Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 105

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 100
• 101
• 102
• 103
• 104
• Archive 105
• 106
• 107
• 108
• 109
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

MOS ranks

Is there a style guide for how to treat military ranks? Wlink or don't wlink? Capitalize or don't capitalize? Abbreviate or don't abbreviate? Do these conventions vary by country?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Military_terms has some info on this. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 22:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Introducing a special assessment rating for lists

A discussion about introducing a special assessment rating for lists has begun at the strategy department; input from anyone with an interest in the subject would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfeatured Featured List

Could someone (finally) add the List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories to the Featured List section?

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, do you mean in the MilHist Showcase? It's listed here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:AVIATION

Just a pointer to Wikipedia_talk:AVIATION#Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates.2FMcDonnell_XF-85_Goblin.2Farchive1. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your military history newsletter – Issue LXVI, August 2011 Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Featured and A-class content: the month in review Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11 To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. To receive the newsletter on your talk page, become a project member or sign up here.

Bugle delivery still happening after opt-out

I'm listed in Members who don't want delivery section, but I'm still getting delivery of The Bugle. It looks like EdwardsBot is ignoring this section. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, EdwardsBot does not recognize that (unlike our old delivery bot, Brownbot). As I said here, you have to remove your name from this page. My apologies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then you need to change what EdwardsBot is telling people at the bottom of the Bugle delivery: "If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page." I don't read the news, and I added my name to the previous list quite a while ago. The old list should have been grandfathered in to the opt-out. Requiring someone to keep opting out on multiple pages is not effective or friendly. Thanks for the pointer though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Operation Eagle Pull" GA nominee

I have assessed "Operation Eagle Pull" as a GA candidate. Unfortunately the nominator, Mztourist, hasn't edited for a couple of weeks. There are several outstanding points that require action. Can someone from the WikiProject address these? Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

South African Air Force squadron records

I stumbled across this the other night (looking for something else entirely, but there you go), and it's no doubt of interest to someone.

The UK National Archives have digitized a large number of unit war diaries, ship logs, individual service records, etc, which are sold for a small charge. They've also made a large amount of documents (mostly indexes) available through their "Digital Microfilm" project, which are - even better - free. Skimming through these, I noticed it contains a large number of SAAF unit diaries, indexed under AIR 54. I haven't looked through any of them yet, but they might be quite interesting as historical resources. Shimgray | talk | 18:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Avro Vulcan now open

The A-Class review for Avro Vulcan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Pocket battleship Deutschland, heavy cruiser Lützow

I was given the opportunity to GA review the article German cruiser Deutschland. During the review cycle the question came to my mind if the current article name is the best choice we have. Deutschland was ordered by the Reichsmarine of the Weimar Republic and classified as a Panzerschiff or pocket battleship. The Kriegsmarine of the Third Reich later reclassified her as a heavy cruiser and renamed her Lützow. Historically she was either Panzerschiff Deutschland or heavy cruiser Lützow but never Panzerschiff Lützow nor heavy cruiser Deutschland. The current article name mixes things up a little and Parsecboy (talk · contribs) suggested raising this question to the greater audience. I would appreciate some feedback on your thoughts. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's contrary to common, probably, but I'd favor Panzerschiff Deutschland, since it's the original name by the builder & user. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that "German (heavy) cruiser xxxx" is descriptive enough to identify the ship without getting complex about what exact type of warship it was. And also has the benefit of being in the English language. But so long as Panzerschiff and heavy cruiser are both in the lede, I'd have thought the average reader could find the article through a search.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just Deutschland, actually. "Panzerschiff" is no more part of the name than "German cruiser", which in turn is an artifact of our rigid naming convention for (modern) military vessels.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And how would you distinguish between the large number of other vessels with that name, both military and civilian? You may not like it, but the current systems works well enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As usual, I'm less clear than I might have been. :( I agree, finding the page should be easy enough with Deutschland or Lützow alone. Not the issue IMO. At issue, as I see it, is the pagename only, not the content, & on that, IMO, it should be Panzerschiff, if only to dab from any other Deutschlande (pardon my bad plurals,8o any German speakers). While not strictly her name, it was how she was known by her builders/operators, & IMO that should govern. My zwei Pfennige mehr. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What is she/he/it called in the sources - I'm thinking more recent books on the subject more than contemporary news reports. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have several books on the Spanish Civil War that mention (but are not about) this warship/these warships, and I've checked a couple and they describe them as "pocket battleships". I'm no expert on naval stuff, but I also think that might be more informative with regard to what they were used to do/place within the navy.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Except "pocket battleship" isn't actually type of ship, but an English term used for the three Deutschland class cruisers. At least that's what our own article says.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Pocket battleship" was a term invented by the British press. In my mind, to use that would be akin to something like Nimitz class bird farm.

If we end up going with "Panzerschiff", should it be capitalized or not? Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd oppose "Panzerschiff". We renamed all the 'Unterseeboot' articles a while back to deal with the issue of foreign terms in titles. Benea (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Benea, no language-specific terminology in article titles unless there's no English equivalent available. Otherwise we'll be seeing Russian terminology for their missile cruisers. Oh, wait, didn't we just reject one attempt to do exactly that for the Petr Veliky-class battlecruisers? Parsec's using just a bit of hyperbole with his birdfarm reference. I'm not aware of any decent histories that call aircraft carriers bird farms, but I've seen plenty use pocket battleship. Even if they're not specialist or more recent works. To reiterate my point from the Ships discussion, we're supposed to use the most common name, not the most proper one. And pocket battleship is quite obviously the most popular name for these ships, no matter how much it may bother specialists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm an amateur, and I would merely feel confused by pocket battleship (still a redirect to a cruiser class). That it's a heavy cruiser, and defined as one in the article about the class no less, makes a lot more sense. If anything, "pocket battleship" is more fit for specialists.

And I hate to be the one pointing it out, but naming conventions isn't supposed to allow exceptions. WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIP has made that very clear before. Or is this simply a matter of making peculiar exceptions due to the "all German military stuff is cooler"-clause?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So what is the consensus?

• Keep "German cruiser Deutschland"

• Support; it obviously belongs to a cruiser class and I believe Parsecboy's "bird farm"-argument is quite illustrative. Peter ^Isotalo 10:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Per Peter, essentially. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't think of any other cruiser class armed with 11-inch guns or larger with the exception of the American Alaska class. Even armored cruisers of the WWI period only had 9.2/9.4-inch guns, so it's not intuitive that these are really cruisers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And I can't think of any battleship that was so lightly armored (with what was essentially light cruiser scale protection). This type of ship clearly straddled the usual design specifications, but at the end of the day, they were over-armed cruisers. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll also note that the example you give is right now under the name "Alaska class cruiser" ... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support There was once a consensus to rename the articles from the biased term "pocket battleship" to something in use by the owner of these ships. Changing it back is a controversal page move and should be done via Wikipedia:Requested moves. The only other valid name would be option three with Panzerschiff. --Denniss (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Change to "German pocket battleship Deutschland"

• Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support as most common name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that the term was invented and utilised as an accurate and useful descriptor, and appears to be widely used. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - WP:COMMONNAME. While the ship might technically be a cruiser/heavy cruiser, the vast majority of people will only have ever heard of the ship as a "Pocket Battleship". Unless we go generic ("German warship Deutschland (1931)"? Ugh!) using any other name is going to have some degree of square peg, round hole to it. (And "GpbD" is the name used on the disambig page already...).

• Change to "German Panzerschiff Deutschland"

• Support after deleting "German", unless there are Mexican & Kenyan Panzerschiffe I never heard of. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NC-SHIPS states that warships without a formal prefix (like USS, HMS, SMS, etc.) should be titled "(Nationality) + (ship type) + Name". Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Shot down by the MOS again. :( :( :( Curse you, Snoopy! Hans von Hammer ^{paint it red} 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Deadline for coordinator nominations approaching

Just to remind everyone, the deadline to sign up to run in the September 2011 project coordinator election is just a bit over 48 hours away. At the moment, the number of candidates is relatively small, so I would encourage anyone with an interest in the behind-the-scenes work of the project to consider standing. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just as a quick note, I'd like to apologise and say I won't be standing this time around. I stood last year in the hope I'd have more free time to put towards administrative work, but in the event that time never materialised - I got very little work done on enwiki at all, much less in the projects! Many apologies for my excessive inactivity... Shimgray | talk | 21:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A question about appropriate page naming

I'm researching an article about American soldiers (Union and Confederate) who served in the Egyptian Army after the ACW. Scores of officers worked for Khedive Ismail Pasha between 1870 and 1882, including many with their own WP pagespace (Loring, Sibley, CP Stone, Chaille-Long). They were not soldiers of fortune, and were not an official military mission from the US, though all were recommended by WT Sherman. There are at least two full book-length treatments on the subject and a number of journal articles. Here is an example. Wondering how best to name this work. Guess I should sandbox some of this for feedback, but I'm just gathering sources now. Ideas? BusterD (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I am not very familiar with the topic, other than knowing it exists. What are the book's titles?

In general, I would go with a descriptive name like American foreign volunteers in the Egyptian Khedive armed forces (see Foreign volunteer) but that sounds like a category name. --Cerejota (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an obscure but well-documented and fascinating subject. Book titles are Blue and Gray on the Nile (by William B Hesseltine and Hazel C. Wolf) and Americans in the Egyptian Army (by Pierre G. Crabites). So neither of those are particularly helpful. It also occurred to me that I'm dealing with 1) a category of biographies, 2) a list of biographies, and 3) the main article itself. All will need to be considered before naming. So thanks. I expect this will be tricky to meet WP:NAMING optimally. BusterD (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Egyptian Khedive's cartography expeditions (1870-1882)? This seems to be supported by the source as expeditions for cartography purposes.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a much, much broader subject than merely the mapping. Stone modernized the Egyptian officer corps, Chaillé-Long made African discoveries rivaling Henry Morton Stanley's, and many contributed in a very positive way to Egyptian public life while involved. Many of the officers were engaged in battle on behalf of Ismail. Some had significant civil leadership roles, albeit in primarily advisory positions. I'm not sure "American" is the ideal descriptor. But just from this discussion, you can imagine how interesting such an article might be. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the use of "American" to refer to US citizens is a settled question in En-Wiki, for better or for worse :). I agree with you, this is way more than just the cartography missions, but clearly different that previous and subsequent US involvement in the general area of Egypt. However, I think the Americans in the Egyptian Army title does give us a hint, perhaps Americans in the Egyptian Khedive Army - I use "Khedive" because that is a very clear disambiguator, more useful than years in this context. --Cerejota (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

American veterans' influence in Egypt or American veterans' mission in Egypt (1870-1882)?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We're getting much closer. Khedive is actually a Persian term used by different Egyptian leaders after Said. Since at least one of the officers served both Ismail and Tewfik, perhaps Americans in the Khedivial Egyptian Army or Americans in the Egyptian Army (1870-1882). These both are fairly unambiguous. That's a correct form of Khedive, based on the sources. The only problem I see is that American involvement ended abruptly in 1882, and the khedivate went on until 1914. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I like either of those and both have great pros and cons:

1. First one is succinct, correctly identifies in a precise fashion the polity being served and is unambiguous, yet is less precise in terms of time period
2. Second one is very precise in terms of dates and is unambiguous, but less succinct and doesn't specify that "Egypt" here refers to different political entity than today's Egypt

I lean towards the first, because I tend to like the least precision that is still unambiguous and to like polity identification in titles, but can be happy with the second. The important thing is to have this article, which is FA material, as it is an overlooked but very important topic on the history of the region and the relationship of the USA with it (for example, the failure of the mission spelled the end of even indirect US involvement until the WWII period - and this involvement had dated all the way back to the birth of the nation itself - "To the shores of Tripoli" and all that). --Cerejota (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've applied Category:Americans in the khedivial Egyptian Army to the only blue links on this list. Like most military and non-military titles, "khedive" isn't capitalized when used by itself, but is capitalized when used before a person's name as rank. All the sources I read today used adjective "khedivial" with a lower case initial letter. Found some nifty sources today at the library. Will spend some time on this, but will wait for feedback on the naming issue before moving sandbox contents to pagespace. BusterD (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD dude, there is a move button for a reason :P--Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Help identifying weapon

Hi all can anyone identify the gun in this image

I thought it was a MP 18 but the magazine hangs down, instead of coming out of the side like the Sten gun. The German text accompanying the image is Frankreich, Invasionsfront.- Infanterist (Offizier) mit Fernglas in Deckung hinter einer Hecke, mit Fernglas beobachtend; Eins Kp Lw zbV - Which I believe says Infantry (officer) with binoculars, taking cover behind a hedge, watching with binoculars, one Special Duty Kp Lw. So is it a Special Duty Kp Lw ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a Beretta Modello 38a but how and why he has it I wouldn't know.Monstrelet (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Any hint where it is? It occurs to me it could be a Sov PPSh. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Its labelled France invasion front 21 June 1944. I think there is more wooden stock than a PPSh has. It could be a Baretta but the front sling fixing is different from our article image. Unfortunately the guns angle to the camera does not help in identification. But thanks for the suggestions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fairly sure it's a Beretta MAB M1938A. These were widely exported in WW2, including to Germany. Also has same 9x19mm Luger/Para ammunition as used by German weapons. See [[1]]. Farawayman (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The positions and relative sizes of the cocking handle, magazine, trigger guard, stock etc seem to fit the M1938A. Something that could be the overhang of the back end of the bolt housing is also just about visible. I'd say you've nailed it :) EyeSerene^talk 09:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for replies, I have found another image by the same photographer. All those who said the Baretta/M1938A well done, looks to be right from the second image.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the SMG that caught my eye.. was the spurs on his boots, and given the 2nd photo, only his boots, of that squad. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 20:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the cammo on the helmet, and the binos, and even the riding boots. He is the recon guy, probably why he has a Beretta 38a. Spurs were part of the infantry recon units of all major armies in Europe, mostly because they all rode horses, which were less noisy and better prepared to handle terrain than recon vehicles, and can graze anywhere not requiring to be near a fuel depot to operate. The myth that horses disappeared from the battlefield in WWII is, well, a myth, they simply weren't used in the dragoon and heavy cavalry role anymore, but in recon, light artillery, and light anti-tank and mobile point defense units they were used extensively by all sides. My favorite is the Tachanka (the article sucks, so it seems our work is cut-out). See Horses in World War II#Germany.--Cerejota (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Can't knock real horsepower whether used as a warhorse for charging, as a mobile vehicle, or for lugging carts and weapons - is a very versatile creature. There's a snippet in here about spurred boots, 2nd para: World_War_II_German_uniform#Jackboots_.28Marschstiefel_.22marching_boots.22.29. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 21:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

On barely related topics, has someone finally gotten around to do an article on the use of horses and mules in the current Afghanistan War?--Cerejota (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Babcock now open

The A-Class review for John Babcock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have returned...

Hi folks. Finally back after an extended absence, just checking in to say yes, I'm still alive and I'll be getting back into the swing of editing forwith. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, and? ;) Great to have you back, Bushranger. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

YAY. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

ACR withdrawal

I'd like to withdraw my ACR on the Sukhoi Su-37. It doesn't look like it'll pass. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reason, the many people actively working on aviation articles aren't participating in the Milhist A-class reviews (except for Sturm, a bit) ... and of course, it doesn't work at all for "outsiders" to impose standards on another project, so for the moment, Milhist's A-class review isn't a very hospitable environment for aviation articles. I don't know anything about the aviation A-class review, but I would think that would be the next logical step if you're trying to attract reviewers. I'll help out with reviews over there, and we'll see what happens. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Some time ago Aviation agreed to accept MilHist's A-Class assessments, as Ships has for a long time. I was one of the lobbyists for this as it seemed to me we had many ACRs being duplicated at the two projects but (ironically given Dan's perception now) Aviation didn't attract that many reviewers. Given the relationship between the projects viz. A-Class assessment, I'd say it might still be worth nominating at MilHist, but ensuring that notices re. the reviews are posted at Aviation as well as MilHist. It has helped in the past, at any rate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why can't "outsiders" review A-class articles? They already do it for FAs, no?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that at all -- after all most of us expect (or hope for) it at GAN and FAC, and we shouldn't be that insular re. "our" reviews within the MilHist project... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I said "impose standards on another project" ... people constantly review stuff that isn't their main interest, at A-class and FAC. The problem is that Milhist's A-class review is getting very little participation from the people who are writing most of the articles in that area, so we're stuck; every project evolves differently, we can't guess where they're headed, and it sucks up reviewer time unproductively to try. I've asked for reactions at WT:AVIATION with no luck. If they won't come over here, then I think the next best thing to try is to go over there and support their A-class review process. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Inflation again

We've had several conversations on this talk page, notably this one, about how and when to inflate figures over time. I still don't have a clear sense of how to apply the advice there in reviews, such as at WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/If Day. A little help? - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking for some help...

