Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 102

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 97
• 98
• 99
• 100
• 101
• Archive 102
• 103
• 104
• 105
• 106
• 107
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

alternate American Civil War task force userbox?

• Would it be OK if I made an alternately-styled user box for the American Civil War task force, and placed it on the task force subpage? It would be the same as the current one, but with a different image:

This user is a member of the
American Civil War task force of the Military history WikiProject.

• • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Feel free to go and do it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Vidkun Quisling needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Vidkun Quisling; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed link on behalf of Jarry1250. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A request

Can somebody please reopen the merge discussion at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis? B-Machine (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

F-16 Falcon

One of the better F-16 photos I've found.. Enjoy Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Editorial

If anyone is interested in writing an editorial for the project's newsletter we are currently in need of one for the June issue (we have one for May). You can see past editorial's and list any submissions here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/News and editorials. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Scope: background of the Spanish Civil War

Is the (newly created) Backgroudn of the Spanish Civil War within scope for MILHIST? It's essentially an offshoot from the Spanish Civil War itself, but is primarly political (although the role of the military is discussed, I don't htink that alone would be enough). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Typo in link fixed: Background of the Spanish Civil War -Fnlayson (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it's in scope. We've historically taken a broad view of what's within the scope of the project, and an article which is focused on the causes of a war seems very relevant. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Swedish allotment system FAR

I have nominated Swedish allotment system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

French Frigate Casabianca

What would be the correct link for a French frigate named Casabianca which was in service in 1984? Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This was the T 47 class destroyer French destroyer Casabianca (D631). Benea (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I see you'd already added the link in the relevant palce. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Ismailia needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Ismailia; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Zrínyi needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for SMS Zrínyi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Military tactic infobox

In January, there was an extended discussion regarding the (then newly-created) {{Infobox military tactic}} template and its usefulness. The discussion brought up some potential ideas for improving the template, but the general feeling was that military tactics were poorly suited for reduction into an infobox summary, and that the template might better be deleted.

Since then, the infobox hasn't really seen much use—it's transcluded on only five articles at the moment—nor has it been improved. I'm inclined to simply nominate it for deletion at this point; any thoughts on whether this is the best approach, or if there's something else we should do? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominating it for deletion on those grounds seems the best option. Even when most of the fields are filled in (as at Charge (warfare)) its effect is decidedly underwhelming. It's only being used as pretty modest eye candy at Reconnaissance. Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion Kirill linked was overwhelmingly negative, with a number of cogent reasons for deleting presented. Delete. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on a couple of the pages with this box and agree it doesn't add much. I think we need to be clear in deleting whether we are saying the current box isn't fit for purpose or whether it is the subject area is unsuited to the use of the inbox format Monstrelet (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and nominated the template for deletion; please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 20#Template:Infobox military tactic. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hi! The Military History list of unreferenced BLPs has been reduced from 238 down to less than 15. I've done two more just this morning so we should be down to 12. If everyone could grab an article or two, we could be done in a day or so.--v/r - TP 18:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the remaining articles and I don't feel I can contribute to reducing this list anymore either due to very little or no references available online or language barriers. I hope someone else can finish this.--v/r - TP 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done a few but also found a few more at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military biography/Unreferenced BLPs. There was some discrepancy between the two lists as a). some of the people weren't under the Milhist scope and were erroneously tagged so in the bio banners b). some had the bio-work-group=yes but not the milhist banner. Something to look out for when going through the articles. Thanks for your hard work. Woody (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll see what I can knock out there.--v/r - TP 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Gurkhas in WW2

Were the Gurkhas who served in Burma part of the Indian Army or the Royal Nepalese Army? A dispute has developed at World War II casualties, an expert on the Burma campaign my be able to clarify this issue.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) now open

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

FAC "urgents"

FACs on the "urgent" list can be closed at any time. RAF Northolt needs an image review and maybe spotchecks for close paraphrasing. In Sack of Amorium and Charles Holden, the essential reviews have been done, but the nominators are struggling a bit with questions they've been asked, if anyone wants to have a look.

Neutrality review request: Japanese nuclear weapon program

Hi. :) I wanted to see if any of the volunteers in this project can help evaluate the article Japanese nuclear weapon program for neutrality. Rather than take it to a noticeboard, I felt like you guys would stand a greater chance of doing it justice if any of you were interested. I talk you up as one of Wikipedia’s best projects. :D

Nutshell: The Rumored Japanese weapon test section needs checking to be sure that sources have not been cherry-picked to slant the perception of those rumors.

Backstory: the Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail from a reader who feels strongly that the article is unbalanced, particularly with view to the lengthy section on Rumored Japanese weapon test. Our correspondent, who is not able to edit the article himself, suggests in keeping with 2000’s The Nuclear Axis: Germany, Japan and the atom bomb race, 1939-1945 by Philip Henshall that there is a cultural drive to minimize Japan’s nuclear capacity in the era; Henshall writes that “The main theme of the story that Japan had progressed far enough to actually build and test a nuclear weapons, is not part of the official history of Japan in the Second World War…" (and, says our correspondent, some historians opposed it) "…but we shall assemble all the evidence in the final chapter." (p. 149)

Our correspondent feels that in particular the reception of 1985’s Japan’s Secret War has been slanted to discredit the notions of nuclear capacity. According to him, the book was not as poorly received as the article seems to suggest and enjoyed support from some prominent scientists, including (pre-publication) Derek J. de Solla Price, who wrote the foreward.

I have no idea. I'm way out of my field here. I do note that the 1985 book typically seems to have positive popular reviews ([1], [2]), as well as some professional reviews ([3]) although some are hidden behind paywalls and the lack of internet at the time of the book’s first release adds difficulties. :/

This is well out of my area, and I know I’m not alone—the letter languished for months before I kind of helplessly picked it up. :) I told him I would ask you guys to look into it. Whether you agree that the material needs balancing or not, I would be greatly appreciative if somebody could just give it a careful look so I can reassure our correspondent that the Wikipedia community takes neutrality concerns seriously, even if he is not himself able to edit the site. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The coverage of the supposed nuclear program looks grossly excessive, and seems a good case of WP:UNDUE. I've read quite a bit about the last months of the Pacific War (though as a caveat, I'm not familiar with the books in question here), and all the sources agree that while Japan did look into developing nuclear weapons, this was a small scale effort that never developed into anything resembling a serious attempt to develop weapons (which would have required a massive scientific and industrial effort to pull off and would have been all but impossible to cover up after the war - our Manhattan Project does a good job of detailing the huge amount of resources needed to develop the first American nuclear bombs). In short, Japan wasn't about to set off an atomic bomb a few days before the end of the war as that book seems to claim, and this seems to be a rather fringe opinion. Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Is the imbalance in the article something you'd be able to help address, one way or another? (By "one way or another", I mean that I don't necessarily expect that our correspondent would address it the same way, if he could. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The state of Japan's economy in 1945 makes anything like an atomic bomb test extremely improbable. Moreover, the poor state of Japanese engineering makes a true program unlikely to begin with. This is a nation incapble of producing 2000hp aeroengines in quantity, let alone an atomic bomb. The electricity demand alone (which was enormous, as I understand it) seems to make it impossible. If you need more opinion on it, that is. ;p

The attention being given to a single source also makes me wonder. There seems to be a sense of conspiracy theory in play: implications of coverup, of evidence conveniently lost due to Sov invasion... Is this designed to justify the U.S. use of the Bomb? Or is it just more of the appetite for conspiracy? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot take the source seriously, given the inadequate industrial strength of Japan, often described as one-tenth that of the USA prior to WWII. They simply did not have enough resources to simultaneously wage war and develop the A-bomb. Only one enterprise could be undertaken. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem wasnt their industrial capacity, it was their lack of natural resources which was the entire reason the war (actually an entire series of wars starting from 1895) started. The japanese had a multitude of weapons programs running up to the end of the war. They were designing and building long range bombers, jet fighters, new heavy tanks, biological weapons, and even continuing to build aircraft carriers throughout 1945. Most of these projects were hampered by a nation wide lack of raw goods.XavierGreen (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think that the atomic bomb test is a bit of a farce though.XavierGreen (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's important to note that the Japanese economy was rapidly collapsing in 1945 due to the Allied blockade. Japan couldn't produce sufficient infantry weapons for its army, much less nuclear weapons. In response to Moonriddengirl's question, I'd say that this theory deserves about a paragraph in the article (as it seems to be a notable fringe theory), though this para should outline the criticisms which have been raised about the claims. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Any chance anybody can edit it? (she asked, hopefully) Again, I realize that it may not wind up looking like our correspondent would make it, but it would be nice to be able to point out our responsiveness as a community, especially when y'all seem to agree that there are balance issues in the article. Even if the section were truncated to an appropriate weight, that would help. I will give barnstars. :) Or reciprocate by cleaning up an article of your choice on any other subject than sports or computers. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I have invited you at your talk page to name an article for me to work on, if you so choose. :D For the record, I appreciate the conversation here as well as the action. You guys really are an exemplary project. I wasn't just saying that to butter you up. :) At some point soon, I'd like to come back and talk to you about what makes your project so successful. I'm bouncing around ideas for analyzing project approaches. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFCs have been opened on the use of flagicons in lists and in infoboxes. Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Second Ivorian Civil War merge proposal

There is currently a proposal to merge Second Ivorian Civil War‎ into 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis‎. Please see Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Proposal 2. Prioryman (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary topics for "Marlborough" and "Duke of Marlborough"

I have requested that "Duke of Marlborough" be made a redirect to John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, the British commander at Blenheim (1704). What should be the primary topics of the phrases "Marlborough" and "Duke of Marlborough"? Tell us what you think: Talk:Marlborough#Requested_move and Talk:Duke_of_Marlborough#Requested_move_to_.22Duke_of_Marlborough_.28title.29.22. Kauffner (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

American theatre of World War II

At the moment we have the stubby American Theater of World War II (which is also the name of a category) and the substantial article American Theater (1939-1945) which was until recently at Attacks on North America during World War II. Anyone have an opinion on the naming of the topic? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum to my note - the US Navy appear to have a battle streamer called "American Theater 1941-1946". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is two different theatres, the east coast and the west coast... Submarine warfare by Germany in their "happy time" of coastal shipping on the Eastern Seaboard is one theatre, and the Japanese on the West Coast is a second theatre. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

so what is the term that should be used to describe the war happening around North America as opposed to solely the US involvement? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Canadians appear to have called the region the 'North American Zone' according to the official history of the Canadian Army in the war (see [4] and [5]). I'd suggest merging the articles together as North American Theater of World War II - this seems to be a clear name that's consistent with both the US and Canadian designations. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Task force for articles related to 2008 South Ossetia war?

The 2008 South Ossetia war is a big topic and has numerous large subarticles and related articles (e.g. Battle of Tskhinvali and 1991-1992 South Ossetia war). Please see overview of the situation here. Some of these articles are messy and the division of responsibility between the articles is pretty confusing. We are now in the process of trying to improve the situation, but we really need a central page for the discussions. We could use Talk:2008 South Ossetia war, but I think a centralised page for all related articles would be better. We need at least a list of all articles, a general todo-list and todo-lists for each of the articles. My question is, is it a good idea to establish a WP:MILHIST task force for this purpose? Or is there are better place or way to establish such a page? I'm sure many of the members of this WikiProject have been in a similar situation. What kind of advice can you give? Nanobear (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a task force is reasonable enough in principle; but I'm not sure whether the number of people involved is sufficiently large that the full infrastructure is necessary, or whether the number of articles is sufficiently large that an unbounded task force (as opposed to, say, a bounded special project) is ideal.

In the short term, at least, I would suggest using the military history incubator to create a group dealing with the war; this will give you a central place to put together worklists and the like, and allow us to gauge participation levels and evaluate what sort of more permanent infrastructure might be most appropriate. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Great idea, thanks. I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/Incubator/2008 South Ossetia war. Let's hope this works out. Nanobear (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal comment: Why not friendly?

For a little over 4 years now I have been an active participant of this community. What puzzles me once and a while and recently I start feeling more and more frustration over this issue is this latent aggression among some of us here, or let us call it unfriendliness or intolerance, or maybe it is just ignorance, in some of the comments made here. I find this behaviour on talk pages or on closing edit comments alike. Editors chose words like "laughable", "useless", "nonsense", "ridicules", "you have no clue". In some instances you find editors taking this behaviour to the next level and then it reads like this "I literally wrote X articles here, so I know better", etc. I ask myself is this really necessary? It offends people and they feel hurt, at least I do. Let's all assume good faith and be polite please. Thanks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fairly spoken. Perhaps I have an abnormally thick skin so it affects me less but I understand where you're coming from. I must admit that having been a manager in business and worked as a contractor in defence, it sometimes does astonish me how much more mutual respect and politeness generally exists in those spheres, even though the pressure is really on and people are doing what they do to make a living or protect their country, as opposed to this community which is made up of volunteers and should be for enjoyment as much as anything, and yet can inflame the most extraordinary passions. Perhaps it's a surprise that more don't just say to hell with it as, unfortunately, some of our best already have. All I can say is to try and focus on the good people and ignore the rest as best you can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Ian. I don't see a lot of that at Milhist reviews, and I think we should try to keep it out of Milhist reviews. There's a bit more of it at FAC ... OTOH, FAC is getting better over time, and Milhist people who review at FAC are getting better at knowing what we need to do before we get there to avoid some of the more tedious reviews, and a lot of good things happen at FAC. I wish more writers would brave the sharks and jump in. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dank. Learning to review is fun, I find it easier than encyclopaedic research and writing. One thing I notice is that MILHIST has a good rate of passed articles at FAC; in part, because we have an excellent system of Peer and A-Class review. Both of which seem to be more supportive than FAC. But, we can always be admonished about our own civility, bear it in mind, and reflect on how supportive we're being about our content producers. At the moment I'm mostly doing citation and sourcing reviews in MILHIST itself, because FAC seems to have a healthy community working on citations and sourcing. But FAC and MILHIST always need more style and writing quality subeditors (Dank's work is fantastic). And of course we always need more content writers, who I greatly esteem! Fifelfoo (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, so is yours. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As a pretty new member, I have to say that I agree with MisterBee's observations. Milhist is pretty friendly on the whole, but looking at other parts of the culture I have to say that I find it very disappointing. It's hard in some ways to quantify, but one of the things I've noticed is a tendency in some quarters to ignore established conventions or precedents within some disciplines and simply impose what seems to be a "WikiRealty" on things. I've also found the conduct of some on the various nomination and dispute pages to be very disheartening. I've done some drafting of articles for a couple of locations here, but the overall climate (not that in Milhist, which as I've said I find pretty enjoyable) leads me to delay finishing them. I can understand why some folks just walk away from this.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good point MisterBee. One of the things Wikipedia does a very bad job of is fostering a sense of community and showing uncivil people the door. As Ian notes, agressive behaviours that would be unthinkable in the workplace (or anywhere involving face to face contact, really) are all too common. The level of drama seems to be particularly high at the moment for some reason. I think that this project is much better than the average, but there are obviously areas for improvement (doubtless some of my comments included). Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The most uncivil experiences ive had are trying to make a few pages related to Indian military history have a neutral point of view, but the majority of editors on those pages are not affiliated with wiki-milhistory in any fashion. That whole areas articles are a complete mess, especially when it comes to more modern topics. Generally i find both the military history and the astronomy wikiprojects to be very friendly and helpful.XavierGreen (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hood and Bismarck

Just a reminder to those interested: Hood and Bismarck fought 70 years ago today. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You should nominate that for DYK. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to meet the DYK guidelines: new, or major expansion... Tho the number of Hood survivors would be a good hook... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, perhaps it can be listed under On this day... --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the Ernst Lindemann article for FAC of the day on May 27th (sinking of Bismarck) a few days ago, so far it has received no supporters. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish Civil War miniproject

On July 17, it will the 75th anniversary of the start of the Spanish Civil War. I'm not personally involved in Spanish history per se, but am trying to get as many articles as possible into the GA/A/FA end of things before then. The "Spanish Civil War" article itself suffers from being rather long and mostly summary, but I've created Background of the Spanish Civil War, Spanish coup of July 1936, and German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Is anyone with me? Is there anything the project can do? If anyone's got 5 minutes, those three articles need assessing – probably against the B-class criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many people here have an interest in that particular topic; hopefully someone will step forward.

