rule of thumb for us anyways. Some of the more modern ones will have limited coverage in sources, of course; but from a historical perspective, being a general officer was traditionally a bigger deal than it might be now, and the bulk of them do have sufficient sources dedicated to their careers. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Previously we've tended to move more towards two star rank, which would probably give more coverage. David Underdown (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My point, is over time the term has been devalued to the point that being a general officer now is no clear indication that you are going to pass WP:GNG and thus needs to be at the very least qualified to point out that reliance on this is open to challenge or just removed. Codf1977 (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, that is what afd is for, though IMO anyone who earned a flag rank ought to have an article since most command a large body of troops or meet other project based notability guidelines. I do agree though that the GNG takes precedence in this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that needs to be remembered WRT the project's notability guidelines is that they are basically just a list of topics/subjects that are "likely" to be notable, i.e. likely to have the coverage required to satisfy the broader policy guidelines. Ultimately if a subject doesn't have significant coverage it is not notable. Thus, in theory, a general officer without significant coverage would not be notable, however, mostly I think a general officer would have this level of coverage thus I don't think it necessarily a problem to include this criteria in the list of military people likely to be notable. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What AustralianRupert said :) Our guidelines are there to provide assistance to editors in interpreting how we can apply the GNG to milhist, not to override or mitigate the requirement for suitable sourced coverage. Codf1977, if you take a look at WP:MILPEOPLE it makes it fairly clear that notability is wholly dependent on coverage (though of course if you don't feel this is clear enough please feel free to suggest improvements!) EyeSerene^talk 11:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Tom's generalization: there are a suprising number of flag officers who wouldn't qualify under criterion 4 or 6... it's sad to think of how many men and women with stars are relegated to being high-ranking staff officers with undistinguished careers, but it is something that must be considered. Of course, the consensus seems to hold that these are guidelines, and each case must be considered individually. Rules of thumb don't apply in every case. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Some help needed

There is an RfC here [18] over the issue of whether a particular article on several peace treaties is a WP:SYNTH of disparate events. The argument is somewhat involved; there's basically five (actually six) treaties which can be (and generally are) grouped into two sets by sources. The dispute is over whether these two different "sets" should be linked together in a single article or should there be two articles where each set has a separate article of its own.

The topic is medieval history and German-Polish conflict. Help and outside input would be much appreciated.radek (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediterranean location map

Hi. You'll be pleased to know I've created Template:Location map Mediterranean. I envisage this article being used on naval battles/Roman/Ancient battle marker locations etc. Please introduce it to the articles to display the locations on the map. Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorming on task force reform continues

The brainstorming session about reforming the task force system is continuing at the at the strategy think tank. Anyone with an interest in this topic is invited to participate; in particular, comments are sought regarding a concrete idea for changing the current system. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo for Bill Millin

I'm currently trying to see what I can do with Bill Millin, and I feel that the image in the infobox is inadequate. The photo is blurry picture of his back. I'm pretty sure there's another one elsewhere, but I'm not sure where I could find one (It doesn't help that I'm not familiar with the details of uploading such photos). Assistance is appreciated. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the black and white pic halfway down. Its credited IWM and would appear to date from the war, which means it must be out of copyright now. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a few here that might be of the same status. If they are legit I can upload one for you tomorrow. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the two portraits in the sidebar would be nice. But if those aren't possible, the one accompanying the Sun article is suitable. Thank you! ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 16:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of those look like fairly official portraits, but there status is a little less clear. They may not be free to use, whereas I'm fairly certain the Sun one is. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the status of the images in my second link above? Ranger Steve (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about those. The IWM one should certainly be okay, though it might be worth checking if it's actually on the IWM site and, if so, linking the upload page to there rather than to the Sun page. EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not on IWM unfortunately, but I know from personal experience that only a fraction of their images have been digitised. I've uploaded the Sun image here. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

King Arthur

Just come across the King Arthur article while random searching and after reading, thought it belonged in MILHIST. That would of course lead onto the Knights of the Round Table and the Historical basis for King Arthur articles. What do others think ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that a he was Rex Bellorum seems fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

They Are At It Again

Pascerboy and Sturmvogel 66 are committing OR by removing entries because they have a small amount of fatalities or they started out as a protest. Somebody needs to do something. They're probably stalking me. B-Machine (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are going against the consensus that these incidents are not wars in any way, shape or fashion. Stalking, please, we've merely watchlisted the page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you and your buddy are inserting OR. That's a blockable offense, isn't it? B-Machine (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They're not inserting anything at all, actually; they're deleting it. It's a rather important distinction; as you presumably know, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not with the one who removes it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they're being bullies. They want me to back down, but I won't. B-Machine (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the version of the text you're arguing for, it's explicitly referred to as "part of" a named war, and called a battle. Surely this is just a single incident in the context of the Border War? Even were it a conventional pitched battle, rather than a short and apparently accidental exchange of gunfire, this wouldn't itself constitute a "war" by any conventional definition of the term, unless we are elevating every incident in which armed force was used, no matter its context, into one.