I have interest in the New Hampshire Regiments, particularly the 3d and 1st during the American Revolutionary War. I've worked on the following, which I believe are in scope for this project:

Scammell's 1781 Light Infantry Regiment
3rd New Hampshire Regiment I re-wrote this because what was there was not very rich and contained several common inaccuracies (and there were no references).
Alexander Scammell Just re-wrote much of this, correcting the worst mistake, which was that what was there misspelled his name and redirected from the correct spelling. I've been progressively stamping out misspellings on other websites too.
Lafayette's Light Infantry at Yorktown Just created this and will be working on it over the next month or so.

All of these topics, for me represent years of research (my hobby). There are a number of topics that these relate to that I have made minor changes to in order to have them dovetail better with the additional information contained in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th topics above.

That said, I am totally new to Wikipedia and find a lot of it a bit bewildering just now. Like I'm not even sure I'm communicating to anyone in writing this... Please confirm on my talk page. Thanks, Cfrye66 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, welcome! Wikipedia is (and always will be) a work in progress, so we need all the help we can get. The best general advice I can offer is not to worry too much—if you make a mistake, it's easily fixed; if there's something you don't understand, there are plenty of places (like here) that you can ask for help. I'll leave it to someone who knows about the American Revolutionary War to look at the articles, but if you have any questions, you can ask them here—plenty of people watch this page, and we're all interested in military history so it;s a good place to come! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I took a quick look at the 3rd New Hampshire Regiment article, and while I'm far from an expert on the ARW, your Wikipedia formatting is pretty good. The only quibble I'd have is that all paragraphs should have a reference from where you got the information from, but that's it. Nice work, and I hope I'll see you around more. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--I tend to work in increments, so the references will arrive within the next few weeks. Cfrye66 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you ever need any help, leave me a message on my talk page (click "new section" at the top) and I'll be glad to lend a hand. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

♠If those are a first effort, you've got no worries. :D They're all good. I especially thought the 3d NH was good: well laid out, good images, no extraneous detail (AFAICT). I'd never have guessed it was by a noob. :D

♠It's also true, it's all going to get altered, whether you like it or not. 8o ;p (Sometimes, that's the hardest part to deal with... I don't always find it EZ, & I know of others {who shall remain nameless, but nobody on this page} who've had a problem with it.)

♠If you need any help, same goes for me. Just ask. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Trekphiler; yeah I figure there will be a certain amount of trampling, but there are folks who know more than I do too. Cfrye66 (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Election notice needs updating

The notice about the coord election is still inviting potential candidates to sign up. I'd change it, but I don't know if there's a tempalte or something that produces the notice (and it's nearly 2am). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done it just now.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tks Roger -- nice to see you still hovering around...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And you too :)  Roger Davies ^talk 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Frank Lukis now open

The A-Class review for Frank Lukis is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Deadline for coordinator nominations approaching

Just to remind everyone, the deadline to sign up to run in the September 2011 project coordinator election is just a bit over 48 hours away. At the moment, the number of candidates is relatively small, so I would encourage anyone with an interest in the behind-the-scenes work of the project to consider standing. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just as a quick note, I'd like to apologise and say I won't be standing this time around. I stood last year in the hope I'd have more free time to put towards administrative work, but in the event that time never materialised - I got very little work done on enwiki at all, much less in the projects! Many apologies for my excessive inactivity... Shimgray | talk | 21:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A question about appropriate page naming

I'm researching an article about American soldiers (Union and Confederate) who served in the Egyptian Army after the ACW. Scores of officers worked for Khedive Ismail Pasha between 1870 and 1882, including many with their own WP pagespace (Loring, Sibley, CP Stone, Chaille-Long). They were not soldiers of fortune, and were not an official military mission from the US, though all were recommended by WT Sherman. There are at least two full book-length treatments on the subject and a number of journal articles. Here is an example. Wondering how best to name this work. Guess I should sandbox some of this for feedback, but I'm just gathering sources now. Ideas? BusterD (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I am not very familiar with the topic, other than knowing it exists. What are the book's titles?

In general, I would go with a descriptive name like American foreign volunteers in the Egyptian Khedive armed forces (see Foreign volunteer) but that sounds like a category name. --Cerejota (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an obscure but well-documented and fascinating subject. Book titles are Blue and Gray on the Nile (by William B Hesseltine and Hazel C. Wolf) and Americans in the Egyptian Army (by Pierre G. Crabites). So neither of those are particularly helpful. It also occurred to me that I'm dealing with 1) a category of biographies, 2) a list of biographies, and 3) the main article itself. All will need to be considered before naming. So thanks. I expect this will be tricky to meet WP:NAMING optimally. BusterD (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Egyptian Khedive's cartography expeditions (1870-1882)? This seems to be supported by the source as expeditions for cartography purposes.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a much, much broader subject than merely the mapping. Stone modernized the Egyptian officer corps, Chaillé-Long made African discoveries rivaling Henry Morton Stanley's, and many contributed in a very positive way to Egyptian public life while involved. Many of the officers were engaged in battle on behalf of Ismail. Some had significant civil leadership roles, albeit in primarily advisory positions. I'm not sure "American" is the ideal descriptor. But just from this discussion, you can imagine how interesting such an article might be. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the use of "American" to refer to US citizens is a settled question in En-Wiki, for better or for worse :). I agree with you, this is way more than just the cartography missions, but clearly different that previous and subsequent US involvement in the general area of Egypt. However, I think the Americans in the Egyptian Army title does give us a hint, perhaps Americans in the Egyptian Khedive Army - I use "Khedive" because that is a very clear disambiguator, more useful than years in this context. --Cerejota (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

American veterans' influence in Egypt or American veterans' mission in Egypt (1870-1882)?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We're getting much closer. Khedive is actually a Persian term used by different Egyptian leaders after Said. Since at least one of the officers served both Ismail and Tewfik, perhaps Americans in the Khedivial Egyptian Army or Americans in the Egyptian Army (1870-1882). These both are fairly unambiguous. That's a correct form of Khedive, based on the sources. The only problem I see is that American involvement ended abruptly in 1882, and the khedivate went on until 1914. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I like either of those and both have great pros and cons:

1. First one is succinct, correctly identifies in a precise fashion the polity being served and is unambiguous, yet is less precise in terms of time period
2. Second one is very precise in terms of dates and is unambiguous, but less succinct and doesn't specify that "Egypt" here refers to different political entity than today's Egypt

I lean towards the first, because I tend to like the least precision that is still unambiguous and to like polity identification in titles, but can be happy with the second. The important thing is to have this article, which is FA material, as it is an overlooked but very important topic on the history of the region and the relationship of the USA with it (for example, the failure of the mission spelled the end of even indirect US involvement until the WWII period - and this involvement had dated all the way back to the birth of the nation itself - "To the shores of Tripoli" and all that). --Cerejota (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've applied Category:Americans in the khedivial Egyptian Army to the only blue links on this list. Like most military and non-military titles, "khedive" isn't capitalized when used by itself, but is capitalized when used before a person's name as rank. All the sources I read today used adjective "khedivial" with a lower case initial letter. Found some nifty sources today at the library. Will spend some time on this, but will wait for feedback on the naming issue before moving sandbox contents to pagespace. BusterD (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD dude, there is a move button for a reason :P--Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Help identifying weapon

Hi all can anyone identify the gun in this image

I thought it was a MP 18 but the magazine hangs down, instead of coming out of the side like the Sten gun. The German text accompanying the image is Frankreich, Invasionsfront.- Infanterist (Offizier) mit Fernglas in Deckung hinter einer Hecke, mit Fernglas beobachtend; Eins Kp Lw zbV - Which I believe says Infantry (officer) with binoculars, taking cover behind a hedge, watching with binoculars, one Special Duty Kp Lw. So is it a Special Duty Kp Lw ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a Beretta Modello 38a but how and why he has it I wouldn't know.Monstrelet (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Any hint where it is? It occurs to me it could be a Sov PPSh. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Its labelled France invasion front 21 June 1944. I think there is more wooden stock than a PPSh has. It could be a Baretta but the front sling fixing is different from our article image. Unfortunately the guns angle to the camera does not help in identification. But thanks for the suggestions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fairly sure it's a Beretta MAB M1938A. These were widely exported in WW2, including to Germany. Also has same 9x19mm Luger/Para ammunition as used by German weapons. See [[2]]. Farawayman (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The positions and relative sizes of the cocking handle, magazine, trigger guard, stock etc seem to fit the M1938A. Something that could be the overhang of the back end of the bolt housing is also just about visible. I'd say you've nailed it :) EyeSerene^talk 09:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for replies, I have found another image by the same photographer. All those who said the Baretta/M1938A well done, looks to be right from the second image.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the SMG that caught my eye.. was the spurs on his boots, and given the 2nd photo, only his boots, of that squad. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 20:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the cammo on the helmet, and the binos, and even the riding boots. He is the recon guy, probably why he has a Beretta 38a. Spurs were part of the infantry recon units of all major armies in Europe, mostly because they all rode horses, which were less noisy and better prepared to handle terrain than recon vehicles, and can graze anywhere not requiring to be near a fuel depot to operate. The myth that horses disappeared from the battlefield in WWII is, well, a myth, they simply weren't used in the dragoon and heavy cavalry role anymore, but in recon, light artillery, and light anti-tank and mobile point defense units they were used extensively by all sides. My favorite is the Tachanka (the article sucks, so it seems our work is cut-out). See Horses in World War II#Germany.--Cerejota (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Can't knock real horsepower whether used as a warhorse for charging, as a mobile vehicle, or for lugging carts and weapons - is a very versatile creature. There's a snippet in here about spurred boots, 2nd para: World_War_II_German_uniform#Jackboots_.28Marschstiefel_.22marching_boots.22.29. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 21:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

On barely related topics, has someone finally gotten around to do an article on the use of horses and mules in the current Afghanistan War?--Cerejota (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Babcock now open

The A-Class review for John Babcock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have returned...

Hi folks. Finally back after an extended absence, just checking in to say yes, I'm still alive and I'll be getting back into the swing of editing forwith. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, and? ;) Great to have you back, Bushranger. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

YAY. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

ACR withdrawal

I'd like to withdraw my ACR on the Sukhoi Su-37. It doesn't look like it'll pass. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reason, the many people actively working on aviation articles aren't participating in the Milhist A-class reviews (except for Sturm, a bit) ... and of course, it doesn't work at all for "outsiders" to impose standards on another project, so for the moment, Milhist's A-class review isn't a very hospitable environment for aviation articles. I don't know anything about the aviation A-class review, but I would think that would be the next logical step if you're trying to attract reviewers. I'll help out with reviews over there, and we'll see what happens. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Some time ago Aviation agreed to accept MilHist's A-Class assessments, as Ships has for a long time. I was one of the lobbyists for this as it seemed to me we had many ACRs being duplicated at the two projects but (ironically given Dan's perception now) Aviation didn't attract that many reviewers. Given the relationship between the projects viz. A-Class assessment, I'd say it might still be worth nominating at MilHist, but ensuring that notices re. the reviews are posted at Aviation as well as MilHist. It has helped in the past, at any rate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why can't "outsiders" review A-class articles? They already do it for FAs, no?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that at all -- after all most of us expect (or hope for) it at GAN and FAC, and we shouldn't be that insular re. "our" reviews within the MilHist project... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I said "impose standards on another project" ... people constantly review stuff that isn't their main interest, at A-class and FAC. The problem is that Milhist's A-class review is getting very little participation from the people who are writing most of the articles in that area, so we're stuck; every project evolves differently, we can't guess where they're headed, and it sucks up reviewer time unproductively to try. I've asked for reactions at WT:AVIATION with no luck. If they won't come over here, then I think the next best thing to try is to go over there and support their A-class review process. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles in MILHIST scope ?

I have just come across a number of Military biography article created by User:Charlie52. Some have questionable notability, posting here for opinion. See.

• Sandy Smith (British Army officer)
• Hugh Clark (Captain)
• David Wood (British Army officer)
• Major Freddie Scott MC I have added a redirect to Frederic Balfour Scott
• Major Jack Watson MC now redirected to John Bernard Robert Watson
• John Stevenson (British Army officer)
• Robin Evelegh
• James Cowley
• Tod Sweeney

Well intentioned but I believe, they don't meet the general guidelines for notability. The all seem to have links to the Royal Green Jackets and or the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• IMO on the surface these all appear be potentially non-notable, albeit accomplished, soldiers (per WP:GNG). Potentially candidates for PRODing or AfD. Seems a shame given the effort someone has put in writting them but I'm just not sure they really meet our guidelines. Anotherclown (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to (reluctantly) agree. The claims to notability seem to be largely based on awards like the Military Cross or Distinguished Service Order, which we've decided are not notable per WP:SOLDIER. There may be a case for mentioning some of the names in passing in suitable parent articles (like Operation Varsity), but really even that is probably stretching things. EyeSerene^talk 11:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought as much, all added at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 14. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the interpretation of notability. At least four of these officers are very well documented in the books listed and did have quite a role in the described actions. There are far lesser people with (justified) articles. I'd certainly support Sandy Smith and possibly Tod Sweeney and David Wood based on their well documented roles in the Pegasus Bridge action. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on reading the article fully I think Sweeney is notable enough without the Pegasus Bridge link. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

AfDs should not be relating to proposed guidelines alone, such as WikiProject Military history/Notability guide, but also to officially approved Wiki guidelines via WP:N, else it gives the false impression that MilHist is an over-riding authority, and potentially misdirects new editors unfamiliar with AfD procedures into forming a non-neutral POV, and invariably voting badly. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 16:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That could be a problem, yes. However, WP:SOLDIER is an in-house guideline based on WP:N so there should be no contradiction. It's purpose is to provide informed guidance on how WP:N can be interpreted for military people by saying "these types of people are likely to have enough coverage in reliable sources for an article, but not always". The converse of that of course is that we imply people excluded from WP:SOLDIER are unlikely to have enough coverage in RS's for an article, but inevitably some will. I don't believe most of these standalone biographies clear that bar; a bio article shouldn't just derive from one notable event. I do agree though that Sweeney is the best candidate. EyeSerene^talk 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER says (as it has to): "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." Only considering the books in libraries of people active in Milhist, we probably have hundreds of books that devote significant, independent coverage to all the key Normandy officers. There's a misreading of WP:ONEEVENT here; we're not going to get rid of our article on Nathan Hale, who was only notable for one event. The point of WP:ONEEVENT is that multiple newspapers, all breathlessly dishing out the same drivel, don't make someone notable; but if the interest of multiple independent historians doesn't make someone notable, then "notability" doesn't mean anything. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And, something I'll add here but not in the AfD discussion: I understand that it could be really annoying that we don't have articles on some colonels who made tremendous contributions, while some junior officers get their own articles just because they happened to land on the right spot of land at the right time, and got written up by scores of historians because it made a good story ... but I think that's how notability works. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless of course the subject of the article is female: Lisa Head, Sarah_Bryant_(British_Army_soldier)...

ALR (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You might not expect this given the historical barriers to advancement of women in militaries all over the world ... but many women make all sorts of calls on Milhist articles, every day. OTOH ... I just want to point out that those two articles are about (relatively) current events; I'm talking about history, and there's a difference, at least as "notability" works in practice. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh :) My point is really that people notable for one event - even if it led to the award of a medal - generally aren't covered in enough depth in sources to support a stand-alone biographical article. The sources tend to be about the event, not the person. Of course there are exceptions but those generally seem to be for awards like the VC or Medal of Honor, where sources are interested enough to write about the awardee in enough depth to support a bio... hence WP:SOLDIER. Most of the articles at the start of this thread are unsupportable as standalone bios in my view, but the deeds of the individuals are certainly worth covering in the articles about the actions during which those deeds took place. EyeSerene^talk 17:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, none of them look particularly "notable", although there is the assertion that the sources cited do contain non-trivial coverage of all of the individuals which would imply compliance with the GNG. I might question independence of the coverage, but that's a minor point.