In terms of logistics, I would suggest creating a page for this in the military history incubator; that will give you a central location to organize tasks, resources, and so forth. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Goldie

Hi. Would somebody with the relevant knowledge be able to create the article on Hugh Goldie, decorated WWII sub hunter and later a theatre director. He died in February this year. His obituary is here. He also played Minor counties cricket, so when the main body of the article is complete I can insert that information. Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Information on British Commonwealth Air Training Plan

Would anyone happen to have resources pertaining to specific flight training schools of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan in Canada? I am specifically looking for resources on No. 37 Service Flight Training School, which was located at McCall Field in Calgary, Alberta. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Date Validation

I was looking around the Chemical project and I stumbled across this. Basically they validate the dates in info-boxes so people will know if it has been tampered with, and another user can come along and verify that the changes are correct. I think it would be a very good idea for this to be done on battle related articles as a lot of vandalism edits are "minor" date changes. That way, when someone is working on their history paper and need to check a date they won't have any issues. Is this a realistic idea or a pipe dream? Peter.C • talk • contribs 23:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a good idea in a lot of cases. I do see some potential problems, in particular Battle of Britain, where there's no fixed & agreed start date; it seems to depend on which side you're on. (Germans treat 7 July as start, IIRC, Brits later.) There are also issues of the International Date Line in connection with Pacific War battles (some of which have already proven contentious...). As a way to reduce errors, tho, never mind being able to reduce the impact of vandalism, I think it's a good idea. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln Memorial section

We are currently attempting to bring the Abraham Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mexico and weapons of mass destruction

The article Mexico and weapons of mass destruction appears to need some serious attention - the Means_of_delivery appears to be almost unsourced speculation, with most of the proposed systems for delivering nuclear weapons being entirely unsuitable (such as C-130 Hercules or Mexican Navy corvettes). In addition the claims that there ever was any sort of weapons programme appears to be sourced to a Youtube video. The article needs the attention of editors (preferably Spanish speakers) who are able to better judge whether there is anything in WP:RS to justify the current content of the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed the section as it was uncited speculation and looks rather ill-informed. The rest of the article looks a bit dubious given Mexico's strategic environment and military capabilities, but I don't know much about the topic. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be called "Mexico and weapons of mass destruction"? It seems to only cover nuclear weapons. Perhaps it should be called Mexico and nuclear weapons ? 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've filed a requested move, see the talk page. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A C130 could be used to drop small nuclear gravity bombs similar to those used by the US in world war two. It would not be very effective, but its feasible.XavierGreen (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, I remember something about replacing manned bombers in the USAF with cargo planes carrying air-launched ICBMs... and ofcourse the DaisyCutter conventional bomb is dropped from a cargoplane, which is a big bomb. Considering the way the Tsar Bomb was retarded with parachutes, you could do the same for dropping a nuke from a cargoplane. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You could use virtually any aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons, particularly if the pilots were willing to embark on a suicide mission. However, just because an aircraft can carry an atomic bomb doesn't mean that it's a viable delivery system - cargo aircraft have little chance of penetrating hostile airspace and getting close enough to any worthwhile target to roll an atomic bomb out the back unless they're escorted by fighters, which are themselves nuclear-capable and obviously the more sensible choice for delivering the bomb as they're much more likely to reach the target. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen of the sources, I'm not convinced that any of them actually support that any nuclear weapons programme has ever existed in Mexico - some of the cites seem to be very misleading. I've left a comment to this effect on the article talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Small rations

This is a quote from Grant's memoirs: "On the way to Chattanooga I had telegraphed back to Nashville for a good supply of vegetables and small rations, which the troops had been so long deprived of." (italics mine). Can someone tell me what small rations are? RJFJR (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think it might be cigarettes or tobacco; I'm not sure, though, sorry. Can anyone else help? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, from another Google Books search I found this: "What we call small rations, such as Yankee beans, rice, and split peas, are played out..." (Leander Stillwell, The Story of a Common Soldier of Army Life in the Civil War, 1861-1865, p 87) and "together with lesser quantities of 'small rations' - usually oatmeal, butter or cheese, pease and occasionally rice" (Stuart Reid, British Redcoat: 1740-1793, p. 10). Here is my search: [6]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Last call - Livonian War

I'd really like the A-class review for this article to be completed this week – I'm hoping to put it up for Featured Article candidacy (again) soon. It currently has 2 supports. Further input, particularly given that an FAC might be the next step, is greatly appreciated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Loosening the rules on ACRs

I'd like to propose that the 28-day rule for ACRs be treated as more of a guideline than as a strict bright line. I propose this in light of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hawker Siddeley Harrier, where a few reviews towards the end of the 28-day time frame left the nominator (and then me) struggling a bit. That's not a criticism of those reviewers, but with an extra few days to a week, the remaining issues could probably have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I plan to finish copyediting Harrier today, if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It does, and your efforts are greatly appreciated, but my above post was more a general comment about wiggle-room at the end of borderline ACRs rather than about the Harrier ACR specifically (it's just the best example that came to mind). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy for reviews to have some "wiggle room", however, given that the review we are talking about was open for 33 days (an extra five days beyond the 28 day limit), I was under the impression that it had already had significant "wiggle room". My position is that the review process needs some proper deadlines otherwise it stagnates and nominators become unsure of what to expect. From my perspective, given we have a fairly limited number of people reviewing at ACR, the longer some of the old reviews remain open, the longer the newer ones go without review, making it harder to conclude them within the timeframe and the whole thing just continues to spiral and just keeps slowing down. Additionally, when we fail to define exactly what we mean about when something should be closed (i.e. a date) we introduce uncertainty to the system and open ourselves up to claims of unfairness. For instance, there are a number of reviews in the "Failed" archive that were closed due to "lack of consensus" after the review period expired. A number of those probably could have been successful if they were left open a bit longer, but how long is too long? Its subjective and open to interpretation, and as such open to claims of bias if one review is left open longer than another. Evidently my decision has put a few backs up. I'm sorry for that, it certainly wasn't my intention. I made a judgement call based on the nominator's final posting on the review, after waiting almost a day for anyone else to respond: [7]. I will be taking a break from the co-ord duties for a while now while I re-evaluate my time here. As of 1 June, I'm taking up a new posting interstate (then heading out bush for a bit), so my time will be limited after that, and I'm thinking that going forward it would be more enjoyable if I focus on something else. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment was in no way meant as a criticism of you, Rupert, I think any co-ord probably would have made the same call, because 28 days is supposed to be The End. In future, though, I think the co-ords should be allowed to exercise a little more discretion, or perhaps have an "on hold" process (like GAN), which would come in handy when we have the combination of a relatively large article, busy reviewers and relatively minor issues that are being addressed. At the end of the day, though, I guess it's a judgement call, and you can't please all the people all the time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ack! - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If your having trouble attracting reviewers to your article i would suggest reviewing other articles up for peer review or arc. I've found that if i reveiw an editors article their more likely to review my article in return. Just a friendly suggestion.XavierGreen (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As AustralianRupert notes, there already is a reasonable amount of 'wriggle room' in the time allocated to ACRs - closing reviews is done at the discretion of the coordinators and is more relaxed than the process at FACs. Reviews have to be closed at some stage, and 28 days generally works well (most ACRs are actually closed a week or two before this time). It's also worth noting that articles that narrowly miss out on A class status on their first attempt normally breeze through after further work has been done on them and they're renominated - the editors who supported the first nomination normally restate their support and those who were on the fence tend to be easily convinced if improved quality can be demonstrated. I think that the Harrier article would have little trouble passing once its been copy edited a bit more. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/RAF_Northolt/archive1

This one is close to promotion at FAC, but I've asked a question at the end about insignia that could use an opinion or two from folks who are familiar with the NFCC issues. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I offered a (reasonably well-informed) opinion there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Battle of Verplanck's Point

I have nominated Battle of Verplanck's Point (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion; discussion is here. Instances of this article have been deleted before; nothing happened after the 1779 Battle of Stony Point that is sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. Magic♪piano 23:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New discussion about listing multiple commanders in military conflict infoboxes

A question about the correct usage of the "commanders" parameter in {{infobox military conflict}} has been asked at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#Commanders parameter; comments from anyone with an interest in the topic would be appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) now open

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

B to GA for 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)

I have recently expanded the article sufficient enough to rate it as a class B. Prior to nominating the article for GA, other then the expansion of the unit's soldiers who wanted to remain being transfered to 2nd Battalion --> PCAUS --> Philippine Army --> disband, the regiment returning stateside, and inactivation, what else should I be doing to get it ready for GA? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lead could be longer. Should not matter for a review, but the references do not have to have the quoted text. That's mainly for helping with disputes, I believe. Are there any photos of the unit available for use? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, interesting article. Do we know whether the regiment took any casualties during its operations? Is there any more details that could be provided about these operations as currently the article doesn't really provide much detail about the regiment's combat record. Also, when the battalion became a regiment, how many battalions did it then consist of? I think it would have been three, but I'm only guessing - it would probably be a good idea to include this, if you can find a reliable source that states this. Finally, if you can find someone who is keen, I would suggest having someone do a quick copy edit. Good work so far and good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding casualties, there is mention of casualties during operations on the island of Samar, (I think in the DAV11 refererence) but not anywhere else, specifically. There is mention, in one of the references, already used of casualties to the 1st Philippine Division, which maybe a type, however presuming that it is not, then those are the only casualties that are mentioned, that I have found so far.

Regarding size of the battalions, prior to the enlargement to regiment, or creation of the 2nd Regiment, I have not found out how many battalions it had increased to prior to its enlargement. There is a year book from 1943 for the unit that is linked on the CMH website that is listed as an external link, but that is after the enlargement. (I was actually jumping for joy that they put up what they have up, before it was like searching in a dimly lit room for mentions of the regiment)

How might the article into be expanded? Include areas where it deployed? A sentance about legacy?

Perhaps I should nominate the article to be reviewed prior to nominating it for GA, and after completing the history section as stated above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the history section. Should I send the article for peer review prior to sending it up for GA nomination? This will be my first time doing this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, started a peer review on this, and nominated it for GA status. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with "spotchecks"

FAC is a little constipated at the moment because only one delegate (Sandy) has been active for a while, and her time is really tight, and will be for a few more weeks. The reviewers have done an outstanding job, making things easy for her, and we expect a lot of promotions soon ... except that we really need for someone to do "spotchecks", meaning roughly checking a few random parts of the text to see if they're representing the sources accurately, without close paraphrasing. Fifelfoo is great at this stuff, and a few other reviewers will tackle this at A-class, but FACs (including Milhist FACs) are going without. If anyone's interested, reply on my talk page, please. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

From reviewer comments, there's a real opportunity here. This really isn't hard to learn, it's just slightly tedious, and some of the active reviewers have stopped doing it. As you guys know, there's a certain "price" at FAC ... as a project, we have to do at least some minimal reviewing, or else people stop reviewing our stuff. We haven't been holding up our end lately, but this is IMO a great opportunity to get a lot of mileage from a little work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out with this once university finishes up in a about a month. Are there any instructions/guidance on this task? Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Online sources are the easiest to plagiarise / paraphrase. Find the most dubious assertion in the article, or the dodgiest source; and check the cited portion of the text against the wikipedia claim, looking for close paraphrasing at the time. Then check the most esteemable. Then check one random one. If "paraphrasing" amounts to addition or removal of adjectives; it is bad. If the citation doesn't support the assertion; it is bad. If there's direct plagiarism, it is really bad. You can also note jarring changes to style occurring in the body text as a problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for James B. McCreary now open

The A-Class review for James B. McCreary is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the MilHist connection a little tenuous there? He served briefly in the Confederate Army but isn't notable for his military service and only a fairly small aprt of the article is related to his military service. It's not a criticism, and I've seen much less obvious subjects tagged as within our scope, but where do we draw the line? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that the presence of a couple paragraphs of military history content in the article is sufficient to put McCreary's article within our scope (insofar as we, as a project, have an interest in maintaining a substantive portion of the article); but, to be fair, I tend to be somewhat liberal about such things. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same way as Kirill. If we're not completely overloaded, and someone would like to nominate a tangentially-related article here, I normally wouldn't have a problem with it. It exposes our A-class process to more varied people, too. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