As to the behavioural issue, I am quite confident that picking unwinnable arguments with someone, and continuing the dispute against pretty much complete consensus, does not count as them bullying you. Shimgray | talk | 22:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there's no bullying here. B-Machine, I think you must either accept that your position is not correct and stop fighting on those articles, or you can continue to fly in the face of consensus, policy, and all advice you've been given and end up with longer and longer blocks. EyeSerene^talk 08:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I stand behind EyeSerene, Parsecboy, and Sturmevogel: you are the one out of order here. As Kirill noted, the burden of proof is on you, not us, and the fact that you are protesting again would imply that we have had this conversation before and that it came to the same conclusion - that you were out of order then too. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the first discussion is above on this page, here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fleet naming

I've just been at the IJN 3rd Fleet article and I notice that all the numbered Imperial Japanese navy fleets are in this short naming style. should they be named differently eg Imperial Japanese Navy 3rd Fleet in the same style as United States Third Fleet, or 3rd Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy) as a disambiguation style? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the short style isn't very encyclopedic. I like your dab example—they were known as the "Third Fleet", not the "Imperial Japanese Navy Third Fleet". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. "3rd Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy)" or "Third Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy)" would be more in keeping with the way the project usually disambiguates units or formations, e.g. 30th Brigade (Australia). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal: Occupation of Albania

Since this article is tagged under wp:milhist: There is an ongoing move proposal Talk:Occupation_of_Albania_(1912–1913)#Move_proposal (to->'Albania during the Balkan Wars'), because Albania's borders were established at the end of 1913.Alexikoua (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with Book:The Vietnam War

Recently a user created a book on the Vietnam War. It was a bit bare-boned, so I expanded it as best I could. However, I'm not expert on the topic (in fact I know barely nothing about the Vietnam war) so it would be great if the MILHIST project could double check if there is anything missing, misleading (such as articles not being presented chronologically, or of little relevance to the war), and perhaps re-arrange some things (like, should Operation Rolling Thunder be included in the chapter for the Johnson administration?).

Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone??Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general point, are books exempt from the normal naming rules (i.e. that leading articles should be omitted)? If not, then Book:Vietnam War seems like the proper location for the resulting material, whatever it might be. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no hard rule for book names, but the standard naming conventions do provide excellent guidelines. The problem in this [MfD] case is that the older book (Book:Vietnam War) is at the natural location, but is an inferior version. When the MfD is resolved, that shouldn't be an issue anymore. I'm more asking for help with the content of the book than the MfD case. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Multinational Maneuver Battalion

Does anyone have any info on the Multinational Maneuver Battalion (MNBN) to create an article? Multinational Maneuver Battalion (MNBN) --MFIreland (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The information is around, for example in Jane's Defence Weekly features. But it should be part of the EUFOR BiH article EUFOR Althea; it's really inseparable. Contact me if you wish to follow up on the information I have. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Last day to sign up as a candidate in the September coordinator elections

Today is the last day to sign up as a candidate in the September project coordinator elections. If anyone is interested and has not yet listed themselves, please do so by 23:59 UTC today. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Taegu now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Taegu is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Conway's 1922-1946

Hey all! I'm about to nominate HMS Liverpool (C11) for A-class review, but I no longer have access to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946. The central library here in Liverpool is being renovated and the book is no longer available here in the city. I vaguely recall that at one stage we used to have a request page for sources...still going? Does anyone have access to the book to verify that it accurately reflects the page used in the article? It would also be great if it was possible to replace other sources, specifically to limit the use of naval-history.com. Thanks! SoLando (Talk) 12:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics#LIBRARY with individuals private resources but I would strongly recommend asking over at WT:SHIPS. I am sure someone there will be able to help. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response, Woody! SoLando (Talk) 12:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Scope

Are all the StarCraft player articles that served within the army within our scope? I don't think so, but would like a second opinion. Buggie111 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the project's front page, the scope includes "Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose", but "We generally cover only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable. A distinction is made between fictionalized depictions of historical warfare and purely invented depictions of fictional warfare; topics sufficiently divorced from actual history that a discussion of actual military history would no longer be relevant to them—such as futuristic warfare in Star Wars—are not considered to be within the project's scope. However, songs and music with long military associations—for example, It's a long way to Tipperary and Lili Marleen—are within our scope." So Starcraft would appear to be beyond the project's scope. Nev1 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean StarCraft. Most of the people who play the game are applicable for the Selective Service in South Korea, and some have served, so I was wondering if they applied. Buggie111 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless their military service is in itself notable, I'd think not. EyeSerene^talk 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Buggie111 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

[1] For example cohorts, legions or alae or medieval mercenary companies, such as the Catalan Company.

[2] The availability of sources on different sized units, and hence the intrinsic notability of the unit, can vary from country to country. For example, in Australia most infantry battalions have had at least one detailed book published about them along with a high degree of coverage in various official histories. In other countries with larger military forces, such in depth coverage for similar sized units may not exist. In deletion discussions here and here, battalion-level units were deemed not to be notable due to a lack of suitable coverage.

[3] Precedents were set for this in deletion discussions here and here, where it was held that information contained in such articles should be merged with the units' parent formations.

[4] While usually acceptable as sources for content, material published by armed forces, individual branches, or historical divisions (such as the USN's Naval History & Heritage Command or United States Army Center of Military History) should not be used as the only evidence towards a subject's notability. A possible exception to this rule might be where it can be established that these works are reliable per the established guideline and provide significant coverage of the subject.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]