ALR (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER seems controversially subjective to me, especially "Played an important role in a significant military event" - give that D-Day was probably THE most significant event of WW2, how does that not make someone like David Wood (British Army officer), for example, notable? Who has the right to decide what makes any soldier any more or less important than any other, in action? Seems to me like that guideline is more discriminating than German bullets, and lacks perspective. Clearly Wiki can't support any and every soldier who fought in WW2, but if the creator of those articles found time to write them up, I think MilHist should be more sympathetic towards finding the right place for them, instead of kicking them on the AfD heap with crappy pop songs and promotional articles. The nominations for AfD are more condemning than seems appropriate, imo. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 17:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The David Wood article is one of the better ones, certainly. My doubts are about articles like Hugh Clark (Captain), which in a nutshell tells us when he was born, what he did to be awarded the MC, and when he died. This is not in any way a failing of the article author who can only work with the sources available and has done as good a job as likely can be done, but is it really enough for a biographical article? The meat of the article could be included in Operation Varsity with almost no loss of significant content. However, I agree that AfD can be harsh and we need to be tactful about the way in which we handle the hard work others take the time to contribute. EyeSerene^talk 18:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was going to drop the creator a message - given than the poor blighter has worked his arse off, to coin a phrase - but I see you've done that. In most cases I think these articles are worthy of Keep on condition of cleanup and extra sourcing. I've seen far worse articles on AfD being saved under similar conditions. Perhaps they should be tagged with the WP:RESCUE to aid their development - I think it's unfair to have the editor who created them pressed to improve them all in the short space of time an AfD nomination gives.. a week? That's barely a day per nomination, and very unreasonable and unsupportive! Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 18:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we are risking appearing unwelcoming as a community in the approach adopted, but feel that it is only consistent and necessary. To the creators and contributors of these articles I must apologise, for as a regular contributor to Wikipedia I can well appreciate the time and effort it takes to write such articles. I do not mean to be discouraging. Unfortunately these articles do not meet our notability policies (in my opinion) and we must be consistent in how we apply the rules of the community. As such I have !voted to delete these as you will see in the AfDs. Of course if additional coverage can be found to indicate significance beyond that of a single event, then I would welcome keeping these articles (accompanied by the addition of inline citations). Equally my opinion is be no means consensus and I acknowledge that there are already a number of keep !votes from experienced and respected editors. Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree entirely and whole-heartedly - WP:N begins "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I can't stand it when editors call guidelines "rules" - fair enough when it comes to NPA, etc - but notability, no - it's not a policy or five pillar rule. It gives a bad impression, and could be one of the reasons why MilHist's popularity (income of new editors) is waning - by employing guidelines as rules, editors who do so are guilty of Don't bite the newbies - instead of using AfD to set some kind of example or worm their way towards recognised adminship, which imo is under-handed and ill-treatment of guidelines and is not welcoming in the slightest, they should be given proper aid - there are dozens of clean-up tags, on hold tags, under development tags - all easily added with Twinkle - patience is a virtue, AfD is often a death march which sometimes operates very poorly imo, many experienced wikipedians use it to their advantage, knowing WP:N and WP:V inside-out, leaving new genuine editors little room for defence - and I dont't blame them if they don't come back, I'd almost encourage them not to under some circumstances when an unreasonable AfD nomination has been pushed - it's also going to be one of the things I consider when voting for new MilHist coords - we need fair-minded coords, not ones unwilling to support new editors. Wiki discourages hit-and-run tagging i.e. "needs citing". So imo, "needs deleting" is just as bad, if not worse - I blame editors for not using the correct tools, or for taking guidelines too far, especially against newcomers. If MilHist is to be a good project, it needs to offer superlative support, every time. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 11:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of retaining the core content about a person and putting it the article about the military operation, a good method is to create a note (in order to allow proper referencing of the material) at the first mention of the name and to include a brief paragraph detailing that person's biographical details, and then include references for that. This is a fairly common approach in several of the books I have, where short biographical notes are included in the endnotes to the chapters. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your very kind and constructive comments which are appreciated and the debate re deletion has been an interesting one. I must say firstly that anyone who has had an obituary in The Daily Telegraph or The Times has achieved notability they wouldn't have had their obituaries published otherwise. One might have one's own opinion as to contribution to humanity etc! however they have passed that test. Secondly DCM (Distinguished Conduct Medal) was a level 2 gallantry award one down from VC. Anyone who has been awarded a DCM has also passed the notability test. Yes Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry and Royal Green Jackets well represented amongst these articles. Two regiments with most distinguished histories which will inevitably have former members (who have distinguished themselves) featured on these pages. Same, of course, with many other famous regiments. Pegasus and Horsa Bridges operation you will as Military Historians know has continued to attract enormous interest indeed ever increasing and inclusion of articles reflects that.kind regardsCharlie52 (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Inflation again

We've had several conversations on this talk page, notably this one, about how and when to inflate figures over time. I still don't have a clear sense of how to apply the advice there in reviews, such as at WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/If Day. A little help? - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking for some help...

I have interest in the New Hampshire Regiments, particularly the 3d and 1st during the American Revolutionary War. I've worked on the following, which I believe are in scope for this project:

Scammell's 1781 Light Infantry Regiment
3rd New Hampshire Regiment I re-wrote this because what was there was not very rich and contained several common inaccuracies (and there were no references).
Alexander Scammell Just re-wrote much of this, correcting the worst mistake, which was that what was there misspelled his name and redirected from the correct spelling. I've been progressively stamping out misspellings on other websites too.
Lafayette's Light Infantry at Yorktown Just created this and will be working on it over the next month or so.

All of these topics, for me represent years of research (my hobby). There are a number of topics that these relate to that I have made minor changes to in order to have them dovetail better with the additional information contained in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th topics above.

That said, I am totally new to Wikipedia and find a lot of it a bit bewildering just now. Like I'm not even sure I'm communicating to anyone in writing this... Please confirm on my talk page. Thanks, Cfrye66 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, welcome! Wikipedia is (and always will be) a work in progress, so we need all the help we can get. The best general advice I can offer is not to worry too much—if you make a mistake, it's easily fixed; if there's something you don't understand, there are plenty of places (like here) that you can ask for help. I'll leave it to someone who knows about the American Revolutionary War to look at the articles, but if you have any questions, you can ask them here—plenty of people watch this page, and we're all interested in military history so it;s a good place to come! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I took a quick look at the 3rd New Hampshire Regiment article, and while I'm far from an expert on the ARW, your Wikipedia formatting is pretty good. The only quibble I'd have is that all paragraphs should have a reference from where you got the information from, but that's it. Nice work, and I hope I'll see you around more. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--I tend to work in increments, so the references will arrive within the next few weeks. Cfrye66 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you ever need any help, leave me a message on my talk page (click "new section" at the top) and I'll be glad to lend a hand. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

♠If those are a first effort, you've got no worries. :D They're all good. I especially thought the 3d NH was good: well laid out, good images, no extraneous detail (AFAICT). I'd never have guessed it was by a noob. :D

♠It's also true, it's all going to get altered, whether you like it or not. 8o ;p (Sometimes, that's the hardest part to deal with... I don't always find it EZ, & I know of others {who shall remain nameless, but nobody on this page} who've had a problem with it.)

♠If you need any help, same goes for me. Just ask. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Trekphiler; yeah I figure there will be a certain amount of trampling, but there are folks who know more than I do too. Cfrye66 (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Election notice needs updating

The notice about the coord election is still inviting potential candidates to sign up. I'd change it, but I don't know if there's a tempalte or something that produces the notice (and it's nearly 2am). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done it just now.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tks Roger -- nice to see you still hovering around...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And you too :)  Roger Davies ^talk 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Frank Lukis now open

The A-Class review for Frank Lukis is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

New format for project member directory

A prototype of a new format for the project member directory is available for comment at the strategy department; any comments or suggestions would be very appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A question to anyone who is an expert in military ranks.

Hi, everyone. In the 19th century, there were cases of military officers in Brazil who were promoted to a higher rank but it was not truly a promotion. Let me explain with an example. The Duke of Caxias was made Marshal of the Army (the highest rank in the Brazilian Imperial army) in 1862, which was deemed graduado (literally "graded") in that rank. Fours years later, in 1866, he was made efetivo (literally "effective") in that rank.

What that meant in practice? Well, as far as I've understood, when a Brazilian officer was graduado in a rank, and not efetivo, it occurred for two reasons: 1) Merely as an honor; 2) So that an officer could command a military unit which would not be possible in his current and actual rank (such as a colonel who was raised to "graded" Brigadier general so that he could lead a brigade when he should only lead a regiment).

I really don't know if that was ever a case of an officer who was degraded to his original rank.

So, my question is: is there something similar in other Armies? Or there was someday something similar? The colsest thing I could find was in the U.S. Army during World War II, when some famous officers became Generals in the armies that were fighting the Germans when they were only Colonels back in the U.S.

What would be the appropriate English versions of the words "graduado" and "efetivo"? I don't believe that "temporary" and "permanent" (respectively) are the correct ones, since I'm really not sure if an officer could or would be downgraded. The feeling I have from reading Caxias' biographies is that we was made "graduado" (and not "efetivo") in some points of his career until other older officers were retired. I'm really, really sorry if I was not clear enough. It's not my fault. Brazilian historians were not very clear on this subject (I wonder if even they know what it means since they are usually civilians). --Lecen (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Brevet rank? Hchc2009 (talk)

I was going to suggest the same thing. It was quite common during the world wars and other major conflicts going further back, at least in the Commonwealth and US armies, but I know the British Army make much less use of it these days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Temporary rank" would cover the second case to some extent. Depends if they upped the pay as well. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Graeme that "temporary" is how the Commonwealth military (at least in the 20th century) would describe the instance of upping rank to permit command of a formation one wouldn't normally command with their actual (or "substantive") rank. The issue is confused though because you could also have "acting" ranks, and I confess to not being certain of the difference between acting and temporary, but they were different as some of the chaps I've written about in the RAAF during WWII were "acting" and then "temporary" the same higher rank. Lastly one could also have an "honorary" higher rank, but that was generally a reward, often granted upon -- or sometime after -- retirement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for responding. The problem is that I don't know if an officer could be reverted to his previous rank. This is why I don't believe that calliing it "temporary" would be deemed appropriate in place of "graduado" (graded). I'm going to do some further research and see if I can find more information. Thanks, guys. --Lecen (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just following on from my prev, you could definitely be dropped back to your substantive rank from an acting or temporary rank. This wasn't punishment particularly, it just happened when you stopped doing the job that led to you being temporarily upped in rank in the first place. It happened en masse to many Commonwealth officers after WWII (those that weren't discharged anyway) but I think also occurred during wartime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Australian Army had "honorary" ranks which meant that you could wear the rank but drew no pay and had no seniority; you were still junior to officers otherwise holding that rank. This was for people who had held the rank in the Militia before joining the AIF, or in the AIF during the Great War. "Brevet" or acting rank meant you had the rank, but not the pay. This was usually while your superior was absent but the government used it to save money between the wars. Temporary rank was held only while occupying a certain post. In peacetime this was granted when the nominal occupant of a post was likely to be absent for a long time. In wartime, most officers held temporary rank, and if they were removed from their post, dropped back to the last type, substantive rank. You were paid at this unless you held temporary rank. It was not unknown for officers to hold all four at once! Some also had substantive rank far below their temporary ranks. There were brigadier generals in the AIF whose substantive rank was only that of a captain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tks for clarifying the diff between acting and temporary, Hawkeye, and also for reminding us that there were a fair few honorary ranks after WWI. Can you just confirm for me that you're saying one stayed at substantive rank pay when "acting", but were paid at the appropriate higher rate when "temporary"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just got the word from an uncle who is an Army officer and they were indeed temporary (although many officers eventually were made permanent on those ranks). Thus, "graduado" it is indeed the equivalent to the American and British "brevet". Good! Now I can resume my work on Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias! --Lecen (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Brevet is the word, no doubt. Yes my pt is not that great, but its enough ;)--Cerejota (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628

Can someone can spare some time for copyediting on this FAC, starting at Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628#Byzantine resurgence? - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this isn't urgent, Ucucha just archived (didn't promote) it, but if someone could have a look in the next two weeks, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone want to review Air raids on Japan for GA status?

A bit over a week ago I nominated the Air raids on Japan article for GA status. While the delay in an editor conducting a GA review is well within the normal time frame for GA nominations, the complication is that this is a large article where the reviewer is likely to have quite a few comments and I'm going away on holiday for almost all of October and so won't be available to respond to them. As such, if the review isn't started in the next few days I'm going to need to withdraw the nomination until I get home in early November. Is anyone interested in reviewing this article? While I'm obviously biased, I think that it's both of a good quality and on an interesting (and very important) topic. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't withdraw I will have a look, but I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment, I can leave it on hold until you return. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I can do it this weekend if you'd like to have it all wrapped up before your vacation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to have a go at this one myself but appear to have been beaten to it! Looks like a very interesting and thorough article from the quick skim that I have done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi now open

The A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Started Category:Military pidgins

Per discussion an archive back, I started Category:Military pidgins, and welcome any articles which should be filed there, new stubs, etc. Of those options that would make great articles, parler tirailleur (used in West Africa) seems to perfectly fit the category. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (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! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Operation Great War Centennial

Inspired by an earlier section posted related to World War I, I recently looked up Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Great War Centennial and found it hasn't been very active recently (somewhat of an understatement). So I posted this to see if anyone is still watching that page, and am posting here to see if others are interested in trying to move things forward again there. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Request advice on a ship article

Recent discussions at Galley have led me to seek a place for mentioning the northern oared warship tradition in the Middle Ages and later (because Galley will now focus on the mediterranean tradition). A preliminary investigation has left me with a number of options.

• Longship could be expanded (it currently just covers Viking vessels and largely duplicates Viking ships).
• Medieval ships, based on the specific ship types, stretching it out to Tudor for rowbarges. This article, however, needs a lot of expansion to cover its topic properly.
• A new article, though it would be little more than a stub

Advice on direction would be appreciated, as would offers to help. This is very much not a main area for me and, though I do have some reference material, I don't have time for a major edit job. Monstrelet (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a merger proposal at Talk:Longship to address the Viking ships question. Anyone interested please visit. I actually think there is room for both articles, they simply need to be clearer on the distinction between them. Alternatively, they could form a single article. I'll leave it for debate. On further thought, the Medieval ships article's chronological format makes it difficult to add to. As the original editor noted this as major design factor, I'm loathe to change it. However, a pure thematic listing, or a division between oared and sailing vessels, would actually help, perhaps prefaced by a chronological summary. Anyway, any thoughts welcome. It will be some time before I'm position to action any of this Monstrelet (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

2 new articles

Sirs: I have started new new artciles for:

1. Maj. Gen. Roderick Wetherill and his son,
2. Lt. Col. Roderick Wetherill, Jr..

I think they are notable enough for inclusion. Please feel free to clean up or edit as you see fit. I think the father's article may be useful as a WP:DYK article, because he advocated for the combat training of South Vietnamese troups; of course his advice was ignnored. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Feels like a suitable DYK sort of fact. Incidentally, with the Wetherill snr article, my advice would be to explain how he's notable in the lead, just as you do above; at the moment you say (correctly, given the press reporting about him) that he's notable and was a key commander, but you don't quite explain why. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the son as being notable. The sources don't strike me as very independent of the subject. He may be notable - but I don't see why from the details given. (Our notability guidance advises of certain conditions where the coverage may exist. ) GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was my request deleted without being reviewed?