German naval military ranks

There seems to be a lot of confusion about German naval military ranks and how they are to be translated. Already at A-class and then again at FA-class review a debate about the correct translation for German naval military ranks popped up. Today the Ernst Lindemann article is featured on the main page of Wikipedia. The most frequent edits or changes to the article are again centred on the correct translation of the German ranks, predominantly Kapitän zur See, which some like to translate as Captain while others prefer Captain at Sea (what the link of Kapitän zur See points to). This issue also recently popped up with the Wolfgang Lüth article. The article Rank insignia of the German armed forces is also of no help here. What are the guiding principles here? Does a literal translation predominate an equivalent English/American rank, or, is finding a semantically equivalent rank a better choice? I am kind of lost here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this is the english Wiki, I'd tend to prefer using the equivalent rank (captain), but YMMV as always.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say it boils down to one question: is Captain at Sea a substantially different rank to Captain (naval)? Does the German Navy use both as separate ranks, in the way the Royal Navy has captain and commodore (rank) ? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on this I would say not. I've got text sources that back up this conversion as well, although Feldgrau is a pretty reputable site.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this mapping here is a good guideline too? See Ranks and insignia of officers of NATO Navies and Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Enlisted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since I've never seen CzS used except for a naval officer, using the "correct" translation seems pretty silly to me. German isn't English; that German specifies when English doesn't is no reason not to use the English equivalent in this case. (It appears the Germans distinguish between rank & usage {that is, the senior officer of a given ship, ref by his crew, whatever his actual rank}, where many other navies don't.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So it#'s what Wikipedia would call "disambiguation"? They use the "-at sea" to distinguish from the considerably less senior captain (land)? If that's the case, then it's not materially different from the rank used in English-speaking navies and we should just translate it as "captain". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If that were the case than the rank would be Oberst zur See and not Kaptain zur See. A captain (US rank) is a Hauptmann. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's only for a captain in the army, air force, or Marine Corps. It's perhaps best to think of these ranks using the O-# formula (which is how the conversion tables were started, if memory serves). A captain (non-naval) is an O-4, while a captain (navy) is an O-6 - the same as a colonel. It can get more confusing, but for the purposes of this I'll just stick to the straight rank conversion. Usually the rank relates to the size of the ship or formation the individual commands (or the level of staff responsibility he or she holds).Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-German-speakers will enjoy the article more if they get the sense that they are understanding the article without having to know any German, and German-speakers will enjoy the article more if they've got enough information to tell whether, for instance, Kapitän zur See or some other rank was meant (which they won't get if we just say "Captain" or "Commander"). Some writers approach the problem of making both groups happy by trying to have it both ways, writing "Captain at Sea" so that German-speakers will instantly know what was meant, hoping that English speakers won't be bothered too much that that doesn't mean anything in English. On Wikipedia, I prefer something like "Kapitän zur See (literally, Captain at Sea)". There are a lot of writing "tricks" that just don't work well on Wikipedia, because they aren't precisely correct and they attract reversions and arguments. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's actually an excellent suggestion. Combined with a link to the article (even if it is in a rather dilapidated state), that should give enough context for the expert without overwhelming the more casual reader. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"So it's what Wikipedia would call 'disambiguation'?" Broadly speaking, IMO that's what it is, but also a linguistic peculiarity of German, since it also uses distinct terms. (It makes me think of the Heer General of Artillery & General of Armor.) I have a suspicion it arose the same way as in English usage, where Captain was an equivalent army & navy rank, then army structure changed & army captains got outranked. On WP, I would use "KzS (Captain, literally 'Captain at Sea'" if you want the flavor, or just Captain if you just want the equivalent. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the use of the abbreviation for the German rank. And as an aside, I don't think the land and naval versions of captain ever lined up (unless you mean in terms of "the man who commands his own combat unit"). But no matter.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"I don't think the land and naval versions of captain ever lined up (unless you mean in terms of 'the man who commands his own combat unit')" Actually, that's what captain originally meant, from capo head. Go way back... IIRC, 14h or 15h Century. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I get your point, but since then the terms haven't lined up. And to make it more confusing, the captain of a ship is entitled to be addressed as "captain" regardless of his or her rank. But I digress. And still think using the German abbreviation in these cases is just fine. Makes the distinction clear without confusing people needlessly.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the abbreviation, but I also don't really see the need; you don't need it the first time because it's not oppressive to write everything out the first time, and you wouldn't normally need it the second and third time because you can just call him Lindemann. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bolo Pasha

I wanted to put your project template on this new article about a Frenchman who was executed as a WWI spy for the Germans, but would rather someone else put the template on who is more familiar with its syntax! Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I added the task forces that jumped out at me, but there might be more (full list at Template:WPMILHIST if you want to look through). If you'd like it assessing against the B-class criteria, head over to WP:MHA (I don't know much about B-class). Interesting article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow that was really fast! Invertzoo (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Watchmen, and such...

I just joined the project, and already I am wondering why some of the films have been covered by this project. Not that I don't think we should be terribly dogmatic in our focus, but if the project is aimed at historically based war films, Children of men (set in 2027) is perhaps not the best. Nor would Watchmen be a good fit (though an excellent movie, it is based on a graphic novel, not reality...) Are we going to stick categorically to films based on real wars, or should we perhaps start by redefining the projects aims and looking at films that, say, deal with battle or the repercussions of war? I'm just trying to get a pulse on the project, and I don't mean to step on any toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fesmitty77 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that we have never limited our scope to "historical" war films per se, but rather to films for which some discussion of military history (whether in the form of actual events depicted in the film, or as an influence on the combat shown) is relevant:

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 or fantasy battles in Lord of the Rings—are not considered to be within the project's scope.

Whether a particular film falls within those lines is, of course, a legitimate topic of debate.

In practical terms, however, we are slightly limited in that films tagged as "war films" by the Film WikiProject are automatically entered into our assessment categories and flagged in various lists of our articles, regardless of whether they have actually been tagged by our project directly. This might lead to occasional inconsistencies where the scope of "war films" as defined by one project is not precisely identical to that defined by the other. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tim Cross now open

The A-Class review for Tim Cross is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Article idea

Should we,as a wikiproject, create an article List of military veteran actors and entertainers? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not - it would be a list of people grouped by a factor in their lives which wasn't (in most cases) relevant to the reason for their notability. Many of the actors and entertainers who would be included in such a list would be people from countries/periods in which there was universal conscription and hence there was nothing unusual for young men to have served in the military early in their lives before going onto other things. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if we limit the list to actors only, there is significant notability to such a list, IMHO, and a google search brings 18 million hits; granted this is unsorted, but is significant none the less. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And "military veteran actors" gives five hits mainly nonsense. Also remember that military veteran is normally an American term and "veteran actors" in other parts of the world would just indicate actors who have been around a bit so searches are probably missleading. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's also going to skew heavily in favor of eras of major wars, like WW2, & in favor of nations (like the U.S. under G.I. Bill) providing vets the means to take up acting. (That's quite aside the pure historical skew toward 20th Century we're bound to get, since I don't expect too many 15h & 16h Century actors to make the list, :/ & even fewer 3d or 4h Century BC ones. 8o ) In short, it invites complaints & problems... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

An article about actors and entertainers who became notable because of or as part of their military service (such as Spike Milligan) or who had notable military service after achieving fame (such as Elvis Presley and Clark Gable) would be of interest, but it would be difficult to scope and keep focused. The basic issue is that in many societies/historical periods its not at all unusual for entertainers to have spent time in the military, as this was the norm for young men. I imagine that almost all modern Israeli, Singaporean and South Korean (to name just three countries) male actors and entertainers have spent time in the military due to the mass-conscription in these countries, and many will still be on the rolls as (compulsory) reservists. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree on the first point. (I had a vague notion of something like it, but you've articulated it much better. :) ) The second is what I was thinking of, also, somewhat. ;p It might be possible to include historical figures with a few mentions, explain the information doesn't exist for more than a handful of passing refs until whenever, & concentrate on 18h-20hC examples. The overview should IMO also address the fact many ancient societies demanded military service as a commonplace, so ancient Greek actors (frex) would be vets almost by default. (Spartans, certainly, tho AFAIK there weren't a lot of famous Spartan actors. ;p ) Mention of Israel makes me think, how many women would this apply to? I'd be particularly interested in learning about that. (Hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea. :/ ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can section of the list based on era, and based on conscripted or voluntary service?

Perhaps we can section it off also based on those who became notable Because of the service, and those who were already notable and decided to serve even though the could have not served. This would contrast say BG James Stewart and MAJ Audie Murphy. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This possible list should not limit itself to the most recent centuries, per WP:RECENT; however, as expressed by others, it will be difficult to find those who have voluntarily have served and became notable actors/actresses and/or entertainers. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary source clarification needed

There is a polite and inhibited discussion raging on at Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk_Offensive about the usage of primary sources. Especially can STAVKA orders be used as a source to state what Soviet forces were ordered to do? All help will be appreciated. --Whiskey (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please! --Whiskey (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked a couple of clarifying questions on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Image check for FAC

Hi, there's been an image query at the FAC for William Brill -- I think it's a non-issue/no-brainer but Sandy'd like another opinion and as she admits dedicated image reviewers are few and far between, I figured I may as well ask here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC would be more pleasant if we could get some dedicated image reviewers for history-related FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I've found myself answering two image questions in as many days. When I've got more time, I might do some image reviewing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I could also be enticed into image reviewing, something I am reasonably knowledgeable about. It's more the hassle of working out which FACs need image reviews: for example, if someone left me a note on my talk page, I'd respond to virtually all requests. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two jobs available: going through all FAC images pointing to potential image problems, and looking at a FAC where someone has done that already and offering advice and potential solutions. Volunteers for either or both are welcome. Sometimes asking a particular person, and particularly, a particular person in the same wikiproject as the nom, is seen as canvassing (sometimes it isn't), so we should probably have some kind of board for posting potential FAC image problems. I'll ask around. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's really canvassing, since you're looking for particular expertise rather than a jelylfish. It's not much different to asking for a copy-edit. I'll join Jarry in offering my services when they're needed (at any FAC, not just MilHist), but I don't have time to get round all the images in all the FACs. essentially what I just said on Sandy's FAC talk page, but I saw that first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to object to comments like "no-brainer" ... I think people are not getting that there's no shame if the person doing the quickie image review gets a "false positive" (saying there's a problem when there isn't one). Recent comments at FAC have been pretty harsh towards the quickie image reviewers IMO. We don't need to remind the non-experts that they don't know everything, they know that. Their job is to identify everything that even might be an issue, to reduce the work load for the image experts. So far, Jappalang might be the only guy that everyone seems to trust on a variety of questions, but FAC people are very open to extending that reputation to anyone who wants to jump in and do a lot of these, especially if Jappalang is called in to check their work on the hard questions. Sandy would prefer that we usually wait til other questions have been answered before we pull in Jappalang, so we don't wear him out on articles that won't be promoted anyway. (Btw, Nikki has been getting a lot of the quickie image reviews, and it would be great for Milhist and everyone else too if we could free up some of her time.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere of FACs that need image reviews? I hate loading the whole page because it's so huge it risks crashing my browser (and because looking through FACs that already have image reviews is not productive). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through now and check, and list the results at WT:FAC ... which has been done off and on for a while, but isn't being done these days. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and good lord don't pull up the whole FAC page, pull up the FAC list, WP:FACL, which lists the current FACs in order. Also, I'm going to ask for help creating a new Milhist template that has a separate listing for non-Milhist articles that are currently at peer review/history (PRH), or are currently at FAC after going through PRH ... that will be more useful (for me) than FACL. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that's much more usable! And it doesn't crash my browser! I can just use popups from there. Thanks for the link! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Format for lists of battles

Looking through our various "Lists of battles of the <...> War"-type articles, it seems as though we have nothing resembling a standard format for them. Some of the current ones are simply bulleted lists; others are tables, but with no real consistency on either layout or contents.

I'm planning to start working on List of battles of the Italian Wars, and I'd appreciate hearing people's thoughts about the most suitable table format for such a list. My initial inclination would be to go with something along these lines:

Battle	Location	Belligerents		Result
		Commanders
Battle of Ravenna 11 April 1512	Near Ravenna, present-day Italy	France Duchy of Ferrara	Spain Papal States	Franco-Ferrarese victory
		Gaston de Foix †	Ramón de Cardona

I'm not certain, however, whether this format is sufficiently easy to read, and whether it includes too much information or not enough. Any suggestions on either layout or content would be appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just stick to date, and a link to the relevant article? Or at most add the two sides involved? Though I agree the article needs an overhaul. On a related notes is the Battle of Flodden truly part of the Italian wars or more part of the old antagonism between the Scots and English. Personally I precis it as "Scottish First eleven vs English reserves - collapse of the Scots batting in the first innings." GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to think that something as simple as date+article wouldn't be very useful; at that point, we might as well use a category or navigation template. My understanding of the purpose of such stand-alone lists (which may admittedly be out of date) is that it's preferable to have additional details. Removing the commanders and leaving only belligerents seems like a better approach (although, given the importance of particular commanders in military history, the former data point might be equally useful).

As far as Flodden is concerned, it's really both. The Scottish invasion was directly motivated by James' alliance with the French, and can thus be treated as a side theater of the War of the League of Cambrai; but, in the broader scheme of things, it can also be viewed as simply yet another episode of the periodic conflicts between England and Scotland. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Date	Battle	Location	Belligerants		Outcome
11 April 1952	Battle of Ravenna (1512)	near Ravenna Italy	France and Ferrara	Spain and Papal States	Franco-Ferrara victory, Ravenna taken

Avoiding flags too - at this period flags possibly more confusing than helpful? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I put the flags in mainly to cross-reference belligerents and commanders; if the latter field is removed, then there's no real need for them. (Having said that, allowing such cross-referencing requires merely that the flags be mutually distinguishable, not necessarily that they be identifiable per se. I don't think the fact that most readers won't recognize the flags in question is necessarily a problem in this regard.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed on the other hand, the flags might help readers quickly track through the list to spot which of the "sides" are at any given point in the course of the war. And there is the current discussion on the use of flagicon in lists.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That is what I understand the point of using flags at all is. Your idea in the table at the top is usable. WikiCopter 02:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WWII oral histories

I found a source about a project about oral histories

• Basu, Moni. "Warriors who became walking libraries." CNN. May 28, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Planned changes to the logistics and review departments

In response to declining activity levels in certain areas of the project, the coordinators have been discussing a series of proposals to restructure the logistics and review departments. The proposals involve closing the two departments by deprecating some of their functions and moving the rest to other locations.

The planned changes are not expected to be controversial, but anyone with an interest is invited to review them and provide any feedback to the coordinators. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Livonian War now open

The featured article candidacy for Livonian 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! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Vidkun Quisling now open

The featured article candidacy for Vidkun Quisling 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! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

San Diego Air & Space Museum images

I recently met with staff from the Balboa Park Online Collaborative, an organization dedicated to improving public access to the content of the park's museums. One of these museums, the San Diego Air & Space Museum, has digitized a portion of its collections over the last few years. So far, they have uploaded over 100,000 images on their Flickr account. The staff have indicated that they will be able to assist in getting the licenses changed for free license use if we can determine which images could be used. With such a large selection of images available on a variety of airplanes, aviators, ships, military bases, and other topics, I'm inviting members of this project to request images that could be used to improve various articles under this project's scope. For any image requests, please list the url of the image at the image request page so we can begin the process of uploading the images to Commons. If there are any questions, please leave them on the project's talk page. Thank you! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did the museum get those photos? I'm pretty sure that some of the ones depicting the Royal Australian Air Force and marked as having 'No known copyright restrictions' are Australian Government publicity photos, and hence covered by copyright (for instance [8], [9] and [10] - plus most of the other colour photos depicting the modern RAAF). The museum might need to get its house in order before we can help them, particularly if there are 100,000 photos to sort through. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the images may still be copyrighted while others may be already available in the public domain. That's why I'd like to compile a list that we can go with and individual cases can be researched. Many of the images came from private donors who waived the rights upon donating to the museum. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the issue above, there are some decent battleship pictures (whoo!) I did find an error, though – Texas didn't have triple gun turrets, unlike what this photo says. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And this photo is either BB-32 between 1927 and 1930, or BB-33 after 1926. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And if the museum wanted to confirm the source and release a higher-resolution image, I'd put this image in the lead at USS Yorktown (CV-5). Same with this image for USS Lexington (CV-2). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please list these images along with the requested size parameters at Wikipedia:GLAM/BP/Image requests so I can ask about those particular images. We'll definitely have to point out the incorrect caption for the Texas image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Museum is an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institute; I am sure they only want to do what is right, and any assistance we can provide them I think will be paid back to our community in due time, if not more so. Their collection, locally, is rather extensive; given the rich aeronatical history the San Diego region has with aviation, dating back to Montgomery, I am sure that their collection would assist our efforts.

