Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 118

• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 100
• 110
• 113
• 114
• 115
• 116
• 117
• Archive 118
• 119
• 120
• 121
• 122
• 123
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

IWM First World War Centenary information

Hiya all, this is a largely theoretical query, but seems worth raising. In the horror that is Farcebook, I follow the Imperial War Museum's First World War Centenary feed, which is a welcome change to the usual drivel that many of my friends seem intent on posting. One of their daily updates is Faces of the war, which quite often includes some notable individuals. These updates are posted on Flickr. Today, Private Jack Thomas Counter has come up and includes a bit of blurb on the flick page. In this instance, there's a bit of useful information that isn't on the wikipedia page (ie. that he was a postman). I know that in this instance, this is only a small bit of info and might easily be found elsewhere, but theoretically, given that it's come from the IWM, could we treat these flickr updates as a reliable source? Obviously as long as we stick to the IWM text and not comments from other individuals.

BTW, I do recommend following the Facebook page if you're interested in this sort of thing. It's quite enlightening. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's in the upper blurb rather than reader comments, I'd be happy with sourcing it to them - although it may also be helpful to use it as a jumping-off point for finding another source. (It's often easier to find the reliable sources when you already know what they should say...). Is it worth adding it as an external link as well? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to clarify above that "...theoretically if it can't be found in other sources, given that it's come fro the IWM..." They might make good external links in some instances, but I suppose only if there's a fair bit of information in them. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Material such as this posted on social media sites by expert organisations are reliable sources. This material is typically researched and written by expert curators (who sometimes post it themselves as part of their duties), and can be treated the same way as material posted on the organisation's own website. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What are the rules for taking photos at US military facilities?

I have an opportunity to visit Yongsan Garrison in S. Korea, but my potential host thinks that I may not be allowed to take any photos there. So, topic question: what are the rules for taking photos of such places? If anybody can link to a .gov website answering it, which I could sent to my potential host, double thanks (better to have official rules then hearsay)! PS. Found [1], which states: "Public access to Army installations is determined by local commands. Photographing historical buildings or areasof public interest for private use is generally permitted but also subject to approval by the local command." I guess that means that a special permission needs to be obtained? Any idea how to go around getting one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Almost all Army posts -- and I guess other service installations as well -- have a public affairs office. There may also be info at the visitor center.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What it also tends to mean is that each post commander can set their own rules regarding pictures in certain areas. If in doubt, always check with Public Affairs and watch for signs. In most cases areas that you aren't supposed to take pictures in are clearly marked (signs on fences, walls, etc.). Intothatdarkness 13:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt, always ask. Much of what happens on a military base is up to the local commander. Operational security is especially important in this day and age of terrorism by guerilla formations to achive their goals. The local public affairs officer can usually cut through any red tape as long as your request is reasonable and doesn't violate OPSEC. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that technically, most installations do have a posted sign that prohibits all unauthorized photography. However, I would agree with the other editors, contact the PAO for the unit that is in charge of the installation (not just a tenant unit) Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Donghak Peasant Revolution

I'm not sure where to put it, but the Teahouse adviced me to get help for this article here or in WikiProject Korea. It's much, much better than the November version, but it's only me ever since. I need someone (or ones) else to do this. 9,280 results in Google for Donghak Peasant Revolution. In Google Book, 210 results; just 135 in Google Scholar.--Seonoo of Kim (ANSWER IN MY T.A.L.K. P.A.G.E!!!!!!!!!) 06:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! A lot of work's clearly gone into this, and I was fascinated by the old photographs. What sort of help were you after with it? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WWII Royal Navy photos

resurrecting an old thread to reply to it! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A quick heads-up...

There's a large tranche of WWII Royal Navy photographs recently uploaded to commons - around 2000 currently at commons:Category:Royal Naval photographer, and another thousand or so to come. Some are categorised, some aren't; there's a list of those needing checked for categorisation here.

The metadata's pretty good, usually identifying specific ships and dates, so it should be fairly easy to match them to articles. If you've any questions, feel free to shout here! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, and great work! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Very useful resource eg seems to be most every flavour of Landing craft under the sun. And I see it's already been used to add pictures to articles that previously had none.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the IWM have any plans to try and make some of its WWI photos more accessible ahead of the centenary? I'd have thought that would be a priority. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is "I believe so"; the long answer is that I'm not quite clear on the exact details, but I know we've talked to them about it. ;-). I'll chase Richard, who probably knows more. I've also been in touch with the NLS about their Haig collection of official photographs. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

...and to build a little on this, I have a selection of Canadian official photographs in the pipeline, which got swept up in a digitisation program here at the BL, and I'm hoping to try and sort something out about the Indian (quasi-)official photograph collection. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

1 user likes this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be very useful to have those pics already categorized moved. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on a picture to do so and found it already done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

commons:Category:Royal Naval photographer (check needed) is the tracking category for those that haven't been categorised (or have only been part-categorised). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew, that's very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

North Korea

With the unusually heated and elevated rhetoric from and regarding North Korea, I believe we should have an article somehow discussing the present state of affairs. As the basis, perhaps thus article could be used to give it context: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/26/north-korea-provocations--us/2020711 Jmj713 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

yes, good idea The British news magazine has good coverage at http://www.economist.com/topics/north-korea Rjensen (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See Korean maritime border incidents, Korean Demilitarized Zone and Division of Korea all of which list relevants incidents and incursions and their associated pages which address some of those incidents in more detail. I don't believe that heightened NK rhetoric justifies a new page Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also Foreign relations of North Korea and its various sub-articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's strewn over quite a few articles, so I thought a more general one would consolidate this information and it would be much more useful this way. Jmj713 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for a new article. What would it cover that isn't thoroughly covered already? Heightened North Korean rhetoric of 2013? I don't think this will meet notability and it will be quickly merged into existing articles. I suggest you just wait and see if the NK rhetoric amounts to anything and then write a page on that if it does Mztourist (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean an article like Heightened North Korean rhetoric of 2013, I meant on overall history of such provocations as in that USA Today article. Jmj713 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Forces emblems being discussed at PUF

See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_March_25#File:CFIA-ACIA_heraldic_emblem.jpg where this is occurring -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible Errors?