Here. Guess I won't bother with asking for MILHIST reviews in future then. :-( Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That, I imagine, is what we in the trade call an "oops". I've restored it to the list; can someone more knowledgeable that I have a look at Battle of Vukovar for Prioryman? -- saberwyn 23:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems another editor has already done a review. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Hope you don't mind me restoring your previous comment, because it leads on to a suggestion to prevent future occurences of the problem. -- saberwyn 23:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, the exact same thing happened the last time I submitted an article here for review. It too was deleted without a review after being ignored for a week. I restored it to the list myself on that occasion but am none the wiser as to why this seems to keep happening. Prioryman (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean Blockhaus d'Éperlecques (which I think was the one you readded), it was surrounded for a fair distance on both sides by completed requests, and may likely again have been an accident. There were two other articles you put up for assessment in between the two deletions (La Coupole nad Franz Xaver Dorsch), which both appeared to go through fine, so I think we can rule out a shadowy cabal stalking your requests.

However, might there be a way to tweak the Requests for assessment process to prevent such requests (from anyone) going AWOL in the future? My first thought is to divide the requests into two sections: "Pending" (both new requests and those that had had an initial look at but require changes before an assessment can be confidently made), and "completed" (the reviewing editor moves it here once the Rubber Stamp of Approval^TM is applied, with entries deleted after a reasonable time for the requestee to come back and see if there are any additional comments). Thoughts from the masses? -- saberwyn 23:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a "shadowy cabal" at work, more a failure in the way that nominations are processed. Your proposal sounds very sensible to me. At the moment it seems that lumping all the requests together is tripping up editors. Prioryman (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

While I'd have hoped we could generally avoid such issues by due care, I don't see a prob with Saberwyn's suggestion. It effectively divides things into a "requires action" section (either new entries or those that could benefit from a bit more work before assessing) and "ready for deletion" section (already assessed and just kept a decent time for requestors to notice). A minor point, would it worthwhile or not to continue the strikeout procedure even though the completed entries would be in their own section -- just for emphasis? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for James Inglis Hamilton now open

The peer review for James Inglis Hamilton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rank naming conventions for article titles

Based on a brief thread at WP:AT, I realized that the WP:MILMOS says nothing about article titles of ranks. In investiagating the matter, I came to the conclusion that the different polices and guidelines do provide a guide, but in disparate and disjointed forms. I have put that up as an essay: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military ranks). I really do not care much for the matter, I am happy with either, however, I am looking at policy and that is the conclusion I came with: policy as it stands suggests we should only capitalize the first letter, as the usage is not as a Proper Noun but a Generic noun.

My suggestion is that we discuss:

1. The need for the naming convention
2. Then create a consensus one way or the other, using RFC, so it can be raised to the level of guideline.

I think we can all agree that having this discussion and edit/move wars (including the recent unilateral moves on many ranks) is unproductive and distracting. Having a guideline, no matter what it says, will resolve this once and for all. So I am doing a strawpoll/discussion on the merits of having a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military ranks), and come up with a proposal for the RfC.--Cerejota (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

discuss/!vote

• support having a convention, don't care what it says as per proposal :)--Cerejota (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this have any relevance outside of the disagreement on capitalization?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, but it is clear this discussion keeps poping up and move warring and having to discuss it and etc. --Cerejota (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Creating a separate naming convention because of disagreements over capitalization seems like a distraction. If people feel there should be changes in capitalization of titles, they should provide arguments for change at the talkpage of appropriate guidelines. Like WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters or WP:Article titles.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there have been several mass moves and reverts against discussion. It gets disruptive. A naming convention would resolve that, and centralize discussion.--Cerejota (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So point them to the existing guideline pages. If people disagree with naming policies, it's usually because they don't like them for one reason or another, not that they haven't understood or read them. Either way, you're not going to achieve any type of centralization or clarity by in fact de-centralizing guidelines.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation of Korean War articles

Hello all. Thought I would test the water before I alienated myself from the community yet again! Many of our Korean War articles are part of a number of categories (of course), including categories specific to the participants. For instance Battle of Kujin is included in [[Category: Battles of the Korean War involving Australia]], [[Category: Battles of the Korean War involving the United Kingdom]] and [[Category: Battles of the Korean War involving the United States]], reflecting the fact that on the UN side the primary forces were Australian, British and US. It is also in the category [[Battles involving Korea]], due to the involvement of the North Koreans on the communist side. This doesn't seem specific enough to me, surely it should be part of [[Category: Battles involving North Korea]]? Likewise with many similar articles.

From some investigation I note while there is a [[Category: Battles involving Korea]] and a [[Category: Battles involving North Korea]] (largely empty) there is no [[Category:Battles involving South Korea]]. As such it seems that articles that involve either North or South Korea (or both) are currently included in [[Category:Battles involving Korea]]. My thinking is that we should probably create [[Category:Battles involving South Korea]] and move appropriate articles from [[Category:Battles involving Korea]] to either [[Category:Battles involving South Korea]] or [[Category:Battles involving North Korea]], or both (where they fought each other). Of course many articles covering battles fought before the division of the Korean peninsula at the end of Second World War would rightly remain in the [[Category:Battles involving Korea]]. Any thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

All that seems reasonable enough; the lack of a dedicated category for South Korea is more likely a simple oversight than evidence of any sophisticated categorization scheme. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Too easy. I have gone ahead and created [[Category:Battles involving South Korea]] and have recategorised the articles in question. Thanks for your feedback. Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for RAF Uxbridge now open

The A-Class review for RAF Uxbridge is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Military training and education in China

A class project has recently created Military training and education in China, which is a naming convention reserved for categories. Could the project take a look at this article and make any necessary suggestions for improvement on the talk page? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Article under our purlieu - List of Irish people in World War I

List of Irish people in World War I is a short list - about a dozen entries - of mainly military personnel. Given the large numbers of notable Irish-born individuals that fought in the war (I'm presuming that's the intended scope), does this article have a future? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good God, only 10 Irishmen fought in WWI? In seriousness, I don't see the purpose of that list - each should have their own article if they meet the so-called WP:SOLDIER criteria, and then they should be in a Category:Irish people in World War I, to index them properly, rather than an article. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I too fail to see how such a list would really work. We have a fair amount on Ireland and WWI already. Ireland and World War I is the best starting point, along with Template:Great War in Ireland and Category:Ireland in World War I. We already have Category:Irish people of World War I, so the proposed category would be redundant to that. There are also sections relating to Ireland within larger lists, such as List of international rugby union players killed in action during the First World War#Ireland. But the whole topic is fascinating for anyone interested in the history and the interplay with the whole question of Ulster and Northern Ireland, including the 1985 play Observe the Sons of Ulster Marching Towards the Somme. And then you have the memorials, which I've listed here in order of article creation to show how our coverage progressed over time: Island of Ireland Peace Park (unveiled 1998, article created 2005), Ulster Tower (unveiled 1921 , article created 2006), Irish National War Memorial Gardens (completed 1939, article created 2007). Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the original question does the list have a future? No I can not see one, but what to do with it is another question. Redirect to Ireland and World War I may be the best option. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I just looked on the talk page and found I'd deposited a list there from the category (as it was at the time)! Talk:List of Irish people in World War I. That was back in January 2010 (I'd completely forgotten about that). Tom Kettle is the stand-out name on that talk page list, along with Francis Ledwidge. In my view, this sort of list is best brought into project-space (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force), where it helps the project editors sort out which areas to focus on. Though I see the discussion page for that task force redirects here. The earlier archives are here. Someone did make sure all those archives were listed somewhere when all that consolidation of task force talk pages took place, right? I'm also trying to find that project that was active a year or so ago. Ah, here it is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Great War Centennial. Last talk page activity November 2010. How would I go about getting that more active again? Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC) I've posted here and will post in a new section as well.

(answering an earlier suggestion List of Irish people in World War I doesn't have to be redirected to anything - it could just be deleted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion is a more process-heavy option (even something like PROD is more laborious than a simple redirect). And that would lose the talk page content. What I will do is copy the current talk page content to the talk page of Ireland and World War I and include a link to the version before redirection, and then redirect the list and its talk page to the respective pages of that article. If anyone objects, then discussion can resume at that point. In passing, though, a list provides more than a broad category does. In this case, it provides details such as rank and service (air, army, navy) and other details. Sure, the current version of the list is hopelessly broad, but the example I gave of Irish rugby players in WWI shows that more focused lists are possible. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ACR for 1689 Boston revolt

Is an A-class review for this article 1689 Boston revolt/Talk possible at any future time? DCI2026 21:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

An ACR can be requested at any time; you just need to follow the instructions for listing the article at WP:MHACR. Hope that helps! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to upload photos

Hi all, if you refer to commons:User:Russavia#Aviation-related there is a big list of photographers whom have allowed us to upload their photos from a variety of sites. I calculate that there are some 60-70,000++ photos so far available for us to utilise on Commons. I am letting the Wikiproject know that you are free to upload the photos as described on this list. Photos cover a diverse range of aviation - civil, military, general, business - and cover the era from the 1960s right up to the present time. There are many rare photos available for use, such as Singapore Airlines Concorde. Please take advantage of these resources, upload them to Commons (not local WP), and get them into articles. Any images which may be from airliners.net and have the watermark, add them to Commons:Category:Images from airliners.net with watermarks and I will get the unwatermarked versions. If anyone has any questions, contact me on my Commons talk page at commons:User talk:Russavia. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's excellent. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

FL-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1945) now open

The final list of the Oak leaves recipients is up for review here. The review has been hanging around in limbo for a few days and not drawing much attention so far. I appreciate some constructive feedback or abusive criticism; choose your poison which ever suits you best. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Commented at the FL page, does this mean your now redundant? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, you sound like my wife.MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sad news

Dear friend, I have been told by User:Bahamut0013's wife Ashley that Robert is no longer with us and that he passed away last night. He was a close freind of mine and an excellent contributor and member of our community. I know that he was very active with military related issues and therefore I would like for all of you to know that I left a message on his page where anyone who wishes to do so may express their condolences. User talk:Bahamut0013. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bahamut0013 had been less active here recently, but I did not expect that. My condolences to his family and friends. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I do have to confess never having direct contact, but it saddens me one of us is gone. Let me add condolences to all who did know & work with him. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

An obituary of Robert P. Lemiszki, Jr./Bahamut0013 is available here. It looks like we've lost a very fine young man, and my thoughts are with his family and friends. Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How sad and so young. My condolences to all in his family and to his friends. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He was a very calm head here, far more mature at 26 than many twice his age. I was gladdened by each of my interactions with him. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible copy violation

Hi can someone else check the Battle of Alamance article (see talk) large parts of the text seem to be a copy and paste from an external site. I am not sure how to deal with this, a note has been left on the talk page, but do I/we just delete the offending text (most of the article)? Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Text which is a copyright violation should be removed immediately, even if it involves reducing the article to a stub. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I tagged the page as a possible copyvio & posted notices as the tag requested, so as it stands, the page isn't visible. (IDK if it's still open for editing.) Could be a gf error... Do we know as a fact WP wasn't mirrored? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The base page for the first section of copyvio material says it was last updated in April 2009, which predates the introduction of the copyvio by more than a year. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, some copyvio material dated to 2005. In any case, I've deleted the copyvio revisions and rolled the article back to the stub state it was in back in 2005. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Knight's Cross with Diamonds recipients

I posted the current quality rating of the 27 KC with Diamonds recipients here. I was wondering if someone else is interested in adopting one of the articles to help push it up the quality scale. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice

I do wonder whether it's appropriate that short articles on military personnel have huge lists of coloured icons representing their medals, rather than perhaps linking to a centralised page that displays these icons. Not to decry their achievements; but it seems to overbalance the informational aspect of WP's bio articles. Examples: Charles R. Bailey, Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., and Charles J. McDonnell, among an increasing number, look like neon rainbows. The colourfest, which might undermine the sense of dignity and interest in what the person actually did as a member of the armed forces. Does WikiProject MilHist have a policy on this? Tony (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid we don't have a policy as such, Tony. We've had various lively discussions on the subject that haven't reached a genuine consensus, except to say that those of us who share your views have tended to prevail upon those who don't to leave most bios of A-Class or FA-Class level (at least of Commonwealth servicepeople) free of the colourfest... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. I don't like awards sections at all, but they seem to be common in articles about American service personnel. There are all sorts of issues with the layout of those articles, but it mostly comes down to them being needing expansion and TLC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with A-class review

I attempted to post an A-class review notice on the talk page of 1689 Boston revolt. I was unable to get it to appear. Could anyone help with this? DCI2026 22:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Field in template fixed now. You need to start the review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1689 Boston revolt. Follow instructions at WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review after that. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. DCI2026 00:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Butting in, it was accidentally placed in the top section of the next ACR in the list, James Cook, rather than as its own entry -- rectified this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1689 Boston revolt‎ now open

The A-Class review for 1689 Boston revolt‎ is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pocket battleship Deutschland, heavy cruiser Lützow

I was given the opportunity to GA review the article German cruiser Deutschland. During the review cycle the question came to my mind if the current article name is the best choice we have. Deutschland was ordered by the Reichsmarine of the Weimar Republic and classified as a Panzerschiff or pocket battleship. The Kriegsmarine of the Third Reich later reclassified her as a heavy cruiser and renamed her Lützow. Historically she was either Panzerschiff Deutschland or heavy cruiser Lützow but never Panzerschiff Lützow nor heavy cruiser Deutschland. The current article name mixes things up a little and Parsecboy (talk · contribs) suggested raising this question to the greater audience. I would appreciate some feedback on your thoughts. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's contrary to common, probably, but I'd favor Panzerschiff Deutschland, since it's the original name by the builder & user. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that "German (heavy) cruiser xxxx" is descriptive enough to identify the ship without getting complex about what exact type of warship it was. And also has the benefit of being in the English language. But so long as Panzerschiff and heavy cruiser are both in the lede, I'd have thought the average reader could find the article through a search.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just Deutschland, actually. "Panzerschiff" is no more part of the name than "German cruiser", which in turn is an artifact of our rigid naming convention for (modern) military vessels.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And how would you distinguish between the large number of other vessels with that name, both military and civilian? You may not like it, but the current systems works well enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As usual, I'm less clear than I might have been. :( I agree, finding the page should be easy enough with Deutschland or Lützow alone. Not the issue IMO. At issue, as I see it, is the pagename only, not the content, & on that, IMO, it should be Panzerschiff, if only to dab from any other Deutschlande (pardon my bad plurals,8o any German speakers). While not strictly her name, it was how she was known by her builders/operators, & IMO that should govern. My zwei Pfennige mehr. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What is she/he/it called in the sources - I'm thinking more recent books on the subject more than contemporary news reports. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have several books on the Spanish Civil War that mention (but are not about) this warship/these warships, and I've checked a couple and they describe them as "pocket battleships". I'm no expert on naval stuff, but I also think that might be more informative with regard to what they were used to do/place within the navy.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Except "pocket battleship" isn't actually type of ship, but an English term used for the three Deutschland class cruisers. At least that's what our own article says.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Pocket battleship" was a term invented by the British press. In my mind, to use that would be akin to something like Nimitz class bird farm.

If we end up going with "Panzerschiff", should it be capitalized or not? Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd oppose "Panzerschiff". We renamed all the 'Unterseeboot' articles a while back to deal with the issue of foreign terms in titles. Benea (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Benea, no language-specific terminology in article titles unless there's no English equivalent available. Otherwise we'll be seeing Russian terminology for their missile cruisers. Oh, wait, didn't we just reject one attempt to do exactly that for the Petr Veliky-class battlecruisers? Parsec's using just a bit of hyperbole with his birdfarm reference. I'm not aware of any decent histories that call aircraft carriers bird farms, but I've seen plenty use pocket battleship. Even if they're not specialist or more recent works. To reiterate my point from the Ships discussion, we're supposed to use the most common name, not the most proper one. And pocket battleship is quite obviously the most popular name for these ships, no matter how much it may bother specialists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm an amateur, and I would merely feel confused by pocket battleship (still a redirect to a cruiser class). That it's a heavy cruiser, and defined as one in the article about the class no less, makes a lot more sense. If anything, "pocket battleship" is more fit for specialists.

And I hate to be the one pointing it out, but naming conventions isn't supposed to allow exceptions. WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIP has made that very clear before. Or is this simply a matter of making peculiar exceptions due to the "all German military stuff is cooler"-clause?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So what is the consensus?