Now if only we can get a hold of someone to assist us from the Flying Leatherneck Aviation Museum in Miramar, that could also be very helpful. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

United States Army Green Books all available online for Download

For anyone doing research in World War II, the United States Army Center of Military History just released all of the History of the Army in World War II greenbooks as PDFs at their website. They are one of the most comprehensive histories of World War II land battles that the US was involved in. Victory for historical materials in the public domain! Sadads (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent - thank you for posting it. I remember staying up to the middle of the night Australian time ten years ago so I could ring the US Government Publishing Office in Washington and order the Green Books on CD-ROM... The official history of the USAAF in World War II can also be downloaded in (very large) PDF files at http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/titleindex.htm Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are both terrific links. Thanks so much to both of you. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Superb! I'm bookmarking those links. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Military vehicle has a Wikipedia article?

Hi, I was trying to identify the vehicle (armoured personnel vehicle?) at this Youtube video showing the Castlemartin range and then to know if it has an article on here. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing which looks anything like those vehicles and is listed in the Modern equipment of the British Army article is the Cougar (vehicle). The variants of these vehicles in British service are called Mastiff, Wolfhound and Ridgbacks. I'd guess that they're Masiffs fitted with Slat armor. The British Army has a photo of a Mastiff in this configuration on its website here. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Yes, it does look like the Mastiff as at the link you provide. Eldumpo (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for John McCauley (RAAF officer) now open

The featured article candidacy for John McCauley (RAAF officer) 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) 13:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives DYK collaboration

This summer I am serving as the first Wikipedian in Residence at the US National Archives (see Signpost article); in order to serve as a hub for activity related to the National Archives' collaboration with Wikipedia, I have recently created a project page at WP:NARA. Since it seems relevant to this Wikiproject, I wanted to point members to our first editing project, which was recently announced and can be found here. The National Archives is an incredible resource for images and other documents related to American military history. I would be grateful for any input as we work out the details, and, of course, your participation once it launches. Dominic·t 14:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent news; it looks like there's a lot of potential for us here, given the number of military-related documents. (Unfortunately, many of the documents selected by NARA have sufficiently detailed articles that expanding them enough for a DYK nomination is essentially impossible; a few are probably closer to being on the main page as TFAs than as DYKs.)

On a tangentially related note, I'm thinking we should probably create a place within the project—a subpage of the strategy department, perhaps?—to track the various GLAM activities relevant to us; there's a fair number of them at this point, and we don't really have a list handy anywhere. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We can certainly use other higher benchmarks like GA and FA. I was mainly concerned with making sure the challenge was approachable and inclusive. (If you have any ideas for better incentives to go along with those, I am open to suggestions, too!) If you are feeling limited by the preselected documents, that's the reason I tried to come up with a more open-ended challenge as well. Dominic·t 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Find me a photo or document of any warship (bigger ones with guns, like battleships, would be nice as I have sources directly on them, but whatever you find works), and I'll put something together. :-) (PS although it is preferable you choose one that hasn't been worked on already!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As a note there are a large number of Medal of Honor recipients with documentation at the National Archives that would be good candidates for DYK expansion. --Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the National Archives. I imagine you could find a document related to any American warship. Go wild. :-) Dominic·t 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rush-rush request for June 1

I just created an article about desegregation in the United States Marine Corps and I would like somebody to quickly approve it at T:TDYK for an appearance tomorrow as part of the National Archives collaboration. Any takers?

Also, I am still expanding the article as its potential scope is large. I will accept any observations or suggestions. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted it to appear tomorrow, shouldn't you list it under T:TDYK#Special_occasion_holding_area for June 1st? Sorry, I dont know the DYK process completely. Will it move there once approved?--v/r - TP 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

military images up for deletion

several military images have been nominated for deletion over the last few days, see May 29, 30, 31 of WP:FFD. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing, plagiarism, copyvio et al

Two instances of close paraphrasing in MilHist articles have been found at FAC in one day. Of particular concern to me is that these instances were found, in both cases, after numerous MilHist reviewers supported the articles at FAC. Please review Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches and perhaps you all can find a way to improve review in this area-- we expect the best from MilHist :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at one of the FACs you mentioned (not linking it here) and I saw that there were three Milhist supports: one person supported on prose and MOS stuff, another supported on basically the same thing (albeit unstated, but that's all they reviewed), and a one-line support, so I don't think there is a major problem. They support the prose as-is so the article receives a few reviews—even if they don't check close paraphrasing, they know it will be checked later.

Part of this issue is because most reviewers (in general, not just Milhist) don't do spotchecks of the references. We can always encourage our reviewers to do them, of course, but this is why you make sure that paraphrase checking is done by at least one reviewer before an end of a FAC, right? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that a copy-vio or plagiarism check should be a criterion of GA checks, or even at B-class reviews? I usually take a couple of long sentences and run them through google when copy-editing articles over 1000 words, especially the Indian articles! Chaosdruid (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Me, too. @Ed, that is the way FAC seems to be working (that it falls to one person to do all the real work), but it's not the way it should work-- I'm surprised whenever anyone thinks they can support a FAC without considering the sources. Oh, well ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Spot checking close paraphrasing seems to be a relatively new practice in FACs and something I agree that we should add to our A class reviews. This would be a way to add significant value to the process (as the military history reviewers are the people most likely to have access to the sources and the motivation to check them) and make the FAC process run more smoothly. We've gotten a lot more serious about the quality of sources in the last 18 months or so, and I think that this has had significant benefits. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Watching for copyvio and plagiarism at FAC has been going on since the Halloween 2010 plagiarism scandal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that my reviews are fatally flawed. I'm on a wikibreak, reassessing my participation at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I seem to do citation formatting and source quality checking at MILHIST a fair bit. I will add automated checking by Google "quoted phrase" checking, and using these tools. I'll also try spot checking sources against claims, and manual "text quality" paraphrase / copyvio checks. Hopefully this ought to acculture other reviewers at MILHIST towards these practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Whoa, hold on Sandy. I thought supporting on specific sections of WIAFA was encouraged as well? Or should we not be supporting if we only review for certain sections? Dank, for one, has been doing some damn fine copyediting work over at FAC and in our A-class reviews, and he typically supports articles while explicitly noting he is only checking and supporting based on the quality of the prose. I don't dispute that more of us can be paraphrase-checking, but what you just said told him that his extremely hard work over the last few months has not been helpful. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think there's been a misunderstanding here because many of our emotions are involved in quality articles and our reviews to help generate and certify those articles. I took SandyGeorgia to be criticising drive by reviews that claim to Support on content alone. (I myself feel very responsible, as I've examined sourcing quality and citation quality at MILHIST A without examining if the sources support the assertions and if the text is copyvio / plagiarism / close paraphrase free; and as I feel I let some bad ones slip through to FAC which were caught by people such as Dank who examine textual quality). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Both Fifelfoo and Dank (not unlike Tony1) specify exactly what they are reviewing, review all FACs for same, and I take that and the amount of work they do into consideration when weighing the support (for example, I know that Tony checks prose, not sources, so his support alone isn't enough, but if others have checked sources, it is enough to confirm prose is passed). Specialist reviews are encouraged, this is not a problem, and is not the same as people who support specific articles (for example, all MilHist articles) even when sourcing issues have been identified, or even if no sourcing checks have been done on the article. It's the difference between "fans" piling on Support on certain FACs or broader reviewers doing a thorough job in whichever area they've chosen to review, whether or not it's a complete review on all critiera. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to generate discussion

That we modify A-Class and A-Class FAQ for point A1 to be more explicitly against close paraphrase, and plagiarism of copyright-free material. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Would support except this is to generate discussion, not !votes. It is a good idea, but could be taken further by creating another separate citerion that articles be free of paraphrasing/plagiarism. WikiCopter 03:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • See my most recent posts at WT:FAC. I'm not trying to be an a**hole, but MILHIST A-class articles that hit FAC were at one time routinely rife with copyvio (yes, I do mean copyvio, not plagiarism). That is unacceptable for an A-class review of a project as well-developed as MILHIST.  – Ling.Nut 03:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think you're being hostile at all; and I think the problems identified with MILHIST A process need to be fixed for the good of MILHIST, and due to our heavy impact on FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds sensible and non-controversial. To put some meat on the bones of this, I'd suggest that we amend criterion A4 to read as follows (changes marked in bold)

A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant and, with the exception of direct quotes, uses wording which is substantially different to that of any previously-published work.

In line with this, the FAQ guidance for the criterion could be amended to:

We're looking for professional standards of English, with the emphasis on brevity and clarity as well as prose that is free of both plagiarism or close paraphrasing of other sources, even if they are in the public domain. We do not expect 100% MoS-compliance, that can be achieved with a technical copy-edit immediately prior to FAC. However, we do expect articles to handle linking, date formats, referencing and citation, national spelling varieties, and measurements and distances consistently.

Thoughts? (and I note that the FA criteria do not explicitly warn against plagiarism/close paraphrasing - hopefully this will prompt a change...) Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think Fifelfoo makes a very good suggestion and I think Nick-D's suggestion expands on it quite well. I would support adding Nick's wording to the criteria and instructions. Good work, gents. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I too support Nick-D's suggestion as a good result of the above debates. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Me three. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"prose that is free of both plagiarism or close paraphrasing of other sources, even if they are in the public domain" I know this is an old complaint of mine, but this one, if adopted, is going to deeply screw a lot of the USN submarine & ship articles, which are verbatim lifts (or mainly so) from DANFS.... I think it's way past time WP adopted a guideline like it. If we expect to be taken seriously, this kind of copying has to go. Encouraging dishonesty is a bad idea. Not to mention the trouble anybody relying on WP, but not knowing about this, risks causing themselves... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it'll screw the ones that are nominated at A-class. I'd say we should add it to the B-class standards too, but anything lifted from a single source (especially one like DANFS) shouldn't get that rating. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the prose style of DANFS, I'd say a rewrite was always in order. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with the proposal. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecking current FACs

I have just run through and spotchecked those MILHIST facs which other people didn't get to first. I wasn't impressed. I am incapable of spotchecking every MILHIST A. We simply must generate more spotcheck reviewers at MILHIST A Review, and conduct this prior to the material reaching FAC (we cannot, of course, be responsible for editors who evade MILHIST A and proceed directly to FAC). We also need to ensure that we carry our weight by spotchecking MILHIST articles that go to FAC, regardless of whether they passed through MILHIST A or not. I'd also strongly encourage FAC nominators to link to the MILHIST A review, which will allow the source, spotcheck and copyedit reviewers to note previous issues or successes with the article in question, and so they avoid spotchecking the same sources over again at FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but there isn't a crisis. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I spot-checked 22 citations for supporting the fact and close plagiarism in an A Class review just now by an editor who is excellent at scholarly sourcing, sourcing and citations; and, who has an excellent grasp of encyclopaedic style for a free encyclopaedia for everyone. I found two instances of close paraphrase, both where clause order and the verb clause remained identical, both where the source and article were both over single sentence facts. This isn't a condemnation of the editor at all (2/22 checked, and the lowest level of problem); but, it indicates that we do need to do this process in house prior to FAC. My estimate of the time cost to conduct this portion of the A Class review was 60 minutes. I can't handle that reviewing load on a per A Class review. I think I could just handle it on a "one review per chief article editor every 3-6 months" level; but, it would reduce my other wikipedia contributions to nothing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw it out there, Fifelfoo is talking about me and South American dreadnought race. I'm actually really surprised, as I thought I had been able to get away from anything approaching plagiarism. Drawing from that, I think our problem with checking for plagiarism is that the easiest to accidentally commit – in my case, similar clause order due to taking information from just one sentence of a source – is one of the the hardest to check for. As Fifel shows above, it takes some dedication to find. I'm extremely glad he did put out this dedication, as the constructive advice he gave gives me an idea on how to change my writing habits, but we'd need a veritable army to do the same for all of our ACRs and/or FACs. Does anyone have any ideas that don't include slavery or conscripting? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't. I'd agree, its very easy to make this particular error (I'd put money on having done it myself accidentally as well), but I can't easily see how we'd find the additional reviewing effort to reliably find them, particularly in the longer articles or those without on-line sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice of wikibreak

I need a long wikibreak; it's personal stuff. I'll miss our work together. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll miss you-- I hope the "stuff" works out and we'll see you soon ! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What Sandy said, I hope everything sorts itself out and you find your way back soon. Woody (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Take care of your self Dank. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Look after yourself and take care. Your contributions to the encyclopaedia have inspired me to improve the quality of my own efforts. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I appreciate it. I'll get back as soon as I can ... life is really annoying right now and it's going to affect my wikiwork if I let it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hope things improve, and take care of yourself. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I can relate. Take care, and we will look forward to seeing you back here in full capacity. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You can guess how I feel – keep well, friend. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Will miss your sage advice. FWIW, I might try and step into the breach a bit here and concentrate on a broader range of FACs and MilHist ACRs from a purely prose perspective rather than all-encompassing reviews. I won't be able to occupy your shoes but hopefully it'll help while you take a deserved break... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD

The USS Weeks (DE-285) article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This cancelled ship question brings to mind another issue. Are 'phantom,' dummy army formations which never existed (like the 4th Airborne Division (United Kingdom)) separately notable, in addition to overall articles such as Operation Fortitude? I would say not. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I know where your coming from re the three deception airborne divisions and have wondered the same myself. However the 2nd Airborne Division (United Kingdom), 4th and 5th Airborne Division (United Kingdom), did have troops assigned and served a purpose if only to deceive. Maybe one article combining details from the three divisions articles instead of three stubs (which will probably never be expanded) would be better. Any other thoughts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there can be a single rule for 'dummy' formations given that the extent and nature of the coverage provided to these units differs considerably; some are notable in isolation while others are not. I'd err on the side of merging them with the article on the deception operation though. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the dummy formations could better be merged to FUSAG. IMO, putting them under general deception operations makes that page bloated & will attract trivial mentions. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The British Airborne Divisions seem to have had a bit of a life separate from FUSAG though. Perhaps an article on British Airborne divisions of WWII could cover all of them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New article needing rename

G'day from Oz; not really my area of knowledge, but I have come across a new article, 20mm tarasque, concerning an AA gun that appears to be made by Nexter. I think the article could do with renaming, but I don't know what format you guys prefer to use, so I thought I'd leave it up to someone who knows what they are doing. YSSYguy (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories not following MOS

Resolved

Hi. I've come across categories that seem to not be following WP:MOS regarding dashes. The problem seem really widespread. A few examples are Category:Military tanker aircraft 2000-2009, Category:Military aircraft 2000-2009, Category:Electronic warfare aircraft 1990-1999, Category:Iranian military aircraft 1990-1999, Category:Military trainer aircraft 1990-1999, etc. I think should be looked at closely. Also, why not merge some of them together? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 12:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the ongoing Dash-Hyphen war (I'll leave it to others to tell me the appropriate symbol to use between those words), I'd be wary of even mentioning the discrepancy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It indeed is a long war. Thanks for your comment. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 23:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is currently a moritorium on changing dashes to hyphens and vice versa. Suggest we leave these alone until the moritorium is lifted. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And when's the lift gonna be? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 14:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

When they stop arguing, ie how long is a piece of string? ;) Woody (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion to change the hyphenation in aircraft categories was requested and closed with no consensus in December 2010 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_20#Speedy_hyphen_changes_with_objection. So as far as I am aware this means you cant just change them without lots of discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting for voting and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion for discussion. To answer the earlier question about how long string is, apparently it stretches to 14 July. Woody (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Niš

Resolved

I left this comment to the talk page of Battle of Niš which should describe very important battle. Unfortunately, nobody replied to my comment. I am reluctant to perform any change in such important article if there is a chance that I am wrong.