The following sections seem to be coming up as errors and not the assessed articles table (on the assessment page):

• Task forces (periods and conflicts)
• Special projects

Am I right about these? Because to me it doesn't seem like they are the right wiki-code. Adamdaley (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone else must be having the same problems as I am. Adamdaley (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

What you're seeing isn't a problem with the wiki-code, but rather a symptom of us exceeding the MediaWiki template expansion limits. The tables are now too large to transclude directly, so we'll need to change them to links (which is what the MediaWiki preprocessor is doing anyways). Kirill ^[talk] 03:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The MediaWiki is currently processing these tables since they've become to large? How long would it take for MediaWiki to do the tables? Adamdaley (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template limits. Kirill ^[talk] 09:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England

Dear all: I know that many there are a wide range of good article nominations currently open which may be of interest (I'll certainly be taking one on) some of which have been open for a while. However, today I nominated Henry VIII of England. All thoughts welcome; it's going to be a two-way process because of the wide range of material available, balance, and so on. One of the defining people of English history. Talk here. Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good news - you've made a huge difference to that article. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Maxim Weygand

I was just reading this article and was a little shocked at the bullet point list of claims made in the the Vichy France section, that are presented a little too firmly and unquestioningly in my opinion. From the fact that he was cleared by the French, it seems unlikely that it can definitively be said that he did all of these things and I'm minded to delete it as there's absolutely no reference for it. However, I admit to not knowing a huge amount about the subject, so I was wondering if anyone knew whether there's any substance to it? Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation guidance

I'm trying to improve Somali Armed Forces, and have repeatedly tagged dates of armed forces chiefs of staff with tags. Now it's my understanding that if somebody inserts a tag a citation *must* be provided, in line with WP:CITE. Instead, User:Middayexpress simply reinstates the removed unreferenced section, without any cites. He's said things like 'cites are at the linked articles.' Would people kindly give third opinions, or, better still, an unambiguous interpretation of WP:CITE? I'm getting rather annoyed with his flagrant flouting of the rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The policy link is WP:CIRCULAR I believe. I would escalate warnings for disruptive editing and report if it continues. Life is too short. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Also, WP:Identifying reliable sources with the sections WP:USERG & WP:SELFSOURCE. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution covers a lot on sourcing in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V guidelines. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If he's right, & knows what the right ones are, it can't be too hard to copy paste them from the linked pages. (I have, so you know even WP's Dummies Squad can manage it. ;p ) Suggest he do so? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sure. It helps to double check that the references do cover the text though. =Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, of course. It's just really hard to do that without knowing which pages & sources he means. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

United States Naval Air Station, Wexford, Ireland

Not my area but perhaps United States Naval Air Station, Wexford, Ireland may be worth a look by project members, dont understand the big blocks of what appear to be non-notable medal citations, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the efforts on this page although the article creator is trying to remove all the improvements made! MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Rocketrosy has reacted badly and has now blanked the article which is clearly disruptive, if anybody else can help it would be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I appear to have gotten into the start of an edit war and will be withdrawing from the field of battle. I think its a case that the editor in question is new to this and has a set view that the article ought to match the text they have access to. I suggest jaw-jaw as the next step. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've given Rocketrosy some friendly advice. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Engineer Branch (United States)

I have never heard of an Engineer Branch (United States) as opposed to the United States Army Corps of Engineers. So I've put it up the article up for deletion. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• The Corps of Engineers is the headquarters of the US Army's Engineer Branch, not unlike the Office of Chief of Signal with regard to the Signal Branch. That said, the USACE has a broader mission than OCS, as they are responsible for all public engineering in the US. Army Corps of Engineers ===> Large scale permanent projects that are designed and Architected. They are mostly civilian. Army Engineer Branch ===> Support branch for Combat Operations if they build something it is almost always temporary at best and holds together just long enough to support operations. They are mostly uniformed. Check the USACE About pages on their website and the Engineer School page on the Ft. Leonard Wood site if you need more clarification.RTO Trainer (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Bowra

Someone created an article on Kenneth Bowra, but included the absolute bare minimum of information about him, to the point that it doesn't assert any notability. The name seemed familiar, and some brief Googling indicates that Bowra probably does meet criteria for inclusion (some company made a Kenneth Bowra action figure? Why would they do that unless they felt he was notable? And he was a guest of honor at Dragoncon 2005?), but I don't feel up to distilling the raw data into a suitable form. Anyone want to take on the task? DS (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a stab at expanding it from the US army source bio. Someone more familiar with US Army personnel might want to take a look over it, there's a few units I am not familiar with that might be linkable and I am not sure about the medals. I had a got at putting them in a list with their ribbons but I don't think they are in precedence order (which is the usual practice?) as I ordered them per the source. It might be worth someone checking if he can be linked from any other articles. Regards - Dumelow (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A large number of Victoria's Cross holders' images are up for deletion

A large number of Victoria's Cross holders' images are up for deletion, see WP:PUF for April 1 and April 2. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Standard for Military unit articles

Hi, we are having a discussion about the deletion of a MILHIST article, and we came upon a List of United States Army Military Police Units. I have no objection to the list article, hoever there is an excess of redlinks, and quite honestly I don't see many of the units ever becoming notable enough for their own article. Some of the smaller units have article pages, but many are unreferenced and would not likely meet the standard for inclusion if they were prod'ed. The fact that a unit exists doen't make it notable, nor does it necessarily if the unit has received an award (in my mind). I am of the opinion that the unit would need to have a significant impact on military operations/history. For instance, USARCENT has a significant impact of military operations, has a notable history, ect. Compare that to 11th Military Police Brigade which has the notable claim of conducting detainee ops... Not saying it isn't important, but I think we need to be reasonable on standards for inclusion. Thoughts? Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the battalion- or larger-sized units being linked, but the smaller units probably shouldn't generally be. I'm of the opinion that most of these larger units (what the British Army calls "major units", usually a unit commanded by a lieutenant-colonel or above) should be eligible for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