• Keep "German cruiser Deutschland"

• Support; it obviously belongs to a cruiser class and I believe Parsecboy's "bird farm"-argument is quite illustrative. Peter ^Isotalo 10:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Per Peter, essentially. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't think of any other cruiser class armed with 11-inch guns or larger with the exception of the American Alaska class. Even armored cruisers of the WWI period only had 9.2/9.4-inch guns, so it's not intuitive that these are really cruisers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And I can't think of any battleship that was so lightly armored (with what was essentially light cruiser scale protection). This type of ship clearly straddled the usual design specifications, but at the end of the day, they were over-armed cruisers. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll also note that the example you give is right now under the name "Alaska class cruiser" ... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There were a number of earlier cruisers with large guns.

• The three Spanish Infanta Maria Teresa class armoured cruisers that the Americans sank at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba in 1898 had 11-inch guns.
• A number of 1880s protected cruisers were built with 10-inch guns including the Chilean Esmeralda, and the Japanese Naniwa class and the Tsukushi, and the Chinese Chao Yung class.
• Some of the 1890s/1900s Italian/Argentine/Japanese |Garibaldi type armoured cruisers had single 10-inch turrets instead of twin 8-inch turrets.
• The US Tennessee class armoured cruisers had 10-inch guns.
• There were also the Japanese Ibuki and Tsukuba class armoured cruisers that had 12-inch guns. Some people consider these to be battlecruisers.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support There was once a consensus to rename the articles from the biased term "pocket battleship" to something in use by the owner of these ships. Changing it back is a controversal page move and should be done via Wikipedia:Requested moves. The only other valid name would be option three with Panzerschiff. --Denniss (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Change to "German pocket battleship Deutschland"

• Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support as most common name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that the term was invented and utilised as an accurate and useful descriptor, and appears to be widely used. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - WP:COMMONNAME. While the ship might technically be a cruiser/heavy cruiser, the vast majority of people will only have ever heard of the ship as a "Pocket Battleship". Unless we go generic ("German warship Deutschland (1931)"? Ugh!) using any other name is going to have some degree of square peg, round hole to it. (And "GpbD" is the name used on the disambig page already...).--The Bushranger 20 September 2011 05:12 (UTC)

• Change to "German Panzerschiff Deutschland"

• Support after deleting "German", unless there are Mexican & Kenyan Panzerschiffe I never heard of. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NC-SHIPS states that warships without a formal prefix (like USS, HMS, SMS, etc.) should be titled "(Nationality) + (ship type) + Name". Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Shot down by the MOS again. :( :( :( Curse you, Snoopy! Hans von Hammer ^{paint it red} 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Panzerschiff merely means 'armoured ship'. This designation was used by the Germans in 1860s-80s for quite a lot of ships of different nations, and was resurrected for this class of ships. I assume that we do not plan to have an article named Ajax class panzerschiffe.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem to be a consensus emerging here. At this point, the articles should probably remain as they are, unless something radical happens. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just reading a book on the German Naval Fuhrer Conferences. There was a revealing minute of a conversation between Raeder and Hitler, with the former saying, "No, Mein Fuhrer, we do not really know what kind of sodding ships they are, but at least we will be causing confusion for people seeking to implement the Wikipedia naming conventions for decades to come".... ;-) The Land (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Diaboloical. I wish I'd thought of it. ;p Ernst Blofeld ^{put down the cat, 007} 19:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Turunmaa / Gorlitsa / Vodorez class?

So a question regarding this Turunmaa (1918) class gunboat. Gunboats (or patrol vessels) in service of Finnish Navy (from 1918) and Polish Navy (from 1921). Please do note that the dates of launch are not certain since sources very a lot. Some list 1916 as 'laid down' year for all six hulls (translitterated from Russian.. Filin, Tshirok, Vodorez, Lun, Gorlitsa, Sova) while others list the same as the year they were completed and so on. Which would be the preferred name for the class and more importantly for the article? - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

IDK if IRN did it this way, so I may be adding error, but I incline to naming by first ship launched, in this case (now) Turunmaa. Do we know her name at launch? She's listed as ex-Tshirok & ex-Orlan; which was the first used? So, I imagine, Tshirok class gunboat (& not Tshirok-class, please!). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Depends what the scope is. At the moment its about all six ships planned to the same design, in which case they should be the Filin class (as per Watts). They were built for the Imperial Russian Navy in Finnish yards but after the withdrawal of Russian military forces from Finland after the declaration of independence in late 1917, the first two were completed for the new Finnish Navy, Conway's calls them the Karjala class. These were launched in 1918. Two ships were launched in 1919 and went to the Polish Navy in 1921, the remaining two were scrapped uncompleted. So it should be either

• An article about the entire class design as planned for the Russians, in which case Filin class gunboat

or:

• An article about the two ships completed for the Finnish navy, in which case maybe Karjala class gunboat

If it's about the latter, and the name Turunmaa class gunboat is retained, it should be Turunmaa class gunboat (1918), with the disambiguation at the end (see for example British S class submarine (1931)). Benea (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that then factually proper way would be to move (and correct) the page to Filin class gunboat (as per suggested) in that case. Perhaps represent the ship pairs that went to Finnish and Polish navies as subclasses? Also similar issue affects another page, Uusimaa class gunboat which should in respect either represent only the Finnish 'subclass' or then be renamed into Korshun class netlayer or something. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Article renamed to Filin class guard ship as per Conway. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2007 Laotian coup d'état conspiracy allegation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2007 Laotian coup d'état conspiracy allegation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Laotian coup d'état conspiracy allegation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Int21h (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Cold War subcategories and Category:16th century naval battles

See proposals to delete Category:1960 in the Cold War, Category:1961 in the Cold War & Category:Cold War by year also Category:Military units and formations of the Cold War & Category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Cold War. And to rename Category:Cold War by period to Category:History of the Cold War. They are categories which seem unlikely to be extended beyond the few above. Also see proposal to upmerge Category:16th-century naval battles to Category:Naval battles of the Early Modern era Hugo999 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The CfD for Category:Military units and formations of the Cold War and the 16th century naval battles are at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 24; Hugo 999, would you mind adding the links to the discussions at the bottom of the WP:Milhist deletion sorting page? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Query about a repeated section in Nazi Leader articles

I want to raise a centralised discussion about the use of sections entitled "Awards" and "Service Career" that contain lists of medals and "honours" granted to leading Nazis like concentration camp commandants, Adolf Eichmann, Himmler, etc. Is this the correct place to raise this please, or is there a better location? Thanks for any help. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The above inquiry was generated by a discussion here for those seeking the background information. Main dispute appears to be whether or not articles on SS personnel should contain a list of dates of rank in the SS and a listing of Awards and decorations of Nazi Germany. My own opinion is that they should since this is sourced academic information of which countless texts and other reliable source information has been written. The often justification for removal (I've only seen two other cases) is that such material is "offensive", however WP:CENSOR clearly states this is not a valid argument for removal of sourced material. -OberRanks (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree. We're making no value judgments, just reporting facts. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The above gives a distorted interpretation of the purpose of such a discussion. At the moment, a large number of Nazi leader articles have had a section added to them containing section header wording like "Awards" or "SS Career", which I think may be intended to give an impression of military regularity and deservance which is wholly unjustified by the facts. I am not straightforwardly seeking to remove such material per se, but to place it in context. Some of the articles like Heinrich Himmler are still relatively short, given the historical role played by the leading Nazi figure in question and my impression is that these sections tend to distort the emphasis of some of the articles. However, I do think it would be polite to at least allow people to answer my initial query and not impute some false motive to me (removal of sourced material) in making this enquiry. Thank you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The awards and decorations section are clearly relevant as they were bestowed on the person by the gov. authorities or party authorities in power at that time or allowed by same. Now, if a better name can be agreed upon for said section, then lets hear it. One needs to view this objectively as historical information ONLY for general readers. It is NOT meant for any glory or positive recognition of some sort as these are ALL infamous men. These sections are included in (RS) books on the subject matter. See: The Allgemeine SS by Robin Lumsden; The SS: Hitler's Instrument of Terror by Gordon Williamson; The Order of the Death’s Head: The Story of Hitler’s SS by Heinz Höhne; Reinhard Heydrich: The Biography: Volumes 1 and 2 by Max Williams, to name a few. Kierzek (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem terribly anxious to ensure they are left in and to pre-empt any discussion, would it be OK with you if we first established where this discussion should take place, as per my initial request? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NO, that is not correct, James; please stick to the facts. I am commenting on a matter that has already been started. Kierzek (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I also see no problem in reporting the facts. So the "Awards" sections on many of the major Nazi officials' articles have never been a problem before, so I don't see why they are a problem now. However, I agree with James in regards to Heinrich Himmler's article being relatively short given that he was a major National leader in Nazi Germany (IMO, second only to Hitler) and given the fact that it was his orders that had more than 11 million people murdered on an industrial scale in what we now know as The Holocaust. His fanatical racist ideology, his virulent antisemitism, and his hunger for power were unparalleled (I don't even think Hitler was as depraved of a person as Himmler was). The Himmler article as it stands now isn't enough given the role this man has played in the 20th century. Bastian (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, also I am coming to the conclusion that the basic problem is that the military templates (Service Ranks, Awards, Medals, etc) don't apply to people like him who were not military figures, so this discussion is probably in the wrong place - I just need to figure out the right one! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is actually exactly the right place for this discussion and you now have at least five other editors all agreeing that these sections are appropriate and properly titled for these types of articles - moving to another noticeboard won't change the results. And Himmler was absolutely a military figure with command of both the Reserve Army and an Army Group. I suggest we end this under WP:SNOW. Time to move on. -OberRanks (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Himmler can be considered a military figure because he was made Commander-in-Chief of the Home Army. Bastian (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, he was made a "military commander" (in name only) for about 4 months out of the 16 years he was head of the SS, but the military template sections in that particular article don't just relate to that period. However, I was trying to raise the issue generally about treating Nazi highups and camp commandants as if they were mainstream military figures replete with "awards", "service careers", etc, which are actually pretty objectionable things to have in their articles. I am now clear this is a general biog/history issue and not a military issue, so this is actually the wrong place, as they were not primarily military figures. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

James I would highly encourage you to listen to what people are saying here. Lists of ranks and awards in articles on SS personnel is completely appropriate and acceptable as verified academic material. You now have six editors telling you this. Taking this to yet another noticeboard, starting up the same discussion again in an attempt to persuade others to your views when clearly the answer has already been stated here, is tendentious editing. Just walk away from this and be done with it. That's the last thing I'm saying on this topic. -OberRanks (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This does smack of forum shopping. I'm also unconvinced that deciding he isn't a military figure means that this discussion and the opinions of these editors can be simply discounted. All the reasoning I've heard seems to have come down to what you expressed in your last post, that these are 'pretty objectionable' things to have in articles. This is an opinion, and one you seem to be alone in holding. Benea (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well there aren't "six editors", until Benea chipped in I counted three against and one slightly in my favour! I'm not "forum-shopping", I'm trying to locate the correct place to have a discussion about it. The objectionality derives from the manipulation of POV by working in anodyne military phraseology ("Service Career"; "Awards"; "Military Rank") etc into Nazi high-ups articles. The academic material is almost certainly overwhelmingly against Himmler for example being interpreted as a "military commander" - his little end-of-the-war excursion into military command was simply part of his megalomania for empire-building within the Nazi system. I suspect what we see here is a misunderstanding. I am not seeking to delete all the material but to discuss how it is packaged and in which articles it is used. I'm surprised people have such little tolerance for such a discussion but if your reaction Benea is based on the earlier misinterpretation of my views by OberRanks, I would ask you to have a think about it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

James, what would you like to replace these section headers with? A section header named "awards" in these articles lists the awards given by the German government - legitimate awards that are apparently not objected to when they are given to non-SS members. Just because we don't like the actions the awards were given for doesn't mean that they weren't awards... As for a header like "SS Career" - I see nothing wrong with this - it is a section detailing a person's career in the SS. We see nothing wrong with section headers named "Army career" or "music career" or "competitive career" in other articles, so what is wrong with a header stating that the section that follows is a summary of the person's career in the SS? You say that these section headers "give an impression of military regularity", but they don't - we are not saying the awards were given for military duty or that the SS was part of the military. You can have "awards" sections in many non-military articles - musicians, actors, and athletes have them on a regular basis. We are not "treating Nazi highups and camp commandants as if they were mainstream military figures replete with "awards", "service careers", etc, which are actually pretty objectionable things to have in their articles." (the second is pure opinion, btw). We are treating them like any other person who has been given an award by a legitimate government or organization and who has had a career in a certain field. Should we now remove the "career" and "awards" headings from all musician articles because they give an impression of military regularity? No, nor should we for SS members. Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also troubled by what sounds to me like an effort to deny these men were given any decorations, because we find them, & their regime, objectionable. As I said here, are we going to delete awards to anyone we object to? Brits in Ulster? Americans at Abu Ghraib? Spartans who kept slaves? (OK, IDK if Spartans actually gave awards, seing they expected "death before dishonor". ;p ) This is introducing POV... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Several points in the above comments. (1) I'm not suggesting that we "deny they were given decorations", I am suggesting we think about how it's phrased in certain articles. In the case of Himmler, for example, it is really very debatable that he was a "regular" military commander (this is also true of Eichmann and Heydrich - not to mention SS Camp Commandants) and my argument is that the use of bland military terminology in the section headers bestows on them an aura of military regularity. (I'm also pretty sure that this appears to be an accident, I am not implying that it's deliberate POV-mongering.) On the issue of this all being fine because they were "legitimate awards", I am just puzzled by the language - legitimate in what way? The Nazis were the "legitimate government" of Germany? Anyway, putting those arguments to one side, my main point is that filling a large section of articles on leading members of the SS extermination machinery with lists of their "awards" and "career" notes does not make sense, as it in itself generates a particular POV or view of those figures, as basically regular military chaps. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your view James. I'm also troubled by the tone of some articles, though this does reflect the tone of some of the English language literature on topics such as the Waffen SS (eg, books which place a heavy emphasis on their supposedly unusually high bravery and good quality equipment and pay little attention to their war crimes). However, the nature of these individuals and their actions during the Nazi era should be in the body of the article as well as its lead. In general - and with exceptions - having sections which describe awards is OK as long as the supporting text is neutral and this is supported by reliable sources. The text at Heinrich Himmler#Awards doesn't strike me as being terribly neutral or sensible - it basically states that Himmler was a modest person who didn't take up all the medals he could have awarded himself and didn't wear many of those other people awarded him. How he then collected a whole heap of medals seems unclear. The claim that Hitler didn't "bestow upon himself lavish awards and decorations" in that article is really weird - I presume that whoever wrote it isn't aware of the extent of the Nazis theft of artworks and Hitler's role in this? The book its referenced to ("A Photographic Chronicle of Hitler's Reichsfuhrer-SS") doesn't look like a reliable source. To cut a long story short, I agree with your concern that we need to be careful to not present Nazis (and their equivalents in other countries) as being regular military people, but I don't think that there's a one size fits all rule that can be applied here. It's worth noting that, of course, many regular German military personnel were involved in the Holocaust and other war crimes (for instance, Erich von Manstein). Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that text refer to and thought it was a bit odd. On the main point, I do think that the point at issue is the "militariness" of certain figures. I realise that it isn't just about the holocaust and that "regular Army" people were involved in some actions, for example in assisting the Einsatzgruppen, in deportations of captured soldiers to certain death and in civilian massacres. However, I think that the leaders of the SS and "police" terror apparatus (SD, etc) should not generally be regarded as "military" figures in the same way that, say, Wermacht generals were or even commanders in the Waffen SS. I am wondering aloud if the lists of "awards" and "service ranks" give this impression wrongly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

♠"I'm not suggesting that we 'deny they were given decorations'" If I left that impression I thought you were, my apologies. I do get the sense you don't think the decorations were deserved, or perhaps that they should not be called "awards", tho, which is problematic for me.

♠"very debatable that he was a "regular" military commander" Agreed, & needs to be addressed as inaccurate (for them all).

♠"this all being fine because they were 'legitimate awards', I am just puzzled by the language - legitimate in what way? The Nazis were the 'legitimate government' of Germany?" That's my thinking, yes. What you or I think of the Nazi government, or the recipients of these decorations, is a non-issue IMO. The awards were given. Do we deny that because we dislike the régime? Or because we dislike the actions of the individuals involved?