Therefore I invite members of this project to investigate my findings written in above mentioned comment and provide some feedback on the talk page of the article before I perform changes in the date of the battle(s), leaders of the armies etc.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

While understanding your caution, the article is currently a stub (albeit a remarkably well cited one). There is doubtless a lot more that could be added to extend it. In terms of making changes, given that there is little more than an info box on a lot of the details, I would recommend expansion to allow a context of discussion of differing opinions of the sort you raise - an article which purely revolved around scholarly controversies would not be sufficiently encylopedic, IMO. Monstrelet (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree: be bold, expand the article, don't lose any of the existing citations, and explain in the course of the article if there are difference of opinion between academics.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will follow your advice.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Drafting "Sat cong" ("kill communists", Vietnam War slogan)

If anyone's interested in helping me work up a draft, I'm working an article on the slogan "sat cong", "kill communists": User:MatthewVanitas/Sat cong. From what I'm seeing thus far, it was popular in the Republican Navy, particularly the Junk Force. There are a few military patches online that should be usable as "original productions of the United States military", and at least a couple usgov-produced photos of Vietnamese sailors with that tattoo. I think it'll be a cool article, and I'm drafting it in Userspace so I can get it ready first, and then apply for WP:DYK as soon as I move it to articlespace. Thanks for any help or suggestions, particularly if someone knows how this is spelled in the Vietnamese alphabet! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit of twiddling with Google Translate produces "sát cộng", if that helps. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's times like this (and many others) that highlight the stupidity of the lynching of YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a video, singing the praises of ARVN. Kauffner (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

1st U-boat flotilla, etc

It seems that all the pages we have on WWII U-boat flotillas, with the exception of the 1st, are at the German name (2.Unterseebootsflottille, etc). I'm thinking they should be at the English name, per WP:TITLE. Is there any objection here if I start moving them? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. Without checking my sources, I'm pretty sure that English-language works generally translate the names, so 'X U-Boat Flotilla' is the common English-language name. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In a rather unrepresentative survey (google books) I found that except for Williamson, most English-language publications use the translations. One technical question remains whether it is possible to move these articles en bloc or if it has to be done manually - I am thinking of dozens of articles linking to the old titles. --FJS15 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there's no contest, with this. I'm going to bash on with it, if that's OK. I reckon they will need to be done manually (each page will need it's lead sentence changed anyway) but the redi rect at the old address will cover teh articles that link. I'd like to think changing links can be done by a bot, but I don't know how that works. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new "Operation"

Greetings for Melbourne, I'm thinking of initiating a new sub-project, like Operation Majestic Titan, dedicated to getting all articles about critical and important Cold War aircraft to at least GA status. I will outline more of my plans by Tuesday, but first, what does everyone think? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 12:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Some of the articles I'd like to concentrate on are F-102, F-104, F-106, F-117, Tu-95, SR-71, Su-27, MiG-27... The timeframe for this would be 1.5–2 years. More to come Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 05:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea in principle; but the usual questions of interest and activity levels apply. I would suggest setting up the group in the military history incubator first; that way, we can determine whether there's enough activity to sustain a special project before having to set up the full infrastructure for one. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Open page move requests

• (Discuss) – Gods and Generals → Gods and Generals (novel) (Gettysburg)
• (Discuss) – Special Service Group → Special Services Group (Pakistan)
• (Discuss) – 355th Fighter Wing → 355th Wing (US Air Force)
• (Discuss) – 2 Military Police Unit → 2 Military Police Regiment (Canada)
• (Discuss) – 2011 Libyan civil war →Libyan civil war
• (Discuss) – 1958 Tybee Island B-47 crash → 1958 Tybee Island mid-air collision (Hydrogen bomb lost off the coast of Georgia)

Kauffner (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

Hey all. This is at FAC currently, and it looks a couple fixes away from promotion. However, Buggie hasn't edited in a while, so could someone jump in and make the final modifications? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Second Barbary War

Can someone who has knowledge of this conflict and others of the same period around the same area have a look at Special:Contributions/FAIZGUEVARRA. He seems to want to change all references to the Barbary pirates etc to Algeria and my knowledge of this period is too sketchy to decide if the changes are correct or not. NtheP (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for German battleship Tirpitz now open

The A-Class review for German battleship Tirpitz is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) 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! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Media

Would you guys like the featured sounds and pictures inside the scope of this project tagged? cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 20:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A note was left at coordinators talkpage about it and that discussion is currently ongoing. I don't see it being taken up to be honest at the moment, for the reasons that Kirill sets out in the linked discussion. Woody (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington now open

The A-Class review for Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thunderbirds

The usage of Thunderbirds is under discussion, see Talk:Thunderbirds (TV series) and WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_27#Thunderbirds, for the two discussions underway. As the Thunderbirds are the USAF performance aerobatics team, I thought I'd let you know. 184.144.166.87 (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

U boat data

A difference in opinion has come up between me and another editor as to the displacement of the Type VII submarine. The source is U.boat.net where the values are given as just "tons". Being German vessels and uboat.net generally using the continental comma for a decimal point, the likely inference is that these are "tonnes" but I am not convinced. uboataces.com gives a slightly different value but is written chiefly in Imperial units. Could anyone supply (or indicate) a more definitive reference for the displacement that is clear about the units? .GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This may not help :

Neistle gives 769 and 871 t (surfaced and submerged)(p42) but doesn’t specify what ton he's using

Uboatnet (which seems to rely on Neistle a lot) does the same

Bagnasco gives 769 and 871 tons,(p62) but says he uses the “English ton” (1016kg) throughout (p6 )

Conway uses long tons throughout (p1) but gives 749 and 851 t (p242)

Our conversionbot over on the Type VII page tells us 769 tonnes is 757 long tons (and would be 848 short tons), while 871 tonnes is 851 long tons, (and 960 short).

Make of those what you will. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Waters seem muddier. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Eberhard Möller and Werner Brack's The Encyclopedia of U-Boats gives the following figures (pages 69 through 73):

• Type VIIA: 626 tonnes surfaced, 745 tonnes submerged
• Type VIIB: 753 tonnes surfaced, 857 submerged
• Type VIIC and VIIC/41: 769 tonnes surfaced, 871 tonnes submerged

Seems as though those other sources are simply failing to differentiate between the three major subtypes. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what is needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of muddying the waters some more, gents, Fitzsimons' W&W (presumably relying on naval editor Preston) uses the above VIIA/B/C numbers, but describes them as "tons"... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Gettysburg Battlefield camps after the American Civil War

Not being an American and therefore not in touch with the sentiments and meaning of the site. I thoughtI'd ask here for some opinion on Gettysburg Battlefield camps after the American Civil War. Having bumped into it via the long route from Experimental Mechanized Force, I thought it could do with cleanup, and I've dealt with a couple of MoS issues but the more I look at it, the more I wonder what it's about. There seems to be a lot of inconsequential detail and I'm not convinced most of its content is notable at all. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see much notable about it, either, but as always YMMV.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In this parent wikiarticle, the set of listings which are for undisputed notable camps and which do not have enough information for spawning an individual article is of sufficient magnitude to warrant a wikiarticle about that set (e.g., rather than trying to tediously incorporate those listing with repetitive text in the grandparent wikiarticle). Moreover, the weasel words, "not convinced most" & "didn't see much", of both previous posters identify they agree there are listings for notable camps. As a result, perhaps they are veiling the recommendation that the article be retitled to only 'Notable Gettysburg Battlefield camps after the American Civil War' so the wikiarticle doesn't list all of the military site's postbellum camps? I suspect they'll agree that such a title and descoping is inappropriate, even if we were to conduct the exercise of determining the 3-way consensus regarding the agreed notable camps of the current list total of ~62 (~13 in 1865-1900, ~31 from 1900-38, ~18 1939-present). Or perhaps either of the 2 previous posters simply feels "Low-importance on the project's importance scale" is warranted rather than just making that edit at the article's talk page (importance to a project is different from the notability of scope/content.) Target for Today (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If there were some individual notable camps such as the one formed to hold 500 POWs (World War II Prisoner of War Camp, Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania) that were within the battlefield site, then they should by all means exist. However the article just appears to be a list of events that happened without anything significant coming of them. And some of the content for the events seems very trivial eg "The WV baseball team defeated the Pennsylvania College team 9-8, before continuing to New Oxford for a bivouac at Camp Pfeiffer and to York." or "Camp Henderson of the PA National Guard used 95 acres (0.38 km2) in McMillan Woods and the Trostle, Klingel, Sherfy, McPherson, and Codori farms" or "CCC workers detonated a cannon ball from the 1863 battle." GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider these camps to be notable unless someone has a fixed interest in either the CCC and some of its more minor activities or the Gettysburg battlefield area as a whole and with no limits on the timeframe covered by that interest.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to also add that the sourcing is predominantly taken from archives of the local newspapers rather than works on the subject of the Battlefield itself.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Original research or not ?

Hi posting this here as someone may have come across this before. I am redoing a article on one of the two British airborne operations in Sicily. At present I have two sources for casualties one is for the operation I am not working on and the second gives the total casualties for both operations combined. If I subtract one for the other it obviously gives me the casualty figures I am after. Is this considered OR ? I did intend to cite both sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If the source giving figures for both operations is specific in including only these two operations I don't see a problem. It might be worth including in the footnote how this was calculated though. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nick - for absolute clarity, spell out the maths involved. A footnote would be best, and perhaps include the words 'possible casualties may have been' or something like that in the main text. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks will do that.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR clearly identifies "routine calculations" (ultra-routine daily arithmetic like simple subtraction of 2 numbers is an example) are not violations of Wikipedia's policy regarding original research. Also, the lack of conciseness of a footnote and "spell out the math involved" (i.e., plus 2 distinct citations) are unnecessary and inappropriately unencyclopedic--especially if using weasel words "possible … may have been". One dual-source citation will suffice:

• Jones Jr., H. "Indiana", Gettysburg & Normandy Operations, p. 100, The 2 operations had a total of 20,000 casualties. (cf. Smith 1945, Normandy in the French Revolution: "Normandy had 7,000 casualties".)

However, as a courtesy to the wikireader, if in your case operation B is reasonably related to operation A (e.g., both are described or even compared in the wikiarticle); just describe the numerical relationship within the body of the wikiarticle, e.g.: operation A had the remainder of the total 20,000 casualties, which includes the associated operation B's 7,000 casualties.¹ This will also help motivate wikireaders to look for a direct source for the operation A casualties (e.g., used and cited by author A, a citation for which you looked, right? I'll assume you're aware of how different numbers are used by different authors for the same quantity.) Of course with either usage, the sources need to be clear that there were 2 and only 2 operations associated with those 2 numbers, otherwise the wikiwriter's subtraction has committed the false dilemma fallacy. Finally, please consider whether your usage of a routine calculation is a good example for posting to the rather weak section at WP:OR#Routine calculations--wikiwriters who read that FAQ (e.g., before posting talk to a WikiProject) might find it useful! Other examples are sums (e.g., when sources identify X miles to checkpoint X, Y more miles to bivouac Y, and Z more miles to the battle) as well as use of a simple math tool such as for arc mileage between geographic coordinates (Haversine formulae are routinely used for the latter). Be Bold! Target for Today (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR "routine calculations" is guidelines for just that - routine calculations (like, as it says, working out a person's age). Jim's position above is quite different, in that he is taking figures from two different sources and using them to reach an un-sourced conclusion (which may well be considered to fall under synthesis). Spelling out his method of reaching this figure is therefore entirely appropriate, this is after all an online encyclopaedia that reflects published sources. I also suspect you have misunderstood the term weasel word; in this instance, words like "possible" are qualifiers that reflect the fact that no source states the figure given in the article. It is not a deliberate attempt to make a solid fact more vague, because there is no solid fact (ie. no direct source). Equally, Jim's coming here to get opinions on the appropriateness of this addition to the article is exactly what these talk pages are for, and no-one commenting here deserves a brow beating for doing so. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Contacting someone on Photobucket

Because, apparently I am not experienced enough to know how, I have come across images on Photobucket, but am unsure whether they are copyrighted or not. The Photobucket user jvsv has a huge amount of scanned historical images that could help improve several wikipedia articles. For example, in the artifact album there are numerous examples of pre and post war images relating to the Philippine Scouts. There maybe more, but I have yet to search through all of them.