We have a whole guideline on this (MILUNIT). Previous consensus has it that combat battalions are notable, and separate combat companies are notable, but not separate non-combat companies. Sometimes non-combat battalions have been judged not notable. There are a whole string of deletion debates for companies and transport battalions in the archives which illustrate the way the trend has gone. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) which was the original one, and there are several after that. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

An area I know a bit about. I would suggest that all the platoon redlinks and most of the company redlinks should go straight up. Most (if not all) active duty USMP battalions would be notable, all brigades would be (IMO). A MP Coy would have to be pretty legendary to be notable, however saying that, there are some USMP company-level units that would be notable because of news coverage of their actions in Iraq or Afghanistan, or even Vietnam, particularly where their role is/was combat support/convoy escort etc (ie they got involved in battles with insurgents). MWD detachments are very unlikely to be notable (usually platoon-sized). Even the Reserve detainee ops units can be highly notable, eg the 320th MP Battalion (of the 11th MP Brigade) was the one at Abu Ghraib. It is a little surprising no-one has created an article for that battalion yet... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If that is a guideline, it should be mentioned here. it just seems strange that we are deciding notability based on criteria other that its notability, what the unit has done or is known for... As the above user stated, the Abu Ghraib unit might be notable, however when evaluating its use as an article, I would use the following guideline, Is there significant coverage of the unit through third party references (not army.mil article...) Is the coverage that is out there due to one event... Abu Ghraib was a significant event that has had continual coverage, the unit has to my knowledge, has not. Mention the unit on the article on the AG article and leave it at that. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I might be missing something obvious, but I think that WP:MILUNIT is part of the notability guide. Kirill ^[talk] 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree, Kirill. I'm not sure what Sephiroth storm is saying. WP:MILUNIT is an essay about the consensus of the MILHIST community about what is likely to be suitable for inclusion, and is already covered on the page you linked. WP:MILUNIT criteria 3. says "Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations (including combat, combat support and combat service support units)." USMP units fall in to a range of roles, some are combat support, others perform less sharp-end roles. The key issue is being capable of conducting significant or independent military operations. Most MP battalions are capable of just that, so they are likely to be suitable for inclusion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the statement "combat battalions are notable, and separate combat companies are notable, but not separate non-combat companies." is not included in that section. Now that I look at the section again, I noticed those bullets are guidelines, still requiring the unit to meet general notability standards. I'll prod articles with that in mind. But I do suggest adding that statement to that section, for clarification. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This hasn't always been the case, the essay of MILUNIT presently does not give a specific organization size, but a capability. For instance a special forces A team maybe able to meet criteria 3, but a quartermaster battalion may not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oak leaf clusters

Oak leaf cluster
Bronze and Silver Oak Leaf Clusters as currently depicted on Wikipedia

There is currently a mismatch in the images between the bronze oak leaf cluster and silver oak leaf cluster. The image for the bronze OLC is currently a rendered PNG image, while the image for the silver OLC is a photograph of an actual metal OLC device in SVG format. It's easy to miss if you're only looking at one of them, perhaps mounted on a ribbon bar on a biography article on Wikipedia, but on the oak leaf cluster article itself the disparity is immediately obvious (see comparison images at right).

If you look at the respective image file histories (leaf cluster, bronze.svg bronze, silver), it appears some editors have flipped the images back and forth, and now there is a mismatch between the rendered drawing of the bronze and the photograph of the silver. I don't know it should be the rendered image or the photograph image, but they should match each other (both be rendered, or both be photographs). What do other editors think? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Per COM:OVERWRITE the SVG version is substantially different to the photographed version. The editor with username Maxxl2 keeps changing or reverting the image from photos to SVG, and it seems disruptive. He needs to upload the SVG versions he created as separate files, but he should not then try to change any ribbons on Wiki to support his renders instead of the photos without seeking consensus, as it affects a lot of articles, and needs carefully setting up because of sizing and alignment issues. I would suggest reverting the bronze leaf back to the 28 November 2008 version and head over to Commons to make sure the editor I mentioned is aware that the constant swapping of images is not helpful and he must stop and follow guidelines. Commons may have separate guidelines to Wiki, but it is designed to support Wiki articles, not as a self-standing website. Each time he changes the image, dozens of articles are affected and become mis-matched. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted to the original 3D image and warned the editor in question that his/her behavior is inappropriate. Let's see if that takes care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Forts in Wales over categorization

User:skinsmoke is creating lots of single member categories under the man Forts in Wales one, and mixing Roman and modern sites. I think this is a bad idea. Vicarage (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That user has a lot of recent contribs in categories to have to search through, it would be very helpful if you listed the categories you are concerned about that he has created, and your merge proposal, so that someone can look into it more clearly and give their opinions and recommendation. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm on holiday and don't have the time to do that, but if he's doing so many category changes I suspect he's over categorizing all over the place and needs talking too. But look at "Forts in Wales" to see how many subcategories now appear. If it were me I'd treat them as vandalism and mass revert, but I'm not in the mood for argument Vicarage (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well this is the quickest way of showing them all:

So, it seems we have a LOT of sub-cats under "Forts in Wales", most with 1 or 2 pages. You feel they need to be rolled back into the main cat and not divided into counties.. is that right? Though this is not technically "vandalism", it is very over-categorised due to the fact that when creating new small categories it should first be considered whether the category will expand over time. In the case of historical forts and castles, the answer is clearly that this is not going to be the case. Best thing would be propose a merger of these at WP:CfD whereby someone might rollback all these creation en masse and save time, if the community agrees the creator has been over-zealous. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree there is overcategorization While it is not my area, so I will leave to the experts whether differentiation into Hill Forts, Ancient Forts, or Roman Forts serves any purpose, it seems that a good start would to eliminate the subcategories in the category whose only content is another category. I would think the more general name should be the one retained. Lineagegeek (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: User:Skinsmoke has been invited to join this discussion. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment You are, of course, looking at this purely from the viewpoint of military history. However, these items are also part of Category:Wales, where there is an established sub-categorisation scheme that items should be sub-categorised by county, as is explained in the introductory note to that category. This is covered under Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. I fail to understand the objection to including both ancient and modern categories under Forts in XXX, as this precisely mirrors the pattern at Category:Forts. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find we're not looking at it from any topical point of view. Whether of a military history POV or national interest POV, the fact still remains that many of these sub-cats only contain 1, 2 or 3 forts, and the further fact remains than if you have complete adding all known forts then the chance of the categories expanding to become well-populated is zero, because we don't build forts any more. You relate to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth as though it is in your favour.. I don't see how. These sub-cats are the exact definition of "small with no potential for growth" and therefore should not be needed, a larger more general category would be better suited. A lot of the nations in Category:Forts are single nations. Breaking the UK down into Forts in England, Scotland, Wales and maybe N.Ireland is a new level of categories within reason, but then by country becomes a lot more cumbersome. The issue is navigation.. there are a hell of a lot of counties in the UK, and every so often the government changes the administration borders and those counties merge, expand, shrink or disappear. It can mean a lot of maintenance. Unlike the U.S. and their 50 fixed state borders, UK counties are a mess. Compare:

Perhaps by that example you'll see some of the problems with over-categorisation - i.e. micro-management at county level adds complications. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Typing on phone, so being brief. When I reorgamised uk fort categories 2 years ago I wanted the categories to be useful for map plotting, as location vital for understanding forts. So I set up categories around military targets like Medway, and putting outliers under their county. So for Wales Icd have Milford Haven and then Wales as a whole as there are few other patterns that are useful.

I also wanted Roman and hillforts seperate, as each interest group wouldn't want the maps cluttered with the othet periods. Maiden Castle has no bearing on the defence of Portlanf Harbour!

Historical categories are more useful defined by the boundaries of their period so you want to be careful defining forts of Port Talbot if it wasn't there at the time Vicarage (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Which basically relates to what I said – counties change. Given that Skinsmoke wants the forts categorised based on their present-day geographical location, but Vicarage wants them categorised based on historical context because modern counties do not apply to historical counties, there are conflicting ideas here. Primarily forts are a military topic, usually built in suitable strategic locations regardless of the county name though possibly based on county borders. However, Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide, I would think that the historical method would hold a stronger claim than a modern geographical one. People researching medieval history may find it difficult to identify articles based on categories using modern counties, when sources and texts are stating different county names from Medieval or Early Modern periods. The Primary Topic is likely to be that most readers will be searching to read about forts for historical research, not to plan a day out and look for local sites of interest – that is what the Ordnance Survey are for, not Wiki. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As a fort tourist, broad categories are more useful to me than local government locations. South Wales is a suitable size. And hillforts/Roman/castles/forts should be distinct as they have different audiences. Skinsmoke's changes muddy that. Vicarage (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

1st Reconnaissance Squadron

This article has been extensively revised and expanded. It would be appreciated if some interested editors could have a go reviewing and making corrective edits please. Thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone in here with easy access to the library of the University of California?

Hi, is there someone in here with easy access to the library of the University of California? --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly "easy" access but I live in Oakland near UC Berkeley's huge library complex. What's the book or journal you are interested in? Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Binksternet. I really appreciate your willingness to help. I'm looking for the Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográphico do Rio Grande do Sul (Journal of the Historical and Geographical of Rio Grande do Sul), volume 14, published in 1934: here. I need it to finish Portuguese invasion of the Eastern Bank (1811–12). --Lecen (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked online to figure out at which library the volume is stored. It looks like some of the volumes are not available except by microfilm, stored at the library warehouse. The library offers a service to the reader: they can send me a scanned image of the article. Can you name the article that you want? Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"A Campanha do Uruguai em 1811-1812, pelo sr. Celso Schröder" (The Campaign of Uruguay in 1811-1812, by Mr. Celso Schroder). It begins on page 115.[2] --Lecen (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I will work on getting a copy. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! --Lecen (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A scan of this 1934 article by Celso Martins Schroeder, "A Campanha do Uruguai em 1811–1812", is going to take a little longer than I had thought. My library card expired so I have to pay the annual fee and go to the library in person to renew. My daily work schedule is very busy for the next week (I'm a freelance audio engineer), so please be patient. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You're helping me so much that I cannot dare to make any complaints. I'll work on other articles in the mean time. --Lecen (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

CV-22 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CV-22. Since you had some involvement with the CV-22 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of 1st Reconnaissance Squadron Article

1st Reconnaissance Squadron, has been proposed for a move to 1st Reconnaissance Squadron (USAF). If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Equipment of the Bangladesh Army

User:Sylheti Soldier has been adding copyrighted and very iffy images to Equipment of the Bangladesh Army and List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force following his block a number of IPs continued to add images and data to these two articles. I have now semi-protected both articles for a while but the IPs latest is to dump the article on to the talk page. Not an expert on Army stuff so would appreciate project members keeping an eye on these two articles particularly when protection ends. Also note User:Sylheti Soldier is now flikr washing images before uploading them to commons thinking we would not notice! Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)+

There seems to be an general outbreak of this kind of stuff affecting articles on national militaries at the moment. April must be the month for posting your fantasy air force or army on Wikipedia.... Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

FOIA document questions

Relating to past discussions regarding the articles Salvatore Giunta, Leroy Petry, and unit citations as personal permanent wear items, the United States Army fulfilled my FOIA request and have emailed me redacted copies of documents that support certain unit citations. That being said, these documents are not posted online, and thus are not easily citable. Can I upload these scans to Wikisource, and if I did are they usable as reliable sources to verify content in the article? Also are there any identity theft or MOS:BLP issues that I should be aware of before such an upload?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

They'd probably qualify as reliable sources. The questions around identity theft and privacy obviously depend on what information is in these documents; you could ask for views at WP:BLPN, but the general rule is to strongly err on the side of caution out of respect to individuals. You can cite primary sources in your possession for uncontroversial facts without having to upload the documents anywhere; just cite whatever the documents' names and any reference numbers are. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I have uploaded the scanned forms onto Wikicommons. I will now use them in the articles in question.