♠I take your point on the wording possibly leaving a misleading impression & I agree. I don't, however, see a better way of handling it. Omission is POV itself. I do agree it should be distinct in SS/SD as from WSS, let alone Wehrmacht. I also agree entirely minimizing their role(s) in the Holocaust is a non-starter. (Furthermore, I'd say more mention of the Wehrmacht role in war crimes on the Eastern Front, beyond WSS aid, needs to be added, but that's another discussion...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside wording and content otherwise, the suggestion that awards, military or otherwise, granted by a government or orginisation which somebody served or worked for, shouldn't be included is troubling in and of itself. Wikipeda is neutral; regardless of how horrific the acts commited by a group, government or person were, omitting historical details for the purpose of not "glorifying" them is as bad as attempted glorification itself. Wikipedia is not censored, and if we start removing things from history, where do we stop? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is unfortunately a circular trend which I've seen happen many times on Wikipedia. I mean no offense here, I'm just laying out what I've seen happen on several different occasions over the past six to seven years or so. A new editor (or sometimes even a veteran one), will come across a detailed SS or Nazi article and be appalled that "such things" are on Wikipedia. There were be initial actions of removing "offensive material" followed by reverts from other editors who are then labeled as "Nazi fans" or some other form of name calling. Discussions will then begin on talk pages, the offended editor will raise point after point about how we don't need extensive information in Nazi articles, how such material is extremely offensive, and that to have such material on Wikipedia glorifies Nazi accomplishments. The editor will then question the motives of those who want to keep the information on Wikipedia, sometimes slipping back to name calling and accusing other editors of being Nazi sympathizers. As counterpoints, all the standard policies will be mentioned, mainly WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:CENSOR. Sometimes, the offended editor will then call for votes or visit noticeboards, in which case the same counterpoints are made by an even broader audience. In extreme cases, the offended editor will start engaging in canvassing, attempting to draw others to their views even in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. Eventually, one of two things will happen. The offended editor will calm down and work with others, realizing this is all academic material, and not Nazi glorification, or the editor will (in a figurative sense) say "to hell with you" and start blanking and deleting information from Nazi articles until they are blocked. For me, and now taking this most current situation into consideration, this is probably about the fifth such discussion I've had on Wikipedia on exactly the same topic. It would be nice if we could avoid such discussions before they happen, but that is the nature of Wikipedia. -OberRanks (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It also reflects the debates on this topic among historians and the public, and is probably unavoidable. There's a large literature of academic books and journal articles debating the historiography of World War II and how to treat the Nazis, and this goes to some fundamental issues. For instance, when should German names for things be used? In his recent (and excellent) three volume history of Nazi Germany Richard J. Evans argued that the common non-translation of many German terms confused English-language readers into thinking that they were somehow unusually important or 'special', and went out of his way to translate them. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the prospect of deletion that troubles me the most, because deletion is a covert POV. I make no accusations here, I just mean, the result isn't even-handed, good intentions or no. (BTW, even reading my own comments, I can see how it might look pro-Nazi. 8o ) IMO, the readers are capable of deciding for themselves. We're not writing for six year olds. Nor IMO should be be catering to the easily offended.

I've never heard the argument for "specialness", & I find it a bit odd, if true. DYK if that's just for German/Nazi items? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to get too far off topic, but when I started this line of academic study in 1987 (back when there were still WWII vets in the workforce) it was almost considered "un-American" and "strange" to study the German side of World War II. People who checked out books about Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the SS from the school library were usually sent to the guidance counselor with conversations like "Why would you read things like that? Don't you know what those people did?" Even into the 1990s, when I was an understudy to a Jewish professor at college, I still would get stares from people when a book with a swastika on it would be in my bag or when copies of SS files were laid out on tables in the study center for an upcoming paper. It is really only now, post 2010, that people are seemingly starting not to care too much. The reason - World War II ended nearly 70 years ago. The average 20-30 year doesn't seem to know (or want to know) that much about it. Twenty years from now, I wonder if the attitude will be that of the Civil War. I mean, how many people reading a book about Robert E. Lee or the History of the Confederacy are looked at as racist for doing so? The same thing here. Its about perception of the period and how far into the future we go when people stop having personal experiences, memories, or opinions of the event. -OberRanks (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a matter of historiography. The fact is that in the World War II period, the American Civil War was stripped of its racial context, and the history books were written, largely from a southern POV, consciously playing down the issues of slavery and racism. Since the 1970s, there has been a change. Reading about the Confederacy is already considered suspect, and likely to become more so over the next decades. As for World War II, there has been a lot of recent scholarship coming out of Germany, where a new generation of historians have been tackling the subject. However, it remains the case that German material is more accessible to English speaking readers. There is a good book on this subject, The Myth of the Eastern Front Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that I'd call The Myth of the Eastern Front a 'good' book, it certainly influenced my thinking about World War II and I agree that it's worth reading (though borrow rather than buy it IMO!). It did a good job of demonstrating how the western historiography on the war has been heavily influenced by the perspectives (and in some cases, outright deceptions) of German military officers, though it seems to have been written before the recent surge of books which reevaluate the fighting on the Eastern Front. Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To return to the actual question I was raising, rather than the misconstruing of it in various comments above, I was not advocating blanket deletion, or censorship. I am also not some clumsy novice arriving at Nazi articles and horrified to discover they exist in WP, so if we can please put simplistic arguments to one side, that would probably help. All I'm saying, and it's quite a simple point actually, is that at present a military-style template is being applied to senior Nazi figures who are not military officers other than in some deluded view of what the upper levels of the Holocaust machinery was about. I am talking now only about a small group of SS/SD movers and shakers in the Holocaust, most notably, the articles on people like Himmler, Eichmann, Heydrich, Hoess, Frank, Goeth and Kaltenbrunner just to give examples. (I am relieved at least to see that Muller and the Gestapo ones have not been treated the same way, although there are also odd exceptions - why no "career notes"/award lists for charming Franz Stangl - a step too too far perhaps?). It also is not a huge deal but it just doesn't look and feel right that long tedious lists of their trivia awards from the Nazi system ("Best Murderer for '44"? "Slickest Coverer-up of Hideously Unspeakably Evil Acts"? - I jest) appear prominently in these articles - the template makes them "look" like "regular military" guys. Note that the intro sentence of Heinrich Himmler contains the phrase that he was a "Military Commander" - there is a pattern here. I believe that most scholarship would reject the notion that these were military commanders. I could get into a war of references and academic views on that issue, but I wonder if we can't come to an informed view without that battle? It may be just a slight modification I'm calling for, something like a different way of heading these sections, perhaps removal of some fairly trivial material (some of the medals were 2-a-penny things given out by the SS or NSDAP to anyone who did anything) and maybe some changes to wordings. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If we want to get technical, nearly the entire Concentration Camp service may be considered as "regular military" since a 1942 directive folded the entire SS-TV into the Waffen-SS which was, undeniably, a branch of the German armed forces (at least operationally). Also, a 1944 directive gave every SS general an equivalent General's commission in the Waffen-SS for the sole purpose of granting them military status for command of forces/overseeing POW camps/and rights as a POW if captured. By that point also most of the security forces of the Kripo/Gestapo/SD had also been granted Waffen-SS reserve commissions. So to say these people were not i the "regular military" is to say that the Waffen-SS itself should not be considered military, which is a statement that would draw all kinds of issues with POV and OR. As for Himmler, I think it has now been stated several times that he served as a Military Commander of not one, but two Army Groups, as well as Commander of the German Home Army in charge of all homeland reserve forces; he was also nominally Supreme Commander of the Waffen-SS even though the operational commanders paid him little mind. Himmler failed miserably at these tasks, but it cannot be denied he held the title "military commander". At this point, I'm not sure where else to go with this. Changing titles and templates of only certain SS figures because we don't personally consider them on the same par as others who we deem "regular military" is just as bad as blanket removal. -OberRanks (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The view that Himmler's 12-week foray into high military command (a combination of desperation on Hitler's part, endless wrangling for power and sheer madness in the higher ranks of the Nazi administration) makes him a "military commander" worthy of this template is frankly bizarre. As for the rest of it, why are you being so selective (since this mainly seems to come down to your need to add these lists of Nazi awards to SS-officer-of-the-holocaust articles, OberRanks) in where you add them? Why only to certain very well-known SS figures and not other SS camp commandants, less-well-known but thought by academics to be key figures, in the SS heirarchy? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been warned before about violating WP:NPA [3]. This is not about "my need to add these lists". Comment on the content, not the contributor. -OberRanks (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It was never the intention of the MilHist Task force to cover only "regular military" commanders in an "accepted sense" which, it seems, is by no means accepted at all. Nor does the fact that an editor works on one article obligate the editor to perform the same tasks on all articles of that type. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, just on the most publicly known ones? I would have thought a template should be widespread though. However, maybe then it isn't actually a template as such, or in fact, not an agreed format? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There now appears to be yet another post on the original article page about removing material [4] as well as a personal note left on my user page by James attempting to fire this up further [5]. This is getting very tiresome and we are now at a user failing to get the point. I have asked for a closure to this discussion below which I hope will put a stop to this. If this continues much longer, or if James actually attempts to spread this onto other noticeboards and pages as he has again hinted to here [6] (it may have been a mistake to bring this up at all in a military project discussion type of way), or even worse starts removing this material, we may be looking at possible administrative action. Forgive me if I am out of line, but I think everyone can read between the lines here. -OberRanks (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh*. Yet again, I made no suggestion that material be removed. I suggested at Talk:Heinrich Himmler that the fact that many of his "Awards" listed under "SS Career and Service, etc" are in fact Nazi-Party awards and therefore could be labelled differently. It's actually quite misleading and annoying to be repeatedly mis-quoted and wilfully mis-construed in this way, for what appear to be complete misunderstandings. I made a complaint at OberRanks talk page about aspects of his conduct which he has blanked and which it is bad protocol to raise here. It wasn't my choice to raise them here. Discussions on the Himmler page about his Nazi Party awards are actually out of context for a military project page anyway. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And James has now started changing things, against the consensus that is clearly here and on the article talk page [7]. -OberRanks (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You both need to take your affray elsewhere, and read WP:CIVIL. And do try not to war edit, children. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the last thing we need is for this to appear as a personal conflict between two users. I've said all I plan to on this subject and just took the Himmler page off my watch-list. Best to all. -OberRanks (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're seeing it that way - I have tried to raise a genuine issue and instead have been subjected to all kinds of gaming, presumably because either my questioning of this is misinterpreted as a shallow attack on the existence of Nazi material within WP or else because of ownership problems. I had no intention of having a conflict with any editor, but if you want to shut down discussion before it even starts, on the grounds that you don't want it, there's not much usefulness in having a project discussion page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Motion to Close

Motion is proposed to close and archive the above discussion with the consensus that service summaries, rank histories, and award listings of SS and Nazi personnel are appropriate and proper for Wikipedia articles and that no change to existing procedures is warranted at this time. I support such a closure. -OberRanks (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is a need to review this material as senior SS officials in the holocaust were not military officers in the accepted sense. Therefore the use of mulitary templating in this context is confusing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support – It's getting boring, and is going round in circles. This board is not for fighting on. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - clearly enough has been said and James is now beating a dead horse (WP:DEADHORSE). There is no consensus for changes. Kierzek (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We've historically not closed discussions on this talk page, and I don't think that we should start now. Particularly as there's nothing to 'close'. You guys need to take a less confrontational approach to each other and use the dispute resolution process (see WP:DR) rather than attempt to use processes to 'win' the argument. It's only a Wikipedia article, so isn't worth getting worked up over. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. To return non-critically to the base point, my proposal is that Nazi Party high-ups whose main function was to supervise the holocaust should not be regarded as military officers and therefore their articles do not merit lists of "ranks" and "awards" as such. In this category I include Himmler, Heydrich, Eichmann, Kaltenbrunner, Globocnik, Hoess, Frank and Camp Commandants. I can produce a definitive list. If anyone else here feels the same, please say so. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said... round in circles. The discussion isn't worth having, because you're not interested in in anyone's POV other than your own, James - and I'm saying that as an uninvolved reader. You've accused other of gaming the system, ownership and some kind of support for Nazi-related content, when clearly other editors are interested in an unbiased history of Nazism; Nazism being the doctrine which led to WWII, therefore within MilHist's project scope, whether you dispute their role as "military" or not.. personally I think the system is futile if the editor is going to keep returning to base after every half-dozen replies to reiterate his POV with the same inflexible beliefs. As for "no point in having a discussion board, if the discussion never gets started" - this discussion is currently the longest on the page, and always atop my watch list - I'm sick as a fart of checking the page's history to see if I've missed replies to other topics on the page, because this now meaningless discussion keeps coming full circle, because editors do no want to respect each others views. Now, just because OberRanks has backed down, doesn't mean you have an "opportunity" to resurrect a fresh consensus, because it doesn't. It means he has the sense to let the matter drop, so should you. As Nick-D says, it's a few Wiki articles, not a bloody sport. And there appears to be a growing lack of good faith. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 00:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - sorry Nick, but the dead horse isn't getting deader, and playing word-games won't change history. We haven't historically closed discussions, but there's a first time for everything. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Now if I understand this correctly your argument is that the SS should not be regarded as military officers, which we do by using the terms rank and award in their articles. We do not treat them as military officers but as Paramilitary, which was why some senior Allied generals claimed they were not allowed prisoner of war status. If we do accept your POV that anyone not in the military can not have an awards or rank section, we would have to apply the same criteria to anyone wearing a uniform. Like police officers, firefighters, paramedics, Beefeaters and the Corps of Commissionaires. As the Baden powell article has an awards section should that also be deleted? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  Well I wasn't thinking of all SS officers per se. I didn't word my approach to this page very well initially. I had been at the Himmler article and found it puzzling that he is (on Wikipedia) regarded as having had a "career" and "awards" in the anodyne way one would discuss a regular army general. I was accused by two editors there (wrongly) of advocating censorship and they stated that it was a generic policy on military officers - so I came here to attempt to discuss it and the same two editors promptly declared that there was already a full consensus (of three) and that no further discussion was warranted. So I naturally get a little heated under those conditions. However, I still think (even if this is now a closed discussion as I can't apparently interest others in it) that it doesn't make sense to regard top holocaustiers like Himmler, Heydrich and their ilk as "military men" who should be described in that way. If that's what's happening - I assume it is, but I'm not quite certain. On the one hand, we have a template in use on those articles (the "SS Career" section) that seems similar to other military templates. On the other, the justification is being used that Himmler was a "military commander" for a few months, so that justifies its use. Perhaps the real problem is just that it looks as if it in some way tries to alter the tone of those articles, to seek to represent these Nazi bureaucrats of death as something they were not, regular military people. The same can be seen in other ways in some of the articles, via the use of flattering photos, weasel words ("execution" instead of "murder", "efficient manager" meaning "skilled organiser of killing", etc) and other points. I accept there may not be much to be done about it immediately but I was curious to find out if others agreed. I suspect a lot would and I am not wholly convinced that the Nazi Party upper-level apparatus should come within the purview of this page, it probably needs a separate project. If there isn't already one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Execute" literally means "put to death", it has no direct relation on whether the execution be legal or otherwise. The terms used are evidently to maintain a NPOV, bearing in mind that articles should not appear anti-Nazi, they should not be pro-Semitic either. There are plenty of non-flattering photos on articles specific to the holocaust and selected concentration camps. Bear in mind, Himmler's is a biography, and photos of victims would serve only to advocate the POV (albeit true) that he was a mass-murderer. Given that all the world knows this, there seems little point in creaming the cake further, or introducing forks. Himmler was a "man" (for want of a better word), holocaust was an event. Distinguish the two, objectively. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 15:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Broadly, I would agree with Nick-D, let it die a natural death. In this instance, & with previous experience, this appears to be a case for cloture. James' claims of "gaming" & his denial of a desire to delete, & complaints about being accused of wanting to introduce POV, seem disingenuous given his expressed preferences. Give it up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My God, how did anyone stand that length of circling debate?!? Although in James' defence, he has not yet attempted to wiki-lawyer to the extend that that Russian-named editor did, wilfully and repeatedly. But closure is best utilised to pre-empt similar behaviour from either party. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 20:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Who's Russian? Doesn't really matter. Kierzek (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"he has not yet attempted to wiki-lawyer " No, he didn't. I meant to say, it was that instance which leads me to favor cloture in this one. I see similarities. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Help requested from Naploleonic afficionados/Russian-speaking editors