I don't see an easy way of contacting the uploader in order to get their permission, or to have them, upload the images to WikiCommons for our use. Any assistance would be appreciated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Ismailia needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Ismailia; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

An article

I've been developing a rewrite of Military history of Imperial Russia in my sandbox. I can't pretend to know anything about writing military history (for once I happen to possess all the right text resources), so I was wondering what you buffs thought of it? It's far from finished of course; this is 44-54 in Stone, and World War I ends on page 175, wow. That's a lot of writing. ResMar 01:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion or new article?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Operation Magic Carpet#Service points. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (U) now open

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (U) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Flags

Please note that {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} have been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_11. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

I've been working on the article in a fairly major way, rewriting over half, "birthing" various sections, etc. I'd now like to solicit wider feedback that the talk page of the article can provide, given that on pageviews, it's about 5,500 on en. I'm aware there are small things, copyediting, etc. that need doing, and I'm working on them, along with strengthening and clarifying the referencing. I've pushed most of this through without words from anyone else on the project, so would welcome views (particularly) on things like weight and scope of the article - if things are over or under-represented, that sort of thing. I don't know whether here or at Talk:Spanish Civil War would be better, probably there. It's a major article that frankly B-class was optimistic but now more accurate. All thoughts warranted. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered a peer review, I have often found them extremely helpful.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would, except I believe efforts are being made so MILHIST PRs will be like others, and that general rule is "Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." which is clearly above the level of the article at the moment. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

CNN article about WWII advertisements

You guys might be interested in a CNN article about World War II military advertisements

• Greene, Bob. "When ads celebrated soldiers and sacrifice." CNN. June 12, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Field Marshals of the British Army now open

The A-Class review for List of Field Marshals of the British Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley Harrier now open

The A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley Harrier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Army abbreviations 1860s

Question for U.S. Army experts: I'm researching 1860s era Army gravestones. Seeing abbreviations for "Gen. Serv." and "Permt. Party" but don't know what they stand for and what the unit designations mean. Any help here? Thanks very much. K72ndst (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

By no means an expert but Gen Serv = possibly general service Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

General service. The other is permanent party. They aren't unit designations per se. I'd need to see the actual gravestone (or have you type everything that's on the stone) to be able to tell more.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. Here are 2, from the Cypress Hills National Cemetery list: "George H. Arthur, Pvt Co. D, Gen. Serv., U. S. A., (died) Aug. 16, 1866" and "Hutchinson M. Howe, Pvt.. Co. A, Permt. Party, U. S. A., (died) Sept. 13, 1870" Would these both be garrison duty? They served on Fort Jay, where they died. K72ndst (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay...I just saw this. Neither of those indicate regimental affiliation, so I'd suspect Quartermaster Corps or something similar. It's also possible that they were in various stages of training (general service) or training cadre (permanent party). If memory serves the Fort Jay/Governor's Island area was home to some sort of training element during this period, although I'd have to check some sources I have to make certain.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably a bit of wild guessing, but to me, those terms imply slightly different 'job roles' (for lack of a better term). Being a fort, "Permanent Party" sounds like someone assigned specificly to the fort's 'crew', while a "General Service" solder could be deployed anywhere needed, and just happened to be posted to Fort Jay (whether as part of the fort personnel, a unit based at the fort, or just passing through) at the time of his death. -- saberwyn 01:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe both of these could be very close to the soldiers' assignments. Fort Columbus (the 19th Century name of Fort Jay) held the busy New York Arsenal at the time; so they could have been part of it. In this era, the Quartermaster Corps maintained a post on Fort Columbus. Those assigned to the fort, and Castle Williams, could have been artillerymen, since there are numerous Artillery graves in Cypress Hills as well. There was also recruiting and training on the island. (Visiting New York? Head to Brooklyn and see Cypress Hills National Cemetery). K72ndst (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"General Service" was typically a designation reserved for individuals who had just enlisted but had not been assigned to a branch and/or regiment. You didn't see them staying in that category for long. Permanent party would most likely have been personnel assigned to the training function as cadre. Your artillery folks would have had a regimental assignment, and quartermaster personnel should have had "Quartermaster Corps" on the tombstone (assuming, of course, that the tombstones were correctly engraved). Forts at this time didn't typically have personnel assigned specifically to them...they'd be members of the garrison (typically an infantry or artillery regiment, although cavalry did at times form the main garrison on the Frontier). Quartermaster employees did a fair amount of work, too, but they wouldn't show up as either "general service" or "permanent party". You could actually track these guys using the Registers of Enlistment (available on microfilm from the National Archives), which would give you tons of detail on them.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the great info. I haven't tried the Registers of Enlistment, how far back does it go? I've got some others from the War of 1812 that I'd like to research as well. Thanks again. K72ndst (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The registers go back quite a ways and should cover 1812. I also think there are registers out there for that period dealing with the various state volunteer units. And I did check a surgeon general's circular from about 1870 that indicated that Fort Columbus was a recruiting and training post during this time.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a million, you just don't know. I have an Ancestry.com account, and using it, I located records the Army kept of burials on the post cemetery. Using this list I was able to cross-reference the names with the online VA Grave Locator. This will help to add to the Fort Columbus and Cypress Hills National Cemetery articles. I also learned a lot about the rank structure and unit designations back then. You were correct, the Permanent Party were soldiers assigned to the New York Arsenal on Governors Island. Thanks. K72ndst (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem! If you need any more help, just ping my talk page. I've got a fair amount of experience researching the Army prior to 1898.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Luftwaffe operations on 22 June - 31 July June 1941

Since Eastern Front articles and books tend to be 'ground-centric', and on the whole reluctant to spend time and effort on the air campaigns which alter, and helped decide (and in some cases decide outright) the outcome of battles, I propose that a separate article dealing with air operations be created to correct the imbalance. I think the German counter-air operations which crippled the largest air force in the world for a period of six months, and as a consequence of which could render unsurpassed (up until that point) support the German Army should have an article. I'm interested in this period, the most intensive part of the campaign. Thoughts and ideas welcome. Dapi89 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, at the very least, operations dealing specifically with 22 June entitled Luftwaffe counter-air operations during Op. Barbarossa or something to that effect. Dapi89 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If existing sources are 'ground-centric,' do you think a good article can be created without original research? Not trying to be confrontational or anything, just putting the question out there. I've seen some coverage of this in books, but nothing really stood out.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What I meant by that was EF books and Wikipedia articles in general. I hope you didn't think I meant that there was no air-related sources out there, thus I was suggesting an article that would be made up from WP:Synth and WP:OR! There are enough specialist aviation books to do this I think. I have a reasonable collection, so there is no question of original search being used. They cover the impact that air operations had upon the enemy and the extent to which avation could influence the ground campaign. I can provide a list of some books that deal specifically with the air war in Russia if you like. Dapi89 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It's all good. I knew there were some specialized sources out there. It's not really my area, so I haven't dug very deeply into it. You might consider calling it an air superiority campaign as opposed to counter air, but that's just a thought (and ties more into USAF doctrine than anything else, really).Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why just from the German side? Ok the Russian Air Force may not have achieved much during this period but how about broadening it out to Air operations during Operation Barbarossa? NtheP (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that decision depends at least in part on available sources and the interests of the original poster/author. I could actually see a use for having an article dealing with German air operations and another on Soviet air operations. The German side could get pretty specialized if you break it down to air superiority ops, CAS/interdiction ops, and so on. I guess it all depends on the level of detail one wants to put into it (and again, available and reliable sources).Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

All good points, particularly the very last one re: separate air ops, Sov/Axis. I wanted to avoid doing one on the broader pitcture which in effect would mean another operation Barbarossa article, but with the twist that it is about the aerial campaign. I really wanted to do one just on the events of the first day, the 22 June 1941. It was a day that saw the most successful air strike of the war (and the most materially damaging of all time I think). I think it might be permissible given its notability - 2,000 VVS aircraft lost in one day. I've done air battle articles that cover just a single day before, but they were easier, as they had individual names and were undeniably notable. I just wonder whether the German air strikes on 22 June is just as worthy for its own page.

Usually it would follow the following; 1)background/strategic situation at the time 2) State of the Axis/Sov air forces - Stalin's purges etc etc 3) ORBAT, which I do have (nearly complete) 4) the battle 5) aftermath, which can cover the impact of the initial strikes for the duration of Barbarossa and the big picture. This is a very simple description of what I was thinking of. Dapi89 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

An article title that takes both sides into account is definitely the best option, and that structure looks good. I think (but am not sure) that David Glantz's book Stumbling Colossus has detailed information on the state of the Soviet Air Force and its order of battle. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I'll look into it. I've come up with suggestions for articles re: RAF CC over the Bay of Biscay and Allied air ops over Normandy and have received support. But I'm going to start with this one first as I have the plan clearer in my mind. I take it then I have support for Axis and Soviet air operations on 22 June 1941? Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Change

I've decided that the article must extend to the entire length of Barbarossa. I believe there is enough sources to do that. I seem to find myself covering events beyond the 22 June, so I think it is worth doing the whole thing to December 1941. Is there any objections to this and the proposed title Axis and Soviet air operations during Operation Barbarossa? Dapi89 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

None here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Ok. I've started the thing, but I need people to drop in from time to time with suggestions. Mostly to make sure I'm sticking to topic and not getting wrapped up in my terminology-speak (in other words, the lay reader understands and can follow the article) and it follows a logical progression. Dapi89 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I can take a whack at copy editing for you at some point if you'd like.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm moving along pretty quickly, so whenever you're ready. I'm also interested in any technical feed back re content. Dapi89 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not on topic, exactly, but maybe of interest (or use): I came across a Hayward article ("Too Little, Too Late") at Google Scholar, reproduced from Journal of Military History, on Hitler's missed opportunity to attack Sov oil in Fall Blau. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is amazing work Dapi89; absolutely fantastic. Thank you so much. However, it's 136 kB now, so you will have to consider where to split it yourself, or have people split it possibly not in accordance with your wishes sometime in the future. I don't mean to pour cold water, but somebody is likely to come along, glance at it, and make some random split if you don't come up with a logical one sometime soonish. Just my 2 cents. Thanks again. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination Portal:Military of Germany

Hello, I thought I'd leave you a hint that this portal has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of Germany. Regards, De728631 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a question on the discussion page asking for a grace period prior to deletion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

B-17 Crash

Appears that B-17G (s/n 44-83690) Miss Liberty Belle is no more Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The List of surviving B-17 Flying Fortresses article now notes this, though it may be appropriate to remove the aircraft from the list. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Civil war in Chad (2005–present)

In the article, it says the war ended on January 5, 2010. It's time to rename the article. B-Machine (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Is anybody reading!? B-Machine (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the original post didn't seem to need a response. Be bold, change the title, explaining your reasons on the talk page. See if there is any response Monstrelet (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent

Can somebody take a look at List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent and it's talk page. There is a problem with defining a defeat, among other things. The article is a FL candidate, but an issue for which I thought was resolved, is still present. Anyway, any opinion or thought is welcome. --Kebeta (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Flags and country labels in military history infoboxes

I have got involved in a discussion at Talk:Normandy landings about the way we label national forces in infoboxes. Some editors are proposing that we change the nomenclature for countries whose territory is occupied, but whose governments are in exile and whose armed forces are operating as part of the Allied effort. There is a good case for doing this in the case of the French, but I don't think the same principle can be applied to others (e.g. Norway). I'd be grateful for some third opinions. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Question ... Americans only, no cheating

"... with recommendations being put forward for the F-104 Starfighter (though in the event the French Dassault Mirage III was purchased) and C-130 Hercules." This is perfectly good Australian or British English, but I've rarely met an American who knows what "in the event" means here. No cheating ... any guesses? - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that means the Mirage III was later purchased instead of the F-104. The wording and structure seems pretty vague to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a construct meaning "was purchased instead of"...it's not a construct that would be typically used by an American writer. I'd say if you were breaking it down this would mean roughly "when the event of purchase came round, the Mirage III was selected instead of the F-104." But again, that's not something you'd see in American English. American English would use "although the Mirage III was purchased instead of the F-104" or something very similar.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This Canadian gets it, but must confess exposure to Britlish (& to using that very construction ;p). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This German with much more exposure to British English than to American English gets it, but thinks it's hard to understand and not good style at all. Hans Adler 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a good construct in British English either. You'd need to quote more for me to understand the context, but "in the event" is not entirely idiomatic - it should be used to refer to something happening at a specific time/place. You might use it in this context if the article you're quoting from is referring to some sort of competition for aircraft sales or an airshow where a decision might be made. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In context, I'd agree it's poorly constructed; I'd add the Mirage remark after the C-130, because it interrupts the thought, or put the C-130 first. I'd disagree the phrase only applies to a date-sensitive circumstance; I've seen & heard Brits use it quite broadly to mean "as it happened". Peter Gzowski ^{90 minutes live?} 01:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This American understands it, but doesn't think it's a good sentence, and it is true that I had to really think about what it meant before I understood it, so the sentence didn't flow smoothly for me. Perhaps, "... with recommendations being put forward for the F-104 Starfighter and C-130 Hercules, although the French Dassault Mirage II was later purchased in place of the former." or something of the sort. Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, "in the event" is an expression meaning "as it happened" or "in fact", but it's not an expression many Americans know, and it looks like people don't like the way it's used here. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not one to vote for unclarity, but is the standard to be "what Americans understand"? I'm afraid that could be a low standard. I'd agree, fix the structure; the phrase in particular isn't at fault IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like Dank is trying to find out if the wording can be understood by everybody. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a figure of around a billion people who speak or read English worldwide; it might be higher. If we write that someone took a lift to the second floor, I think we can trust that most either will know what that is, or will figure it out (what else would you take to the second floor?), or will follow the link to find out. OTOH, it's generally considered sound copyediting practice to substitute expressions that everyone knows and is comfortable with, when that's possible, for expressions that only some will know, unless you're deliberately trying to limit your readership. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

How far are you planning to take this? What you might call the ground floor is what a native French speaker might call the first floor. Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol. I was just about to say the same thing - same in British English - the first floor is the first above ground, and the second is the one above that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's quite vague, since it seems that at first glance, it seems that it is saying that an alternate purchase of Mirage IIIs were considered, but leaves it hanging as to what happened to the alternate purchase plan; it looks more like an option, than an ending contrary to the purchase of F-104s. A second glance reveals more though. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)♠I'm not trying to interfere with that effort (tho it may seem so :( ), nor am I deeply wedded to this phrasing, except insofar as this effort may discourage it being used at all, which IMO is unwarranted. If we accept the structure is fixed, IMO, the meaning is clear, because it's stated "the Mirage III was purchased". It's likely to also be clear in any case where the phrase is used. I don't think it's possible to entirely avoid some linguistic idiosyncracies in an international project, & IMO we should only weed out ones where there's patent unclarity or double meaning. To offer an example: should we delete references to U.S. fans rooting for teams because of the sexual connotation of the term in Aussie usage? (That may not be necessary {unencylopedic language, after all}; nevertheless...) So, no unclarity nor potential double meaning in that instance, I don't think; so, no need to delete or avoid usage. Nor in the case at issue.

♠Aiming at the bottom of the class, instead of the top, IMO, is a bad idea. If it takes a second reading to get it, that's not necessarily bad (tho not ideal, true); it's not like I've never had to read something twice to be sure I got it right, & I pride myself on getting it in one. (I suspect most of us here do. I also suspect most of us don't frequently have to read twice.) Do you want it readable for you? Or do you want it leaving you feeling like the writer thinks you're stupid? I think readers prefer to be treated as intelligent, even those who may know they read less well. (I have my own issues with pages full of technobabble, but that's not an issue of construction.) I've encountered Brit phrasing I couldn't explain if I tried (could you explain "Bob's your uncle"?), but got the thrust of it; that's not even close to being at play, here, IMO. I don't take issue with the idea of clarity as desirable, not at all; in this instance, IMO, the unclarity isn't there, so this seems like, "if it ain't broke..."

♠Moreover, IMO, an international project must accomodate. Are only American usages to be accepted? No, I don't think anybody's suggesting it, but that follows. Are we then saying American English is effectively the WP standard? IMO, that also follows. Are we also saying local dialect should be excluded? IMO, that also follows. Am I reading more into this than intended? Probably. :D Should this be raised elsewhere as a bigger issue? Maybe, because the prospect of forced homogenization strikes me as unhealthy.