• File:Leroy Petry.pdf
• File:Giunta DD Form 214 Redacted.pdf

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

New Post-nominal template

A new Post-nominal template has recently surfaced on my journey through wikipedia. So far there is one for Australia and New Zealand found here respectively; Template:Post-nominals/AUS and Template:Post-nominals/NZL.

This template seems really simple and easy to use, I have already used it on Quentin Bryce's page. Your thought's everyone? Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 11:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistance request

Currently building an article at my sandbox here. I would appreciate any help, as i'm going to be busy today. There are some more articles with coverage on google. Really wish I had more time to devote to it, but I think she is a notable Soldier, who deserves an article. Also, an issue maybe someone could address, the first article states that Ft. Fort McClellan is in Georgia, but our article states it is in Alabama. Also, that article states that the city was given an award by Atlanta. WTF? Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been to Fort McClellan, near Anniston, Alabama. Rjensen (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fort McPherson is in Atlanta, south of the city by the Airport. It's either closed or is on it's way to being closed Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

12th Reconnaissance Squadron

This article has been extensively revised and expanded. It would be appreciated if some interested editors could have a go reviewing and making corrective edits please. Thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it normal for squadron articles not to have American states linked? Gavbadger (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Units move, personally I'd only link states to units in the case of the National Guard because they belong to that state specifically. So what if the 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing has been at Beale AFB in California for 50 years or whatever; the base is permanent, not the unit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I frequently eliminate links to states and countries in USAF unit articles because the MOS considers linking to major geographical areas to be overlinking unless the state itself is germane to the article. Lineagegeek (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. Gavbadger (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Purcell

Hi-I started an article about Benjamin Purcell. He served in the United States Army and was a POW during the Vietnam War. After he retired from the Army Purcell owned a Christmas tree farm and served in the Georgia House of Representatives. I know nothing about military ranks/decorations, etc. I started the article because of his legislative career. I worked on articles about US state legislators. Any help with the article would greatly appreciated. Thank you-RFD (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people on United States banknotes/archive1

This is a FLC containing 53 people of which at least 20% were notable U.S. Military figures. If anyone has the inclination (and time) to review this list, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Attack Squadron 12 (United States Navy)

What should I do with this article on the talkpage since this is taking up 1 of the incomplete B class. Put a redirect? Adamdaley (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC on "start date" template application for articles having NRHP infoboxes

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Start date in NRHP articles, about running a bot to implement "start date" and "end date" microformatting into NRHP infoboxes.

Comment from an involved party: This is relevant for MILHIST as many MILHIST articles include an NRHP infobox, often in a secondary role, such as for a building on battleground built before or after the battle. The bot as proposed could assert the NRHP item's construction date is the "start date" of the article topic. --doncram 01:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Mozambican War of Independence

Could someone take a look at this edit and other similar contributions by that account - they all seem to focus on altering the assessment of an event during the conflict where a number of civilians were reportedly killed by Portuguese troops. The account adds one source and removes all the neutral terms like alleged, reportedly, and so on, from one of the articles. I don't know too much about the topic any more - I wrote on it many years ago now - anyone have any concerns? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Korean War

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Korean War#Reversion of Reversion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have become engaged with what I currently view as a well meaning disruptive editor. I initially reverted a bold addition of content based on WP:BRD & WP:UNDUE, which was reverted. I started a discussion, and overtime a consensus (2 v 1) was to remove an image, which was done, and reverted again. At this point I have suggested a compromise. Additional editors are requested so that a more clear consensus can be formed, and this issue be resolved without devolving.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A-class reviews in need of attention

Hi folks, if anybody has a little time on their hands to contribute a review at WP:MHACR, it would be greatly appreciated. The following:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories (needs one more positive review) (this should be good to go once the latest comments are addressed)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Kearsarge (BB-5) (has received only one review, with no declaration of support)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/D-Day naval deceptions (need one more positive review)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Moore (Continental Army officer) (has received almost no comments whatsoever)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Niels Bohr (has one support; needs two more)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Henry I of England (has a few comments but no declarations of support)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Winter '94 (has received no attention at all)

have been open for three weeks or longer and have not received sufficient reviews for promotion. Any help would be appreciated—even just reading through it and asking any questions that pop into your mind is helpful. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to Hawkeye, Rupert, and AnotherClown for their efforts. Any more help would be gratefully accepted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If anybody has some time to provide a third review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Moore (Continental Army officer), we'll have the ripest reviews out of the way which will allow us to focus on those needing more attention. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Crew cut

It's surprisingly hard to find an image. I want one for List of hairstyles.

Nothing here or here. Can someone please help?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Is File:Gaines 1921 naval academy.jpg or File:Trauma_nurse_--_1960s.jpg any good? How about File:Marines_do_pushups.jpg or File:Combat_knife_attached_to_gun.jpg? Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I like this one (shown) because it will crop well, and it's modern. Is it officially a crew cut? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Close enough anyway. The high and tight seem to be a type of a crew cut or a close cousin, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've added a cropped version to List of hairstyles. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Modern tank armour query

Could anybody help with a query about tank armour over at the Science Refdesk please? Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Heer redirect under discussion

Heer has been listed at Redirects for Discussion for a month and a half, with somewhat mixed input. The nomination came following activity by noclador, which was preceded by some brief commentary on this page, now found here. This move discussion is also relevant. A broader input would be most welcome on the nomination page. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

French intelligence agency blackmailing an Fr-Wiki admin to delete an article on a military communications facility