Concerning Sholokhov (talk · contribs), Battle of Austerlitz and Battle of Borodino:

I've been asked for help on my talk page here regarding an editor who's been working on the above Napoleonic War articles. It seems there may be issues with inexperience, the quality of sources used and the fact that English isn't a first language, but I'm not familiar enough with either the campaign or language to be of much assistance. Any interested milhisters who are able to help out with verifying Russian language sources, and perhaps mentoring a relatively inexperienced editor, would be very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 09:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

и так ..... я! I'm available to translate Russian. Buggie111 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think translation is the key problem here - although Sholokhov clearly has an intermediate standard of English, but also that there are two opposing historians here: Sholokhov being pro-Russian, and Alexandru being a self-identified "Francophile". I know, from experience, that Alexandru can be very pushy in his pro-Bonaparte POV, and needs kicking back once he starts to get "insistent", to the point of nationalistic annoyance. Would advise someone keep an eye on the situation, as an experienced Wikipedian can easily take advantage of inexperience and lead to their contribs having a short life expectancy. Have noticed their discussions previously, with Alexandru pushing his own ideas as to who are good and bad scholars to quote, most of his being French authors, by the looks of things. Also noted that User:Tirronan is involved in kerbing Sholokhov's edits, not sure I agree with the near-tag-team technique or tactless approach used here: User_talk:Sholokhov#Battle of Borodino, particularly wording like: "I notice that you have reverted my edits again... I must warn you that I will not waste my time with you and will refer you to a disciplinary panel and you risk being banned from wikipedia", is borderline ownership and a very condescending attitude, imo. Just my 2c that someone more "admin" might want to monitor it, and perhaps interject - I think, whilst Alexandru is a keen and dedicated editor, he does not represent unbiased historical accounts or MilHist in a good light and is far too quick to revert things (57 "Undid" reverts in his last 500 contribs seems excessive, imo). I advise anyone looking to get involved not to take Alexandru's opinion of "quality of sources" lightly, he has his own opinions about authors, and can be quite pompous in defending them. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I overreacted a bit and probably should have cooled down before posting my message to Sholokov. I was particularly distraught by the alteration/deletion of referenced text and poor English and actually thought it to be vandalism at first. We get quite a lot of it on many articles that I follow (this is why there is quite a lot of reverting in my contribution history...). Nevertheless, Sholokov seems to have a decent amount of goodwill and he made efforts to improve his writing. Tirronan and I have agreed to try to help him and work with him.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add that there was no near-tag-team technique. I wrote to Tirronan because he spent months getting the Borodino article up to GA-class (Marcus, you know yourself how much work and research that requires...). I too have written a section of it and helped review it and was just unwilling to see it chopped to pieces or downgraded. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I completely understand. He does need to learn to form more productive contribs, especially on GA/FA articles. And in return you need to follow don't bite the newbies, especially in the case of someone with weaker English; I'm sure you can sympathise with him there. I appreciate your civil reply, and am glad you have not taken my comments to heart - the Napoleonic Era is such an involved period, highly complex, and is often hard to source due to much bias by many historians; your hard work and dedication is needed, but don't get too carried away with supporting French, Russian, English, or Prussian involvement too favourably, it pays to be neutral and treat it as "history that is as it happened", and not something to be defended too rigorously. Napoleon may have been defeated, but without him we wouldn't have so much to enjoy studying, and so many great characters such as he, Wellington, and many more. Considering how en.wiki encompasses more contributors from the Anglosphere, a natural bias in itself, we should aim to welcome editors with more external national interests with an open mind to get a wider POV. This lad, Sholokhov, seems keen to express a more Russian view of things. Take care to welcome it and guide him how to neutralise it, so that it remains objective, as I'm sure Russia is one those places where sources once rarely saw the light of day to even be translated. I note your concerns regarding the Soviets rewriting or censoring many things, but it cannot all be completely rewritten or lost, and Russia is no longer some "Commie" place under a shroud of propaganda; I expect much is buried in their archives and texts which needs realistic consideration. Aurevoir! :) Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I kind of told Tirronan that he shouldn't be there and htat he was not helping the situation. Apologies. Buggie111 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As he has yet to reply, you have time to amend your comments. If his involvement in the articles was not obvious, then you are not to blame. AGF. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Struck the comment. Buggie111 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

SVG maps of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria

Currently the Vietnamese Wikipedia version of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria article is a FA, and features quite detailed Vietnamese-language SVG maps of the order of operations. Would it be possible if someone could translate these SVG maps into English so that they can be incorporated into the respective article on the English Wikipedia?

• 
• 
• 

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"My" tool, SVGtranslate, may be useful in this regard. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for William Sterling Parsons now open

The A-Class review for William Sterling Parsons is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) now open

The featured article candidacy for Peter Jeffrey (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) 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Chaplain-Medic massacre‎ now open

The featured article candidacy for Chaplain-Medic massacre 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) 01:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kenneth R. Shadrick now open

The A-Class review for Kenneth R. Shadrick is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Special projects

This thread is restating for a wider audience the question asked here at the co-ordinators' election.

I've been looking at the four 'special projects' listed under this WikiProject (Brothers at War, Majestic Titan, Operation Normandy, and Great War Centennial), and I wanted to know what views editors here have on how successful these projects have been so far and what could be done to help these special projects. In other words, what can be done to help them become more active (for the ones that are not very active), and what can be done to help them achieve their current stated goals (or establish more attainable ones)? Also, what lessons can be learned from how the special projects have worked out so far, and what approach should be taken regarding any future special projects that get proposed? I'll post to the talk pages of the respective special projects in case those watchlisting them are not watching this page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Normandy#Any one still out there? for those interested. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. Operation Majestic Titan works because it has a defined scope and a very committed community of contributors. Great War Centennial (which, as it happens, I started - though before the 'special projects' idea got going) hasn't really got anywhere; it is still really at the "what should the goals be?" stage. However, it remains my view that working on World War I articles ought to be a priority for the whole MilHist Wikiproject, particularly as there are literally huge opportunities to combine it with GLAM outreach activities, and it is a group of articles which we know for sure will have a huge profile worldwide in 2014-2018. So perhaps we need a plan to re-launch that somewhat languishing project...? The Land (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but what it really needs is a concerted effort to reach out to the editors currently editing the pages within the WWI task force's scope, to see how many of those are interested in collaborating on the Centennial project. Some will be quite content to carry on with the editing they are doing, rather than participating in a project like that, but some may be interested. That and contacting directly those who participated previously. Once there is an idea of how many editors might be available, the scope can be adjusted accordingly (to something achievable) and then expanded if more editors join in. I recently (Sunday) purchased the new biography of Douglas Haig (published this year) and looked at the article to find that no-one has used it yet, but there is someone editing around that topic. That is one example. There are lots of editors editing on this topic, just not possibly aware or interested in collaboration. Possibly a revamping of the GWC project is needed before any such outreach to get more editors involved. Shall we discuss more over there? The same approach might work for other projects as well. One thing that puzzles me though is where discussions like this (on future strategy) are meant to take place for task forces if the talk pages are redirected here? Special project talk pages were kept separate, but as far as I can tell task force talk pages all redirect here, so it is difficult to post a more focused message directed just at members of the WWI task force, for example. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Honouring Bahamut0013

I wanted to start a discussion here regarding a couple of items. I have proposed the idea, which has so far been accepted, to do a rare honouring of a deceased Wikipedian (in this case Bahamut0013) by attaching a pair of posthumous barnstars from his talk page to his main user page. Right now I'm working with Moonriddengirl on the exact way that will be done, but we would like input from you, the people who have edited the most with him, as to how to best do this tribute. I simply want to add a pair of barnstars, but if you think there is another even better and more fitting tribute to append in a box on his userpage (see the sandbox to see how it currently appears), we're interested. The big question for us - and odd to think this is the big question - is how to title the box. We've thrown out a number of ideas such as "Awarded posthumously", "Posthumous barnstars", "Posthumously awarded, with great respect", "With our deepest condolences, posthumously awarded", but can't seem to pick a single one to go with. In order to make this the most fitting tribute, what do you guys think we should call this, and is there more we can do in tribute? My latest title idea is "From all of your friends, with deepest respect." I've also made a small touch to the barnstars for consideration (and in fact, I think it'd be a nice touch for all barnstars in general, but that's for another time and place).

Keep in mind anything we do will be added in a single collapse box above his userpage, so the focus remains on preserving his userpage. I just feel this is a rare case we as a community can do more to honour someone who has had a huge impact on Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. And I like "Posthumously awarded, with our deepest condolences". (Just a twitch different.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know the guy but, have read good things about him. It is nice you want to honor him. I like, "Posthumously awarded, with great respect". Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a phrase should include something like "in recognition of contributions to wikipedia" - would make it rather long though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You think something like, "Posthumous barnstars in recognition of contributions to Wikipedia"? That's what it looks like. We still have a little room, so space isn't an issue if we use seven or eight words. The only concern is being too wordy. CycloneGU (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could accept a collapsable box at the top of the page, but since I was asked to weigh in on the matter I'd suggest something a little less intrusive. Like others (including myself), bahamust0013 made use of the high floating icons to advertise certain positions he held on his main user page. In his case, he made use of the following coding to accomplish this:

{{top icon | imagename = | wikilink = | description = | icon_nr = 2 | width = 30}}

If we were to add two additional top icon codes to his page, we could add the icons for the Chevron w/Oak Leaves Award and the Titan's Cross in Silver in such a way that they would always be visible, we could add descriptions to note that the awards are rare and thus highly valuable, and ensure that a link is left behind so that those desiring to learn more about the posthumous awards he received have the ability to click and go to the awards pages to read up on the Titan's Cross and the Chevron w/Oak Leaves Award. Being open minded, I would also be open to the idea of using both methods to honor his memory, if that turns out to be best approach. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the icons in the top-right of the main userpage? It's a cool idea, but then it seems like they are shuffled out of the way into the corner not giving the attention the awards deserve. I still like the collapsible userbox idea for that reason; it takes up a small amount of space, but can be expanded by anyone wondering what it is, and heypresto...this Wikipedian was posthumously awarded some special stuff.

If I am by any chance mistaken in what these are, please correct my thinking. CycloneGU (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As time passes, memories will fade. Is it suitable that an annual award be given to an editor for articles about the United States Marine Corps, as Bahamut0013 was a Marine. Given that 10 November is the anniversary date of the USMC, perhaps that would be a good month to bestow the award to an individual (or individuals) who within the past year, significantly adds to the USMC portal with significant, highly-raterd articles? Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Much as I like Bwmoll3's idea, I am concerned this could provoke jealousy among other editors who aren't getting awards. There are a lot of people here, & a lot of important contributions are made... As for the other, I wholeheartedly agree, except the collapsable part. Is there a reason not to leave it on open display? In the fashion of a memorial plaque. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I, too, wish to see the awards displayed in a default open position, not default hidden. That, or just put it in a non-collapsible box. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I originally thought of putting it on straight display on the page, but we have to consider the page itself is now in memorium to the editor in question. Thus, putting the awards both right up there smack dab at the top without collapsing them means some people don't see the "passed away" box due to their screen size or resolution (very few I'd hope). It also removes the focus from the preservation of the page and suggests we want to blatantly put the awards up there with disregard to that ideal. CycloneGU (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

I'm making a merge request to merge Second Ivorian Civil War into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis. Make your inputs. B-Machine (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Siege of Vyborg (1710) now open

The peer review for Siege of Vyborg (1710) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Project A119 now open

The A-Class review for Project A119 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Tagging for Milhist

I'd like to gauge where we are on tagging articles for Milhist ... and I have an example in mind, Athenian democracy. Actually, there's nothing about military history in this article at the moment, so I'm not suggesting we tag it yet. But Jonathon Ross (professor of military history at San Jose State) points out in War and World History that the rise of democracy in Athens may have depended on the fact that, in the hoplite fighting style, each man's life depended on trusting the others in the formation; this may have created bonds of trust that made democracy possible. With the new material, would it make sense to tag this for our project? Would it make a difference if it appeared that someone was actively maintaining the article, so that it wouldn't be likely to increase our project's workload much? (What I really want to know, I guess, is whether it's okay to tag articles that feel like "history, enlightened by a military perspective".) - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but doubting if tagging is appropriate. While that fact would also be a brilliant addition to the Hoplite article, I'm not sure that adding it to Athenian democracy would bring it under our scope. While the foundation of democracy may have been dependant on soldiers' trust for each other, it was likely also depenent on many other factors, and that Athenian style of democracy is less famous for how it was inspired, and more for how it worked and how it endured. It may be a similar case to biographies; as I understand, we don't tag bios where the military service was only a minor element of their life or 'claim to notability'. -- saberwyn 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How about for a theoretical article, Origins of Athenian democracy? - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you will find other views that assert that bonds of trust can be generated by things other than military service or even the specific hoplite fighting style. I personally wouldn't tag either the 'Athenian democracy' or the 'Origins of Athenian democracy' articles for MilHist. I would look for the main topic being military in nature, or a substantial section (e.g. in a biography) being about the military or military service in some way. Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Good, I think that's right, I'd apply the "substantial military section" test, too. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not tag either article for MilHist. There is not enough of a nexus. Political Science would be more appropriate for them. Kierzek (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Hoplite warfare leads to democracy is part of the Western Way of War debate. It may be sufficient of a debate to be refered to in an article on democratic origins but probably deserves its own article, with MILHIST tag. Personally, I think there are too many articles tagged to MILHIST due to a mention of something military which does not form a substantial part of the article Monstrelet (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors Needed

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

This fall, the Department of Political Science here at the University at Albany (SUNY) is participating in the US Education Program for the first time, and we are in need of online ambassadors who are willing to assist graduate students (mostly master's students and some PhD students) with creating, editing, and improving their Wikipedia articles as a part of their course assignments.

The course is called Political Violence: Terrorism and Insurgency, and as a part of the course, the students are required to enter a 1,500 word wikipedia entry on a VEO (Violent Extremist Organization) or an insurgent organization.

Most of the students are new to contributing to wikipedia, so there will most likely be a lot of basic editing questions you will have to guide them through.

If you are interested, please let me know and I will add you to our pod list so that the students can begin working with you.

Thank you in advance for your interests and assistance.

Sincerely,

Steve Sin --SSIN@UAlbany (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is also an approval process to be an online ambassador, essentially just to make sure you aren't a newbie trying to help other newbies. See more about the role here and feel free to apply here. We'd love to have more people! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, looking forward to reading their articles.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

British-Canadian Congress Military Ranks

Think we need some eyes-on on this one.. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bogus, modeled after ranks of the Soviet Union. Candidate for speedy delete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

G3, tube 3, match generated bearings and shoot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger, are you RFSU or a submariner? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Last day to vote in the coordinator elections

Just a reminder, for anyone that hasn't voted yet: today is the last day to vote in the September 2011 coordinator election. All votes need to be entered by 23:59 UTC to be counted. All members of the project are encouraged to vote! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Help desk question

I thought people here might be able to help review this problem posted at the help desk. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Yom Kippur War

I have nominated Yom Kippur War 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. Brad (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

New coordinators

The 2011 coordinator elections have now concluded, and the new coordinators are taking up their roles. The XI coordinator tranche will be led by Dank, our new lead coordinator, and consists of Adamdaley, Buggie111, EyeSerene, Hawkeye7, Hchc2009, HJ Mitchell, Ian Rose, MisterBee1966, Nick-D, Nikkimaria, Sp33dyphil, Sturmvogel 66, and The ed17. Roger Davies and I will both be continuing in our roles as coordinators emeritus.