♠Should I shut up now? ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts; can't get a word in!)As a Brit, I was reaching for my copy of ENGVAR over this at first. But if a more neutral phrasing is needed, what about reversing it (like Peter said) and put "... with recommendations being put forward for the C-130 Hercules and the F-104 Starfighter (though in the latter case the French Dassault Mirage III was purchased)." What is the context, anyway? Xyl 54 (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

PS If we do that, then Bob's yer uncle...Xyl 54 (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"(two edit conflicts; can't get a word in!) That was you! I hit a second, too, & opened the section window again...! Sorry to trample you. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Thanks! Actually, the first time it was Malleus: I've just come back to add a PS. Xyl 54 (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

In the event of something happening to me, there is something I would like you all to see - lyrics from some Brits, raised Down Under, about an event in the States - none of it having anything to do with what's going on here, except . ........ Never mind. Carptrash (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So are we saying that if something's poorly written or unnecessarily complex it's automatically "highbrow" or "written to the top of the class"? I don't think so. "In the event" in this context is simply unclear, especially when it's easier to say that the Mirage III was purchased instead. I guess if people want to turn in into "us vs. the Americans" or something similar that's a totally different issue.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is an unwise claque of en effet, and should be replaced, in any variant of English, with "in fact" or "as it turned out" or even "eventually." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I am not an English speaking native and my English is mediocre at best but doesn't "in the event" mean something like "in case this happens then this is the consequence", or "if A then B follows". On every airline you hear the announcement "in the unlikely event of loss of cabin pressure oxygen masks will drop ...". MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Biography importance

Why are so many articles in the Biography task force not rated for importance? Couldn't some one do something about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.124.31 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the Military History project banner does not have importance fields. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

But there are 7,000 other articles in the task force WITH importance tags, so what's wrong with the rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.124.31 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This would be something for WP:BIOG, not here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:64.6.124.31 has edited MANY Talk pages updating the military history. None of it makes any sense. I've reverted several and posted a warning on the IP's Talk page. I'd rather project members look at the rest. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he just added null B-class checklists to the WPMILHIST template, which seems harmless... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Action of December 1669 GAN

Talk:Action of December 1669/GA1 - on hold for an initial seven days, mainly to do with adjusting the use of a primary source. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for No. 79 Squadron RAAF now open

The featured article candidacy for No. 79 Squadron RAAF 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! Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Edinburgh Castle needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Edinburgh Castle; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for Portal:Military of the United States

I was just playing with an idea for the United States portal and I wanted to run it by you. Within the hundred or so US related portals we have essentially 4 main groups; Portal United States, Portal US Roads, Portal United States Government and Portal United States military. What I was thinking was to possibly tie these 4 main groups together, possibly something like Portal:United States/Sandbox so that a reader could in theory navigate from one to the other with relative ease. This would in essence tie together the core groupings where US roads is all the roads related stuff, United States is the general broad spectrum US related, Government is government related stuff and Military is military (American Civil War, the branches, etc). Of course there are multitudes of portals that relates to each potentially but I think this might be a good way to make it easier for our users to somewhat seemlessly traverse the information. Of course each project would still be responsible for maintaining the portal that realtes to them. The example given is just an example and because some of the portals already employ a tab system it might look a little different from portal to portal but the links could still be available allowing the users to navigate back and forth. Its definately just a consept at the moment but what do you think about this idea? --Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with it, assuming the main editors of the military portal don't mind. It'll probably direct more traffic to the page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats sorta what I thought too. In fact I thought it would probably draw more readers to all of them. --Kumioko (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say to go ahead with it, but that's me. And I hope it'd direct more traffic to all of them, but I was focusing on the military one, sorry. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Title for an article on a military action of disputed date

Hi there! I was hoping this WikiProject could help me with the title of an article I've been working on. Action of December 1669 is currently at that title after I moved it from Action of 18 December 1669, due to discrepancy in sources over the date. (Possibly due to confusion over Old Style and New Style dates, though we can't say for sure.) The article originally included a section on the date discrepancy, but in the course of improving the article per SilkTork's suggestions in GA review, I removed the section and summed up the discrepancies in a footnote. The narrative of the events currently reflects (and has always reflected, even when the section on the dates was included) the dates in the primary source cited, Wenceslaus Hollar's account of the battle, which gives the date as the 18th; now the lead of the article also gives that date. Now that the article takes a firmer position on the date of the battle, should the title which names the 18th be restored? Or should the article remain at its current title and the date be removed from the lead? (Or keep the title but put the date in the lead??) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest not changing. Footnote the date saying there's controversy & leave it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems rather inconsistent to have the title say one thing and the lead and body another, though. I mean, it's kind of unavoidable in the body, but currently it's an article titled "Action of December 1669" which begins "The action of 18 December 1669..." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• If it is titled "Action of December 1669", then start the first sentence that same way. Then mention 18 December and the slight uncertainty with it in the next sentence or so. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• What do you think of Trekphiler's suggestion for using a different standardized title form that just includes the year? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I missed that. If it is considered a battle then that is much better. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also the option of avoiding the date in the title. Sources tend to call the action by some variant on "Sir John Kempthorne's fight in the Mary Rose with seven Algerines." It would be highly irregular with respect to other article titles, but it would avoid this issue and reflect the usage in sources. (Some of the variants include the date as well, but they differ on the date!) Any suggestions for a concise title based on this information? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"It seems rather inconsistent" You're not wrong, but I do think it's an acceptable compromise. (No, clearly I'm not A.C.B. Chapman. ;p ) I dislike "Action of [date]" titles anyhow. I'd far rather a geographic descriptor with an appended year, so Battle of Cádiz (1669), thus avoiding both issues & also making Chapman happy. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC) (For those who don't get the ref, it's from a story told of Colin, who refused to modify the Elan, saying, "That's a bloody compromise!" And yes, I do know he's quite dead. :/ )

That's true. Having just the year is a lot less awkward than having the month and year with no date. I was reluctant to assign an official-sounding name like "Battle of Cadiz" without reliable sources using it, but that appears to be acceptable per MH MOS. I won't move it yet, let's see if anyone else has input. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Task Force 73/Commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific

I've done some work on this article Task Force 73/Commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific. Any one who works on USNavy/military stuff who would like to improve it? I can assist.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at peer review

A new portal Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Supreme Court of the United States/archive1. I put a bit of effort into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Though not directly related, there is a significant amount of overlap with military history - thought members would like to know. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross

Almost in every German officer article - in the case the officer received the Knight's Cross - this text is in the articles introduction: "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords was awarded to recognise extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership." Also articles about Victoria Cross recipients often have this line in the introduction "was an recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces."Isn't this superfluous? I think this text belongs to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross respectively Victoria Cross articles. Looking at Medal of Honor or Hero of the Soviet Union, both do not use this kind of detailed description in the introduction. Question: should this be removed or is the detailed description of the awards important for the biographies of the recipient? noclador (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A statement of the criteria for such an award is certainly relevant. Remember that articles should be useful in their own right—ie they shouldn't leave the reader wanting if they were reading a hard copy. I don't think it's superfluous, and if it were to be removed, you'd have to remove it from thousands of articles, likely meeting much resistance along the way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That is why I do not remove it and seek comments by other users. Also I would like to know what other users think of the use of the word "extreme" in the phrase "extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership", because the correct translation from the original German order that established the Knights Cross would be: "special/particular bravery before the enemy and for outstanding achievements in military leadership" ("besondere Tapferkeit vor dem Feind und für hervorragende Verdienste in der Truppenführung") and on wikipedia this line is translated as "bravery before the enemy and for excellent merits in commanding troops" (see: here). Isn't extreme a wrong translation? should at least that be corrected? noclador (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that the medal is the reason for the notability of the individual the article is about (in the vast majority of cases), I'd say that a short explanation of the significance of the award in the first line is quite a good thing to have. Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to comment that the brief introduction of the KC had been requested by a number of reviewers at various peer reviews, GA reviews, MILHIST A-Class reviews and at FAC reviews. So I would consider it acceptable practice. Unlike the Medal of Honor or the Victory Cross, the KC was awarded for bravery before the enemy but also for leadership skills. I think this distinction needs to be made somewhere in every article. Regarding the translation of "besondere Tapferkeit vor dem Feind" I would agree that a more modest translation like "special bravery before the enemy" better correlates to the German intent. I am open minded here but I think most English sources such as Gordon Williamson author of the Osprey series on the Knight's Cross recipients uses words like "exemplary courage" (see page 3 here). MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

so should the intro be changed and the "extreme" be removed? noclador (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've run into this problem with the VC articles before - in those cases, it mostly stems from them being created as boilerplate articles, and by the time they were extended to full length, the "..the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry..." lead sentence had become a de-facto standard. (The boilerplate was explicitly focused on the VC and not on other aspects; see, for example, this early version of Lord Gort's article.)

It is a de-facto standard, but it's certainly one it's worth thinking about changing. When I rewrote George Findlater I tried cutting it down a little, but even that was a bit contentious. Shimgray | talk | 13:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should cut the bombastic language a bit down and maybe also remove this line from the introduction for those people, who are not just because of this one award on wikipedia. But: first consensus, then changes! any suggestions as to how we might rephrase the introduction? noclador (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For context, the Medal of Honor was the only real decoration the United States had to award from the early 1860s through around 1900. So it wasn't the "highest" decoration, it was the "only" decoration (and couldn't be awarded to officers for part of that time...although many were retroactively awarded once the prohibition was lifted toward the end of the 1800s). I can't speak to the Hero of the Soviet Union, though. Going back, I think we're fairly safe using some boilerplate language for the Knight's Cross in all its grades because the award wasn't around long enough to really change and evolve like the VC and MoH. Obviously the basic KC might fall into the "special bravery," but when you get into Swords, Oak Leaves, and so on it gets more complicated.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Military history of the Russian Empire

I've been working towards improving Military history of the Russian Empire. So far, I've finished Peter and am going through the "After Peter, before Catherine" part. The completed article will need to be split into several different ones, of course. I have almost 0 experience writing in this field, so I'm here to ask if you guys think that this, with a copyedit, would be "A" class material? If not, what do I need to do to get it there? I know personally that it would probably not have much trouble going through a GA nomination, but I'm less familiar with the content-centric A-class requirements...ResMar 00:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look through. Nice job. My thoughts were that: length wise, it was actually probably ok - it's a big topic, but it doesn't necessarily need to be split up (although child articles might allow more space for some of the issues to be fleshed out); some of the sections need more references added, but you're working on that; it'll need a copy-edit, as you suggest, but it basically reads well. What I'd probably draw out is the need for additional coverage of the academic literature at ACR - I'm not a Russian expert, but I'd probably be looking for a wider cross-section of the literature to be present in an article like this at ACR (it currently draws on only five works). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I only have 2 references on hand, History of Russia and Military History of Russia. I also have "Battle at Sea", and, well, that's it. The other two that I threw in were from their respective articles on Wikipedia, which information not in either book that I deemed important (combat numbers, I think). The only thing I could really do otherwise is throw in some references from other articles, honestly. ResMar 22:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got quite a few paragraphs without references. This is the problem with tackling a big topic in any area – a lot of sources are needed. You also might want to include a historiography section. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that I'm not using enough references, or are you referring to the half of the article I haven't gotten to yet? I'm basing the structure off of Military history of Puerto Rico, which doesn't have said section; although, Riasanovsky has a lot of material on that, scattered here and there. Would a solution be to mull around Wikipedia for more references and tack them onto the paragraphs...? ResMar 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I was going to say that it looked really unfinished. I see why now. :-) Continue at your own leisure. It isn't bad to base the structure off that article, although it seems rather pro-Puerto Rican to me, but you can always add more! I suppose that's a cosmetic solution, but it really shouldn't be. I thought that once upon a time too, but I've since realized that you miss a lot of information and perspectives if you can't review the sources yourself... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Which brings up the issue of acquiring them... ResMar 13:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

They do exist, but honestly, all they could provide is further context. The bulk material will be the same, it's the finer points, the kind of stuff that would go into each respective article, not an overview such as this, that will be different. ResMar 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

One event conflict

As per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#People_notable for only one event, do we really need a page for everybody who's in one firefight that gets news coverage? Even if they get an award for it? Hcobb (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any particular examples you'd like to discuss? These things are usually best judged on a case-by-base basis. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was following links from one article to another and found Military operations other than war (UK)

Military operations other than war (UK) - stubby and not sure what it's purpose is. Is it recoverable or better put to AfD? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now, I'm not sure how useful it is. Also, is there a good precedent for having MOOTW articles based on national origin? This might be a better list candidate, with doctrinal stuff folded back into the main article on MOOTW (although that term itself is falling out of general use).Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the only thing that the UK used its armed forces for other than war(like) activities was "aid to civilian powers", everything else comes under the heading "small wars" (Radfan etc). Was the MOOTW term ever used outside the US? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just had a reread of the parent article on MOOTW, for the US it lists the Vietnam War and the Gulf War as MOOTW deployments, so the article credibility takes a hit there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, MOOTW was a US-specific construct that came into use in the late 1980s or early 1990s. It also wandered through an Unconventional Warfare phase, a Foreign Internal Defense phase (although that's a slightly different beast according to doctrine), and one or two other things. The Marine Corps used Small Wars up through Vietnam, and it has lingered on in some (unofficial) corners there.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's been my understanding as well - there's also Low intensity conflict, which is also in use in the US. Seems like we need to do some merging, as they're terms for the same concept. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The orginal version (nearly 4 years ago)] explains things a lot better than the current version. The origins in US doctrine seem to have been lost a couple of years back.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew I missed one! LIC was actually in use for the longest period within US writing, I think.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Improving on tactical articles

I'm hoping to have another foray into improving our stock of articles on tactics. Many of these, including some important concepts, are poor and I would invite any editor with an interest in a particular period of warfare to look at how articles on period tactics can be improved. The next one I want to have a go at is Close order formation. I can probably cover the ancient and medieval period from my sources, but the transition from pike and shot through linear warfare to the end of close order combat with the breach loading rifle and machine gun could all do with amore expert input than I can provide.