Details are at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Foundation statement regarding the situation in France. This is obviously highly relevant for members of this project. I've seen a few examples of what appear to be military personnel removing information sourced to publicly-available documents (including published books and websites) from articles on the grounds of 'operational security', but this awful behaviour by the French government goes well beyond this. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've also been posting the most relevant links on the Signpost's Twitter feed, if that's easier to read for you all. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the article in question has now been translated into English at Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station, as well as a heap of other languages. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've also created Joint Direction of Infrastructure Networks and Information Systems. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice one guys. Do these guys even know how WP works? It would be funny if the poor old admin in France hadn't been shafted by the spooks. I can feel a revision of that old "Heaven and Hell" chestnut, including "Hell is where the intelligence is provided by the French"... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Twenty seven interwikis as of right now, can the French intelligence agency spell "Streisand Effect"? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with some of the French reporting that assumes the actual content of the article was not that greatly interesting to the French government. This was a probe to gauge reaction and understand possible outcomes. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe via a combined effort of Wikimedia Switzerland and Wikimedia Belgium, an envelope-stuffing effort is now taking place to post copies of the original French TV documentary to every world intelligence service, with translation offered if required. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that may be a good way to garner the attention of multiple government authorities. I hope those sending the information don't assume that their efforts will be appreciated by the recipients -- spooks tend to be a very closed club and don't like the public getting involved. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Er, please compare my timestamp to the others in this thread. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Buckshot06, I'm too much an old grump to recognize an April Fool's gambit -- you got me. Honestly, what you described sounds like something some who lack much real-world experience might try. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Twenty seven interwikis as of right now" You've heard there's talk France may block access? Which makes me think, "Babelfish"... Or another online translator. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The really interesting thing is that the French government isn't backing down. When this was first reported I assumed that it was a relatively junior agent grossly exceeding his or her authority, yet the French government is doubling down on it. The stupid thing is that the few countries with the capacity to attack France would have probably known all about this facility decades ago; it's not easy to hide nuclear weapons communication facilities and (AFAIK) the US and UK don't bother trying. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, without knowing what their objectives are it is hard to tell what the endgame is. It may be what you assumed, but now the authorities don't want to publicly admit they made a mistake; it may also be a way of generally cranking up pressure on French participants in Wikimedia for purposes unknown. Frankly, my impression is the English-language Wikipedia is a common target for propaganda of every stripe and some of those introducing it are probably working for governments of any of a number of countries. And while France is doing this now to the French Wikipedia, I would be completely unsurprised to see other Western countries trying similar things under the auspices of the Official Secrets Act or recourse to national security requirements, etc. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation does seem to have alluded to receiving similar requests from other national governments in its recent statements. Some might be legit (there are laws which prevent the publication of various things, including on national security grounds, not to mention material ordered to be suppressed as part of ongoing court cases, and Wikipedia isn't Wikileaks and the WMF has made it clear that it doesn't want to go down that path), but it is something to watch out for. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is one of the reasons I mostly stay away from articles on modern defense establishments and equipment. I suspect in some cases that defense CI types conduct "sting" operations by offering to provide classified details to authors, gamers, and others of the public interested in modern warfare. Any of Wikipedia's information on modern systems and establishments should be well referenced to open sources -- simply as a common-sense defense measure against security-related accusations. What is less clear are situations in which individual pieces of information in an article may be clearly unclassified but by being presented together in a single article are perceived as sensitive by some government authority. Those situations are hard if not impossible to predict. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories -- for US military groups, discussion

There is a discussion at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_12#Category:Groups_of_the_United_States regarding the proper naming of a particular category. Interested members are invited to join in. – S. Rich (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

LGM-118 Peacekeeper

A part in the "Minuteman" section reads "Just as important, the guidance system allowed for the inclusion of eight pre-selected targets. This allowed the force to ride out a first-strike, re-target on the remaining enemy targets, and launch." The wording used here is confusing, and it's not clear which nation's "first strike" is referred to. The term "ride out" suggests the Minuteman/ICBM fleet is enduring a Soviet first strike, but the phrasing "remaining enemy targets" implies some of the Soviet targets have already been destroyed, suggesting the US launched the first strike. The "eight pre-selected targets" feature would be useful in either case, so I can't decide which meaning is correct. Does anyone know enough to fix this? Some guy (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there was no U.S. Air Force or DOD doctrine which considered a first strike (though individual thinkers at various times argued for a U.S. first strike); it was all launch-on-warning of a Soviet launch. The first strike referred to in this case is almost certainly a Soviet one. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

During the cold war or after? I know the missile is now gone but with the end of the cold war the US did adopt a first strike doctrine after the collapse of communism, in case of nukes falling into terrorist hands, see Nuclear Weapons and Cooperative Security in the 21st Century: The New Disorder Quite a good read. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

During. The text in that article section is referring to around 1962. I added "Soviet" before "first strike" there to clarify based on the preceding text in the section. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect figures in Siege of Paris (1870–71)

The info box contains different figures to what is given in the aftermath section. I would post this on the talk page but it was brought up in 2005 and seems to still be incorrect. Keted6 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably a whole generation of wiki-editors have come and gone since 2005 :) . Best to flag the anomaly on the talk page and let contemporary consensus sort it out. This was a reasonably well documented war and it should be possible to check reliable sources Buistr (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I gave the wrong article. It's Battle of Sedan (1870). I raised it on the talk page, though I don't hold much hope there. Keted6 (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Bronislaw Urbański

Don't suppose someone could give Bronislaw Urbański a look? User:Youngbruno has put a lot of work into it and on the surface it looks pretty good, but on closer inspection it falls apart rather, for instance most of the references seem quite generic rather than relating specifically to Urbański. I suspect this is a biography of a not-particularly notable family member, but it's way out of my area so could I hand it over to you guys? Le Deluge (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I've heard of other Polish personal experiences during the war, his seems above average in terms of adventure. However, I agree that there is little that is truly notable in terms of how that is defined by Wikipedia. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge articles to Manassas Campaign?