Congratulations to the new coordinators, and thanks to all of the candidates for having volunteered to serve as coordinators! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done all, looking forward to a fresh project year! (I take my vote back handers via Paypal. ;-) ) Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 02:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for De Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle now open

The A-Class review for De Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

early history of the tank related question

In the course of reading through the tanks in World War I article I was intrigued by the image showing "Eyewitness" Swinton with Benjamin Holt. The caption identifies the image as Swinton honouring Holt for his contributions to the war. I was interested to find out what the exact form the plaudit took but have nothing so far. A google search turned up page 294 from Swinton's own memoirs where he records a meeting with Holt but that seems to be during the war not after. Anyone shed some light? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just searched through the only relevant book I've got (A new Excalibur by AJ Smithers). I haven't re-read it cover to cover, but going by the index entries for "Holt", "Holt tractor" and "Swinton" there's no mention of any meeting between the two. EyeSerene^talk 16:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Another Idea

Thanks to Bwmoll3 for the above idea, which I've quoted here:

As time passes, memories will fade. Is it suitable that an annual award be given to an editor for articles about the United States Marine Corps, as Bahamut0013 was a Marine. Given that 10 November is the anniversary date of the USMC, perhaps that would be a good month to bestow the award to an individual (or individuals) who within the past year, significantly adds to the USMC portal with significant, highly-raterd articles? - 13:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not something I can do myself, but I kinda like the idea of an award named after such a prolific editor. I'll take the opinions from the prior discussion and consider them in what we do with his user page, and I thank you for that input. This thread is to discuss naming an annual award after him. I won't be part of this one, but want to pledge my support to the idea. CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Outside of the Wikipedia world, distinguished individuals are commonly honored for their achievements in life. In this virtual Wikipedia world, I see no reason why we should not do so as well. There are many other awards given out here to editors to highlight their significant contributions. Having a named award will both honor him, as well as the contributions others make in the future to the USMC portal of articles for as long as this virtual encyclopedia exists. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea; it both honors Bahamut0013's contributions, and encourages us to recognize those made by other editors—a valuable thing, for a project that's been criticized for being too stingy with praise. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My only thought is that although it would be very appropriate, confining the award to USMC-related articles might be too narrow a field. Perhaps we could extend it to all US military history related content? EyeSerene^talk 16:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Scale model info for ships/aircraft/tanks, etc.

I have a relatively new user adding information about various scale models that have been produced depicting HMS Vanguard (23). I don't think that it actually adds any worthwhile info, although I can see how a model enthusiast might find it of interest. Do we have a project policy about this sort of thing? If not, should we develop one?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While on one hand I can't see any reason to include information about a model, I can't think of a specific guideline that would be violated by including it. If a model had been the No. 1 desired item in the top modelling magazine, or had been the number 1 seller for Christmas then I can see the point of a brief mention. My general feeling is that it is not significant to mention. Perhaps a concensus will emerge in this discussion that can then be used for pointing the way.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I cant see that models of the ship are really notable to the ship unless as Graeme has said it was something really unusual like huge sales or some other innovation, although if it was that notable a model it could have its own article! MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't we already include General characteristics specifications in articles such as aircraft, tanks and ships ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The immediate problem is that the edits on Vanguard are unsourced, but I'm with GraemeLeggett and MilborneOne on the principle that if a model is notable for some reason, it could have its own article. If not, we don't really need to know about it. I've moved the section in question to the Vanguard talk page for further discussion. EyeSerene^talk 13:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the only other need to mention a model that I can think of would be if it was one of the very first Airfix kits that led to the explosion in model making, or something along those lines. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Surley this is a weight issue? Unless the model is notble then including information about it gives it undue weight?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there's sufficient notability in reliable sources , there seems little point in including it. The Vanguard model doesn't seem to meet these requirements. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What I don't want to see is us put the editor off contributing. Any suggestions as to where their energies might be more productively directed? I'm wondering if the sort of information they're adding (it's not just to Vanguard) could find a home in articles about the companies that produce the models, for example. EyeSerene^talk 16:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

The A-class review for the Battle of Vukovar has only been up for review for 11 days, but I just want to alert potential reviewers that this one may be headed back to FAC sooner rather than later, to try to make the main page by the 20th anniversary. "At the time it was the fiercest and most protracted battle in Europe since the end of the Second World War". - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Featured_article_candidates/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin/archive1

For this one, my guess is that the delegates are going to want someone to do "spotchecks", wiki-jargon for checking the article against some of the sources for accuracy but no close paraphrasing. Phil may be able to give you a list of the sources that are at least partially available online. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

2nd Arkansas Mounted Rifles Article

Article: 2nd Arkansas Mounted Rifles

Over the past few weeks or 2 months, I've been helping a user with the "American Civil War" mainly to do with Arkansas articles. Personally, I would ask for more references, sources, etc for it, because I've looked over it a couple of times. Some areas (of the article) I feel need a little clean up. He came to me asking for feedback and assessments on the article's he created so I decided to help him. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

IRC channel failing

How come the MilHist IRC channel is almost deserted? I just want to raise awareness that the channel can be a quick way for MilHist members to sort problems out, and to socialise. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I always forget to log on. ;-) More people online would be nice, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know there was one. If new coords are keen on utilising it more this year, to improve communication between members, it might be worth promoting it more, somehow. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 04:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

More participation would be welcome, though personally I'm ambivalent about the use of IRC with Wikipedia. If we decide to try to make more of it, it might also be worth deciding as a project what it should and shouldn't be for and perhaps appointing some more ops (IIRC Ed is the only one at the moment?) EyeSerene^talk 14:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It has its uses, particularly for quick collaborating and answering questions. Serious discussions are better on-wiki for the paper trail, as not everyone uses IRC. I feel like I gave someone else op ages ago (Dank or NativeForeigner, maybe?) but I think I'm the only one who logs on semi-regularly. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

bahamut0013

This is just a cursory note that bahamut0013's user page has been edited based on the input of everyone here with the two permanent barnstars now in place. I believe the outcome turned out quite nicely and I think the way it's presented has met my reservations that previously warranted a collapsible box. You will see it's non-collapsible, and there for anyone who happens by.

Thank you for your opinions everyone! =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this. EyeSerene^talk 10:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

French submarine La Sibylle

The French submarine La Sibylle article states that she was lost in November 1942. However, The Times of 29 September 1952 states that a submarine of this name was lost in the Mediterranean the previous day. Were there two subs with this name? If so, the current article will need moving and a shipindex page will need creating. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Two different ships. See HMS Sportsman (P229) and Time magazine. :-) Given that the second La Sibylle was only under the name for a year, I'd keep the articles the same but put a hatnote both. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Ships convention is that the ships are dabbed by year of launch. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but I don't think a second article will be needed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No need for second article, just redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Background of the Spanish Civil War/archive2

This one is up for FAC again. I tried to play around with the prose, and I feel lost. Anyone want to tackle it? - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1st Airborne Division Good Topic

The 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom) had been nominated as a Good Topic here. Thanks to WP:OMT there are several ship based Good Topics but this is the first one on an army formation and its campaigns. All editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Meetup in London?

I'm going to be in London from 1 to 5 November. If any UK-based editors are available and interested in meeting up with me for a beer, lunch, etc, please drop me a note on my talk page or email me. I promise to not make you drink Fosters or eat Vegemite :) Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Massacre of 288 Serbian prisoners (involving Norwegian paramilitary on July 18, 1942)

Is the following worthy of an article?

"The Beisfjord massacre (Norwegian: Beisfjord-massakren) was a massacre on July 18, 1942 in Beisfjord, Norway.

288 political prisoners were shot or holocausted at the Lager I Beisfjord (literally, from German: "camp" + "one" + "Beisfjord") (The massacre had been ordered "a few days in advance" by Josef Terboven.

After World War 2:

"That Norwegian pupils are sent on organized buss trips ( "de hvite bussene") to Germany and Poland to get a sense of the atrocities there, without knowing that equivalent atrocities were committed in Norway, puzzles the leader of Nordnorsk Fredssenter in Narvik", Aftenposten wrote in 2009.

"That the events [of the massacre] where covereded up, is feared by the chief (museumsbestyrer) of Krigsminnemuseet (a museum), because a paramilitary force of Norwegians (hirdmenn) participated in the atrocities", Aftenposten wrote in 2009.

Interwiki no:Beisfjordsmassakren

Orncider (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The article has been created,Beisfjord massacre.Orncider (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The article has now had a good going-over by me to cleanup the grammar and formatting. It still relies heavily on a single source (in Norwegian), and is really only a stub. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

{{London Gazette}} template in Action of 25 September 1806

Hello all. There seems to be an issue with the use of a few {{London Gazette}} templates in Action of 25 September 1806 which means that a couple of large error warnings appear below the tables in this article. I think it may be as simply as missing information but I don't think I can fix it. Wondering if anybody out there can, it looks a bit tacky otherwise. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You need date= parameter, per the templates required fields. If you put anything "dud" in there, it'll show "dud". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Marcus. Actually that was easier than I thought, turns out the missing date was 30 September 1806. I've added this now which fixed it. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Ottoman battleship Abdul Kadir now open

The peer review for Ottoman battleship Abdul Kadir is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename the Jadas Maccabeus article to Judah Maccabee

I've started a discussion at Talk:Judas_Maccabeus#Suggesting_move_to_Judah_Maccabee about whether to move the article to "Judah Maccabee". I'm the only participant in that discussion so far, and I would like to see more opinions expressed there before I ask a sysop to move it. Since the article is listed as being within the scope of this WikiProject, I figure that participants in this WikiProject would know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. I've left a similar message at WikiProject Judaism as well in order to ensure the wider range of insightful opinions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal review for Napoleonic Wars

Portal:Napoleonic Wars is currently up for Featured Portal review at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Napoleonic Wars. Members are invited to comment. For those unfamiliar with FP criteria, please see Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Note: Reviewing portals does not appear anywhere near as demanding as FAR, so will take up much less time if you are interested in having a go. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add List-Class

Following several rounds of preliminary discussion (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#List-Class), a proposal has been made to introduce a "List-Class" rating in our assessment scheme. To help ascertain the feelings of the project on the matter, a set of questions is presented below; responses from anyone with an interest in this topic would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Interest seems to be quite low in this topic, and most other discussions at the moment. Any further thoughts, comments and !votes towards the two questions posed below would be appreciated. As we now have a new "project year" to look forward to, we should look at what new things to implement, sooner rather than later; the handling of lists being one of those areas of concern. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 17:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction of List-Class

Should a List-Class rating be introduced in principle?

Yes

• Support per all my previous comments. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 21:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• I rarely work with lists but if the editors who regularly do are saying this would be useful, I don't see why not. My preferred implementation would be to distinguish lists from other types of article by an additional "List" parameter in the WPMILHIST template, so we'd have both Stub- to A-Class articles and Stub- to A-Class lists (provided we also examine the assessment schemes - see my comment in Scope of List-Class below). EyeSerene^talk 17:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support - A list is not an article, so trying to categorise Lists using the same criterion as articles is a case of square peg, round hole, and the missing List-class at MILHIST has always befuddled me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support Per Bushranger. Buggie111 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support I think this would be useful. None of the criteria for "Start" class really apply to lists and A1-A5/B1-B5 only apply tangentially. Current assessment criteria really don't give an editor much guidance on how to move a list up the quality scale. Mojoworker (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - seems sensible. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support LeonidasSpartan (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No

• I don't see the benefits of this. Lists are expected to meet the same standards as other articles so having a separate assessment scale would be unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope my comment about separate assessments hasn't detracted from the focus of the proposal - how list class/classes might be implemented is up for debate. As I understand it one of the fundamental reasons behind the proposal is simply that if we tie lists into a category or categories it would make them easier to find for those who want to work on them. EyeSerene^talk 14:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Undecided

• Not sure of the benefits. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Other

Scope of List-Class

If List-Class is introduced, what articles should it be used for?

NB: Lists are not normally accepted for GAN though exceptions are made for those where the "list" is more supportive of considerable prose sections.

All lists below FL-Class (List → FL)

All lists below A-Class (List → A → FL)

All lists below GA-Class (List → GA → A → FL)

All lists below C-Class (List → C → B → GA → A → FL)

Some other subset

• For now List → C → B → [GA →] A → FL works, but I really think anything which starts as a List and remains mostly List-orientated needs to have its own criteria for reviews, even if that means sub-set C- B- A-List criteria. As we know GA takes articles on merit, and reviews are more personal to the individual article content, whilst standard promotion is via project-wide criteria aimed at "the subject" of the project. As such, we need to define what makes a List meet MilHist standards. Just as WP:SOLDIER was written for MilHist to agree to WP:N for soldiers, we need a similar consensus as to project criteria for a List to progress from List to FL through steps similar to C → B → A to give both editors and reviewers something comfortable to work with - at the moment BCR/ACR criteria is more prose-based and unsuitable for List assessment. In the end we need something that follows a form such as: List → C-list → B-list → [GA →] A-list → FL - even though the final grade might be an "A-class", for example, to fit in with Wiki's system, by having List articles meet clear and appropriate MilHist "A-list" criteria for the purpose of assessing fairly, they would be consistently en par with other A-class articles, rather than a close-approximation.

Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 15:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that if we're going to do this it would be useful to have a whole new set of criteria to review against, from Stub right through to A. It may turn out that we decide there are only minimal differences between, say, a Start-Class List and Start-Class Article, but it's perhaps still worth examining the concept. EyeSerene^talk 17:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I thought GA is not applicable to lists?!?!?! Did I miss something? See Wikipedia:Good article criteria#What is not a good article? My choice would be: All lists below C-Class (List → C → B → A → FL)MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I put that in the "NB" 2 lines down from the top of this section. ;) Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 08:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I have to read more carefully :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Can we have two assessments recorded List/Stub up to List/FL (missing out GA). So it would look something like {{WPMILHIST|class1=Start|class2=List|B1=N|B2=N|b3=y|B4=N|B5=Y}} Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So, would that score of 2=y 3=n create a C-class list, if it were being assessed for equivalent of BCR? Ma®©usBritish ^[talk]

Actually thinking about it again .... it makes no sense to me if we only use "list" to classify the lower quality articles. I think it makes no difference if we use list or start class at lower class ratings if the distinction gets lost at higher ratings. So if we are to introduce a list classification it would make sense to retain this at all class levels. So Jim's and Ma®©usBritish's suggestions have merit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In that scenario, would the end result be two parallel assessment paths:

• Stub → Start → C → B → GA → A → FA
• Stub → List → CL → BL → AL → FL

(leaving Stub-Class for both, as the "type" of article may not be distinguishable at that point)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like that - as long as those on the List track have criteria more suited to lists than prosey articles. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Mojoworker (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree too MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• My opinion is that List → A → FL would be the most logical sequence, but including B class would be an acceptable compromise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Based on my experience, mostly creating the various recipients of the Knight's Cross lists, I would like to see us retain the lower levels of the quality scale. The hurdle from list-class to A-class is very steep, at least on the lists I have worked on. Taking the article to B-class gives you some degree of accomplishment on the way. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New portal

File:Grenadier Pied banner1804.png

The Napoleonic Wars Portal Hello, WikiProject Military history! I should like to announce a brand new wiki portal at Napoleonic Wars, which I have created for this huge historical topic. Please feel free to visit and participate in its development. «Vive l'empereur!»   —Regards, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]

The new portal looks good.

On a related note, it's been some time since we had any of our portals promoted to featured status. Would there be any interest in pushing a few through the process? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. I have read the Featured Portal criteria, in order to make this Napoleonic Wars portal high standard, and it's not really that much to do - mainly "include this, include that" stipulations, to pass. Might be able to do a few - I'll familiarise myself with the process with this one first, and then see what the others need, in the near future. The only thing is, portals must be maintained - I would recommend the new coord team discuss ways of making MilHist portals better known to members, so that they are checked at least once a month - setting up randomising boxes is easy enough, to save someone manually changing content often, but the criteria does state that portals not maintained at least once per quarter, may be demoted. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "once per quarter" rule only really applies to portals that have some element which requires manual updates. I don't think anyone will complain of a lack of maintenance if the entire portal is completely automated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably something like that. I think, if that's the case, Portal:American Civil War will need some looking at and updating - several of the boxes are not automated, and despite a Special Project for the ACW, is not getting a great deal of manual TLC. Will see to it asap. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

One down: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Brothers at War#Portal updates Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of ironclad warships of Germany now open

The A-Class review for List of ironclad warships of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)