Another area in tactics which might be of interest are the many small articles on modern tactics. These are often heavily reliant on modern US doctrine and, given concerns flagged about plagiarism and close paraphrase here recently it might be worth someone with a good grasp of the sources checking some of these over. Monstrelet (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Concentration camp coordinates

There are still quite a number of concentration camp articles needing geocoding: see User:The Anome/Concentration camps needing coordinates for a list. Many of these are quite a challenge to track down, yet historically important. Does anyone want to have a go at geocoding the remaining articles in this list? Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Russian aircraft identification

This file File:Jak-3U.jpg is described at a Yak-3U. There is a discussion on the Finnish wikipedia that it may not be a Yak but a Lavochkin. Can anybody here give a positive ID? NtheP (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You might also want post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft - the good folks there are experts on all kinds of obscure aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The tail structure of the Yak-3U photo appears to be identical to this Yak-3, and markedly different from this La-7 (note in particular the much more pointed vertical stabilizer on the La-7). Also note that the La-7 has a ventral air intake (seen here while the aircraft above does not. The image above is very similar to this modified Yak-3U (though note that the rebuilt plane uses a Pratt & Whitney engine). It appears that the aircraft is indeed correctly identified as a Yak-3U. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Auschwitz bombing debate

Can anyone familiar with this topic bash this article into shape? An edit in March has made quite a mess of the article, but I don't want to revert as the content doesn't seem all bad. Fences&Windows 18:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Wilderness GA class review

I've started a GA review page for the Battle of the Wildernss. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The link is red now since the GA review has not started. It is well down the list on the GA nomination page section now too. It could be a couple weeks before someone gets to it. Try to fix/improve whatever you can now, such as adding missing details or clarifying wording. I suggest adding a label (author/historian) to the McPherson and Rhea mentions in the Aftermath section for context/clarity. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft without specifications

Resolved

Does anyone have specifications for the Lockheed YF-22? I'm in the process of expanding the article, so any input from anyone will be welcomed. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Thurisind now open

The A-Class review for Thurisind is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt now open

The A-Class review for Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on content guideline requested

The Military unit/formation content guideline for the project includes direction to include notable members of the unit. I'd like some steer from other members of the project as to how to do this in practice with respect as to when to include and when to exclude. I've two concerns which I'll illustrate with (fictional) examples.

• 1a). Mr Brown is called up for service during WWI and joins a regiment, after sometime at the front he is transferred to the Flying Corps. He drops some bombs on the enemy trenches but has a largely uneventful war. After its over he invents a better mousetrap and makes his fortune. Would you name him as a notable member of the regiment he first served in or the later squadron, or both or neither.? I'm tempted to say neither unless he became a really well known public figure.
• 1b) As above but postwar, Mr brown becomes a popular novelist and writes fiction based on his flying experience. I'd say the squadron but not the regiment should list him. Equally if his footslogging experience carried over into his later notable life, list him under the regiment.

• 2a). Mr Gray joins his local regiment at the start of WWII. His battalion is one of three in the 4th Infantry Brigade of the 2nd (Mixed) Division. After a couple of campaigns he has become a section leader and when XXIV Corps (of which the 2nd Division is one element) is subject to an enemy counterattack, he shows great presence of mind and physical bravery in combat as a result of which he is given his country's highest award. Apart from listing him against the regiment, should he be listed under the brigade and division too?
• 2b) as above but Mr Gray is now General Gray, and Officer Commanding 4th Brigade, is he listed under the Division? What about under the Corps?

Now I've envisaged these from a British viewpoint, would the situation be different if it was Monsieur Brun or Oberst Grau? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO Point 1 is a yes. Membership in a regiment was something in the past that rarely changed, with promotions occurring and remaining in the regiment. Therefore, membership in the regiment was significant.

Regarding point 2; it is my opinion that the mention should remain at the regiment level, as the notable event occurred while a member of that lowest level notable unit. Regarding if the individual becomes a general officer, unless he commands the Division, or Corps, unless there is an article on the brigade, with a list of past and current brigade commanders, he should not be mentioned in those articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)♠I can't speak to "should", but from what I've read, there's a tendency for unit coverage to mention any famous/notorious members, regardless when or how they attained it. I do wonder where the line is, for I fear WP calling "notable" anybody who's scored over a million in Asteroids, or something. :( :( OTOH, leaving off mention of JFK (or Lee Oswald) would seem pretty odd to me. (I don't suggest the Sov model, where Comrade Nikita gets more ink than Zhukov, mind you. ;p ) So, I think he'd have to be more than "average famous": PM, President, richer than Thurston Howell, III, or something.

♠Taking 1b), I agree, squadron only, unless the pre-squadron service played a very important role in him entering the air service (severely wounded & said, "Screw this, I'm taking a plane"?), or is somehow heavily covered in his work.

♠For 2a), I'd say not above regiment, unless said action was crucial in either the victory of the senior command, or preventing a rout or destruction of same. (Did, frex, his "We've no room for prisoners" so inspire his fellows, & confuse the enemy, it was crucial? {I daresay the Brits in the audience will know who I mean. ;p })

♠For 2b), I think division, presuming said action is as Brigadier. Brigadiers tend to get more noticed in any case. They also tend to attract more mentions by generals, who also get more noticed, so there's a "reflected fame" (or "standing next to someone famous") effect.

♠In the other instances, I don't see the standards changing, just changing the names to protect the producers from a lawsuit. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. Would you say, in the case of "list of notable member" sections, as a general rule, to start with the basis of naming the notable individual only at the lowest unit(s) with which they are associated that exist as articles?

Hence Corporal X, VC of the Borsetshire Regiment is mentioned on that Regiment article but not for the Division that the regiment was part of at the time.

But Captain Le Fevre adjutant to General van Boosh (CO of the Ruritania Division) who single-handedly holds off an enemy armoured column while the HQ escapes appears in a list on the Division's article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, I'd say (1a) Mr Brown shouldn't be listed with the regiment as his notability doesn't derive from his service with that regiment; and (1b) The connection is worth a mention in the unit article but again his notability doesn't derive from his service with the unit, so yes, the squadron but not the regiment.

Re the second, the thought occurs that in an article about a unit any acts of derring-do such as those in 2a and 2b above would naturally be covered in the article text. There would be no need to specifically link them or include them in a "Notable individuals" section (in the spirit of WP:SEEALSO: "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section"). If the mention of Mr Gray comes up naturally in different unit articles (for the regiment and the division), then fine. I guess I'm saying that if his deeds are not considered worth a mention in the article body, he probably isn't notable enough for a mention elsewhere in the article. EyeSerene^talk 11:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Allowing Corporal X doesn't become Professor X, ;p & the VC isn't earned per terms above, agreed. And agreed on M. Le Fevre. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there any dissenting voices out there? If there is general agreement on this matter, is it possible to make some simple guidance that can be added to the style or content guides for the project? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

PS Just found a "Mr Brown" in Honourable Artillery Company#Notable members of the HAC; in this case George Bulman (pilot) CBE MC etc, sometime chief test pilot at Hawker, who was in the HAC before joining the Flying Corps. I removed him from the HAC.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for James Rowland (RAAF officer) now open

The A-Class review for James Rowland (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazi ranks

I have raised concern about the articles in Category:Nazi political ranks here --FJS15 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Regions Task force

I have been wondering since I have come across a few article concerning the Mexican region. Exactly what regional task force would we put those articles under. Canada & US have their own. South America has their own. Mexico does not excately fall into any of those categories. (And probably would not appreciated being put into any of those).Oldwildbill (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe creating a Central America region might be a possibility (if there isn't one already)?Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a possibility. Another suggestion might be to just expand and rename the South American task force to make it the "Central and South American" task force. That way, it would only require a couple of modifications rather than creating a whole new task force. Just a suggestion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough, in my opinion. There aren't so many articles that a combined task force would be unwieldy; and there is some relationship between the military histories of the different countries in the entire region. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I also think a combined "Central and South American" task force would be beneficial. As Kirill says, the size wouldn't be bad, and there are many similarities in the military history of the area. Dana boomer (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been bantered about since 2006 when Krill was ramrodding this outfit. I could see it being wrapped up into the South American task force - maybe calling it the Central-South American (CSA). I do think a decision should be reached since I have been coming across more articles relating to that region and we should include it in the scope of a task force.Oldwildbill (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (V) now open

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (V) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sydney Fairbairn

Hello. I've created an article for the cricketer Sydney Fairbairn. Fairbairn served in WWI where he was awarded the MC for actions at Gallipoli, during the course of which he was wounded. Having little idea where the look up sources for his military career and actions, I thought I'd drop a line here to see if anyone can expand the article with information on his military service. Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added his MC citation to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Units of measurement for horses

There's been a dispute about the use of hands as a unit of measurement in horse artillery, including the use of template:hands. This and similar disputes in other articles has also resulted in an RfC about the whole hands issue over at WP:EQUINE#RFC: what units should be used for horse and pony heights. I personally feel that it's gotten to be too focused on the needs of WP:EQUINE-editors and readers that happen to be horse fans, so I think it would be good to have some outside input on this.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Make that link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine#RFC: what units should be used for horse and pony heights?. (on WP:Equine's talk page) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Harbor Clearance Units

I found this whilst looking for details of a shipwreck. It seems that Harbor Clearance Unit One (were there others?) would make an interesting article if anyone wants to have a go. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst on the subject, would someone check List of shipwrecks in 1969#22 September and amend the prefixes of Sandpumper, Crilly and Crandall if necessary. Not my area of expertise and am happy to be corrected. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There were a whole bunch of others on each coast - it's part of what was Naval Coastal Warfare. USNR reserve units. The Standard Naval Distribution List or SNDL lists them, or did in its old versions. Usually given it's the U.S. military some unit pages will start popping up eventually. Any questions please feel free to ask me - I may not have the exact info, but I can run it down. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Addend: the listing I have circa 2003 is:

Naval Surface Force Pacific: Naval Coastal Warfare Group One (San Diego, CA); IUWU 101-114 (Inshore Undersea Warfare Units), Inshore Boat Units 11-17, Harbor Defense Commands 110, 111, 113, 114.

Commander, Naval Surface Forces Atlantic: Naval Coastal Warfare Group Two (Williamsburg, VA); Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Units 201-214, Inshore Boat Units 21, 22, 24-28, Harbor Defense Commands 201, 205-8. No doubt the HCUs were under the Harbor Defense Commands. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Clearance diver would be a good jumping off point for writing about specific units? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added the above list to Naval Coastal Warfare, which needs a name change to something like 'Naval Coastal Warfare Command' or a merge to the present title. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Some statistical analysis and graphs of Warfare FAs

Due to some discussions about the proper number of images in FA level articles, I did some statistical analysis of FA articles in the categories "History" and "Warfare".

I'll put in small versions of the graphics here, click to enlarge.

Images and article length, all Warfare FAs

Images and article length, small Warfare FAs

Images and article length, large Warfare FAs

Length of lede and net length of article, sample of Warfare FAs

Length of article and days since article was promoted, same sample of Warfare FAs

I don't really feel like retyping a bunch of stuff, so the juice is here (History) and here (Warfare).

Basically for Warfare FAs, there is 1.5 image in all article regardless of length + 1 image for every 3300 characters. For big articles it's actually 2.5 "free images". There's a weak relationship between length of lede and net length of article itself (after the lede has been subtracted off). There's no relationship between how long an article is and how long ago it has been promoted, though there's certainly some really old FAs that have never been reviewed.

Hope you enjoy looking at it like I enjoyed making these graphs (except for the tedious data collection).Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you deserve an Tedious Work Achievement award for taking the trouble. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this analysis. An interesting implication is that the review process (as well as other FAs serving as an example) might be driving a consistent 'look and feel' among the highest quality articles, which is a good thing. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical image alteration.

There is a discussion at File talk:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg (wikipedia hosted file, not commons), regarding the alterations I have made to a historical image. Your opinions would be valued. (Hohum ^@) 18:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Elmelindo Rodrigues Smith

Asian or not? See talk page discussion. Since it has been shown that DEOMI isn't always reliable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Books

Not sure where to put this, but you can move it to the best place whenever.

There are a great number of Wikipedia books that fall under your project. A good number can be found at Category:Wikipedia books on warfare. When I went to your assessments page, I noticed that your tracking of books is almost non-existent. I was going to use your own tracking to subcatagorize that linked category to single out the OMT books, of which there are a good number, however I can't do that because you don't track it. Furthermore, when I tried to add a book to the OMT listing, it didn't work.

Books is a neglected namespace, but it's slowly building. MilHist is one of the top half dozen projects in terms of representation in the community books. I'd like for you to implement tracking for the book namespace (I'll be asking other major Wikiprojects for the same thing soon). Further, if you want to become more involved with books, I think it'd be mutually beneficial to our two Wikiprojects. Drop me a line if you're interested. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Tracking non-article assessment classes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Blockhaus d'Éperlecques now open

The A-Class review for Blockhaus d'Éperlecques is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for James B. McCreary now open

The featured article candidacy for James B. McCreary 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! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for David Evans (RAAF officer) now open

The A-Class review for David Evans (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename request; cruiser Kansas City (CA-128)

My attempt to rename by cut and paste and move to new article was reverted. Problem with the existing article is the title "USS Kansas City" which is incorrect: CA-128 was never commissioned and was therefore never a United States Ship. Solicitr (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see that a ship wasn't constructed meets the GNG. As per this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Weeks (DE-285) I suggest the article is redirected to Oregon City class cruiser, the same should apply to any other articles on non constructed members of the class. NtheP (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I've PRODded it. I've no objection to a redirect to the class article, but I don't think this unbuilt ship is notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Following your example I redirected USS Cambridge of the same class to the class article. there may others (but not Bridgeport or Norfolk) GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Graeme, not quite sure what you're saying about Bridgeport and Norfolk. If these unbuilt ships would be capable of sustaining articles, there is no harm in creating a redirect to the class article in the meantime, is there? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant there may be stubs for the other unbuild ships in the class that could be redirected but I hadn't found ones for USS Norfolk CA-137 or USS Bridgeport CA-127. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've retargeted those two redirect to the class article. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

5_Days_of_August

Can we please have some extra eyes on this movie article? This movie is a Georgian government financed movie about the Russian-Georgian war in 2008. So Russian vs. Georgian vandalization will occur as soon as the movie is released in the USA on July 19th. Already a pro-Georgian editor has tried to remove the information that 2 of the 4 producers are parliamentarians of Saakashvili's party and one of these two is a government minister. More surveillance of this article in the next month would be helpful. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Could probably do with getting ready to request semi-protection as it is unlikely that they'll grant it prior to any major issues. Reichsfürst (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Ostfriesland now open

A-class review for the SMS Ostfriesland is now open. Any comments will be appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Siegfried Marseille

You may want to participate in the deletion discussion over Siegfried Marseille's article. The question seems to be whether the WP:SOLDIER criteria are binding or whether they are a guideline. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Stephen, King of England needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Stephen, King of England; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Second War Loan Drive

An editor has made this correction claiming that the billions in this source should be millions. Any opinions?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No it's billions. A quick google book search for Second War Loan Drive brought up any number of reliable sources e.g. The US Treasury War Finance Committee report on the Drive, quoting billions. I've undone the edit. NtheP (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision

Further information: WP:ANI § Civility: Threatened by Admin mjroots over edit to Wikipedia article which contained false uncited information introduced by admin

Can we please have some eyes on the 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. A content dispute has broken out. Per WP:EW, I'm not going to make any more reverts, but I have asked for a course of action on the talk page, which another editor has backed, but he also cannot do for the same reason. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Valston Hancock now open

The featured article candidacy for Valston Hancock 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) 23:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)