Back in June 2012, a proposal was made to merge the following articles to the Manassas Campaign main article:

• Battle of Fairfax Court House (June 1861)
• Battle of Arlington Mills
• Battle of Vienna, Virginia

since these articles are about minor firefights between a few companies. Nothing was done with this suggestion. Any thoughts on this? Wild Wolf (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since no one apparently has an opinion on this, just go ahead. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Brothers at War

I've noticed that few ADW articles have been upgraded past B-class recenly. There has also been little activity on the Brothers at War project. Any suggestions on how to increase participation in this project? Wild Wolf (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There isn't any sustained interest in any of the special projects, apart from Majestic Titan. All previous discussions on how to improve interest get nowhere, mainly because the membership of Military History, and WikiProjects in general, is not growing sufficiently to stimulate growth in special areas and divert energy into it. i.e. no one wants to send time to promote special projects because it's generally a wasted effort that can be better spent elsewhere. That appears to be the general opinion and despite a number of discussions on the 3 failing special projects, I've yet to see anyone introduce anything which has bolstered interest. Personally, I think the idea of "special projects" is somewhat pretentious as they each define a narrow scope within a greater topic, which only attracts editors who wish to specialise in that area. It has left other areas of this WikiProject wanting and unsupported. But given that all the task forces are pretty much defunc. too, the only conclusion you can really draw on most Wiki editors is: "each to his own". No matter how much you promote a topic, most people are only going to focus on what is interesting and important to them. That's not just Wiki, that's life. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So would merging BaW project back into the ACW taskforce be a good idea? Wild Wolf (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really.. BaW articles are just a cut of selected ACW articles to be improved before the 150th anniversary, which fall between 2011 and 2015.. whereas the ACW taskforce covers the ACW entire with no priority articles. Given that the BaW articles are not being improved to GA/A/FA as targeted, the best thing would just be to leave it as an open archive for anyone who does wish to tackle those articles, albeit later than planned. As it stands, you appear to be the main editor of ACW articles who also bothers to communicate with MilHist. Not to say there aren't other dedicated ACW editors, they just don't mingle with this project's members for whatever reason.. so having or not having BaW or ACW TF makes no difference, it's still a one-man-band issue from where we stand. Disappointing really, given the U.S. population of ~330 million that we should only get 1 dedicated American editor for it's most important self-contained war. I've been speaking to an American friend of mine recently, a North Carolina lad who is currently in college, and from what I gather this semester's history class barely scraped the surface of the ACW, and his "Professor" virtually threw the syllabus out the window and skipped through the entire subject with a few trivial facts that hardly give the topic the respect it deserves. Shook my head in total disgust, and I'm a Brit... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Australia to focus on war memorials

Planning has begun for an Australian leg of the popular Wiki Loves Monuments competition focused on war memorials. If you're interested in participating, please sign up on Commons here. I'm not sure how WLM works, but given that Australian war memorials are dotted around the globe there may be scope for non-Australian editors to participate in this leg of the competition (for instance, we don't have a genuinely good image of the Australian War Memorial, London). Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Its easy how WLM works: Wikipedia gets a huge number of new images with a high quality but without the whole categorization etc. stuff because the Commons-users are doing all that. Otherwise, is there any complete or nearly complete list of Australian war memorials around the globe or in Europe? --Bomzibar (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Fusō/archive1

This could use some attention. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nihonjoe. Image review, anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks The_Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Allied Land Command

What would be the appropriate task force for this article? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would guess the nations and regions which it supports, because that's what the banner on NATO's talkpage does, as there's no taskforce more specific to an article of this nature. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Khyber knife

Notice this was called for as an article under open tasks (weaponry). Is it possible this is already addressed by the article Pesh-kabz ? I'm no knife expert, but the article suggests "Khyber Knife" was among the British terms for these weapons. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day, seems possible IMO. Maybe "Khyber knife" should be created as a redirect to Pesh-kabz? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The redirect has been created. If there is a difference, a knife expert can change the redirect into a proper article. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone make it to Portsmouth on Saturday?

I've just seen this - to raise funds for the restoration of HMS Alliance (P417), an Amphion-class sub, on Saturday they're giving guided tours of the RN's Gosport facilities that are normally not open to the public including HMS Sultan (establishment) and the former HMS Dolphin (shore establishment). There's also a talk tonight at 7pm about Dolphin. Should be interesting in its own right, but also a good opportunity to take some photos for all things relating to submarines and naval engineering.Le Deluge (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

History of Germany during World War II

Info: I've boldly redirected History of Germany during World War II to Nazi Germany. Honestly, I don't see a purpose for that article, because all the information exists elsewhere, better written, better referenced and better summarized. The concerns were expressed back in 2005 AFD remain to this date, quote: "Before you start, don't get me wrong, this is a good page in theory and probably in practice. However, it isn't going anywhere. At the moment, it's a useless fork of European theatre of World War II, where all of this info is already available in much greater detail.". Most activity on that article was just vandalism and its cleanup. No such user (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good move - it had no unique content, which is a shame as this is a hugely important topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Worst move that could have been made! World War II lasted for six years, the Nazi regime for twelve years. Furthermore, Germany came under complete allied occupation in May 1945 but World War II lasted for four more months. This redirection has to be deleted! --Bomzibar (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

100% of the sketchy content was about military campaigns. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Than its bad content and has to be deleted or needs a Cleanup button. Its wrong to make tons of redirects just to have less redlinks. Especially when the acutal topic of both articles is so different from each other. --Bomzibar (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with redirects-for-the-sake-of-redirects being a bad idea, but there was no redlink here - just a low-quality fork which had existed since 2005. NSU's move seems a sensible solution to me. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur that the move seems sensible. Intothatdarkness 15:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with DYK review requested

I'd be grateful if someone could review Template:Did you know nominations/Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar, as it has been waiting for a while to be reviewed. I'm planning to nominate it for GA status so it would be nice to get DYK out of the way first. Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Petar Baćović

I'm doing a GAN review, and my belief is that the nominator relies too heavily on quotes for this to pass GAN ... but I'd like to hear more opinions. In Eastern European articles generally, and particularly for articles covering genocide in the Balkans, Wikipedians use more quotes than in other articles, but for a variety of reasons, I think this goes too far. For instance, in one section:

Baćović issued an appeal to Partisan Serbs which attributed the establishment of the Partisan movement to the fact that "the Jews, associated with much of the scum of the earth, fled to our country and began to propagate such a better and happier state of affairs in a Communist state". He blamed the Partisans for the destruction of traditional Serb society and morals:

"Dividing and ruining Serb villages and Serb peasants; banning Serbs from practicing their Orthodox religion; corrupting many Serb youths; teaching children not to listen to their parents; propagating free love among the youth; saying that brother and sister, son and mother, father and daughter can live together as husband and wife; bringing with them many fallen women from the towns – teachers, students, workers etc. – to serve the Communist bosses for the purpose of physical pleasure; and in the wake of their terror pushing many of our honorable peasants to kill each other and to kill all those honorable and national Serbs, who did not wish to join them and accept their bloody and corrupt ideology: godlessness, irreligion, familial corruption, and immorality of every kind."

He further deplored to Serb Partisans that they were "being led by Tito, Moša Pijade, Ročko Čolaković, Vlado Šegrt, Rade Hamović, Savo Mizera, and many other Jews, Muslims, Croats, Magyars, Bulgarians, and other scum of the earth." He claimed that "today all Serbia, Montenegro, the Sandžak, Herzegovina and most of Bosnia are in Serb Chetnik hands. Only here and there in Bosnia are to be found, in small groups, you [Serb Partisans], our duped brothers." He urged them to defect to the Chetniks "to continue your work as a good Serb, conscious of your national idea and your mission in our free and Great Serb state that is coming."

Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dan. I should probably declare a conflict because I work closely with the nominator, but I will put in my two bob anyway. These are strong statements by key people from organisations that massacred tens of thousands of civilians. They illustrate the anti-Semitism, ethnic hatred and hegemonic nationalism espoused by these individuals. The Reinhard Heydrich article (which is GA) quotes Heydrich's comments about "Czech garbage" and his promise "[w]e will Germanize the Czech vermin." Granted, there is probably not the need for all the long quotes, and some of the content could be summarised, but it is important to recognise that they reflect the mindset and behaviour of the subject, and I don't think we should be looking to eliminate them completely (per the Heydrich article). I'd also note that even Heydrich was not personally involved in killing many people (despite the fact he ordered hundreds of thousands to their death), but many of these guys got their hands very bloody. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK there are two issues here: one is the length and frequency and content of the quotes, and the other is related to the issue that came up recently at WT:MHC on whether it's better to quote inflammatory sources directly, or quote historians talking about those sources. Ideally, we want to know historical consensus ... unfortunately, it's not always clear. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One additional point. The quotes are almost all taken from a book by Dr. Marko Attila Hoare published for the British Academy by OUP. I have a copy and it's a very comprehensive and well balanced book. I consider Hoare's approach, which does use quotes liberally, is completely legitimate from a historiographical perspective. I note that other scholars in the field like Jozo Tomasevich also use similar quotes fairly liberally in his 1975 volume. I suppose the question is whether an encyclopaedia should take its lead from the scholars or beat a different path. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My view is that the information-consuming public has expectations on how crazy, inflammatory rhetoric should be handled. In the recent stories on North Korean rhetoric, for example, the reports didn't go on for 5 minutes quoting what Kim Jong Un had to say about Americans; generally, they picked a short quote or video clip just long enough to establish the tone. The New York Times will do the same in any front-page story that involves heated rhetoric; depending on how inflammatory the rhetoric is, they may or may not provide the full text on a later page or on their website. A historian giving a short public talk on someone notorious for inflammatory speech or writing a short survey article for a general-interest readership won't go on for 5 minutes quoting hate speech. So-called "conservative" or "liberal" media outlets sometimes do it, but they're not judged kindly for it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

All good points. That is essentially what the Heydrich article does, although I was surprised to not see any quotes about Jews in that article. I'm sure he had a lot more inflammatory and appalling stuff to say, but the tone of his attitude to Czech people is captured by the two short quotes about "vermin" and "garbage". The remainder of the content/thrust of the existing quotes could be covered by summarising. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I'd say extensive quotes should be avoided: only quote things that can't be summarized. In this case, there's a lot of pretty verbiage that comes off looking POV. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked it since the changes? We will want to prep it for ACR eventually, so any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it now, stylistically I'd be much happier with it than the quoted bit above. Without reading every word, I'd wonder if anything important was lost, but I'll leave that for those watching more carefully (I'm just cruising by :) ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Australian Operational Service Medal for civilians?

I'm told that, (as forecast/indicated in initial press releases for the Australian Operational Service Medal), the OSM for civilians is being awarded for service in Afghanistan. But I can't find any supporting evidence for this on the web. Can anyone throw any light on the issue? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC) (Probably the most useful place to reply is Talk:Australian Operational Service Medal#Civilian variant.)

Yes, there are two types of OSM. One for ADF members which will be issued with different ribands for each different mission (same medal, very similar arrangement as UN gongs), and one for civvies with a different medal design and one distinctive riband. Civvies will get a clasp on their OSM for each different mission, whereas ADF members will get a separate gong. I know the ADF ones have started being issued for Border Operations, not sure about the civvies one. [3] has a link that'll set you straight. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, civvies will get the same medal with a different ribbon, and different clasps for each award, whereas the ADF will get the same medal with different ribbons for each award.

And http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/Content/+030%20Current%20Issues%20and%20News/Operational%20Service%20Medal%20(OSM)/default.htm says very little about the OSM for civilians. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(Interestingly, there is no link to the OSM on http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/Content/+040%20Campaign%20Medals/+300%20List/default.htm)

Yes, I didn't word it very well, but my understanding about the medal and riband (not ribbon) is the same as yours. You can obviously read the website as well as anyone else. The website says "The eligibility criteria for the Civilian OSM are currently being developed and will be announced when the Governor-General has approved the determinations for the respective operations. This will be widely publicised." I haven't noticed it being widely publicised (or even a Defence signal to that effect). Given the government needs positive announceables like a man in the desert needs a drink of water, I'd say no, they haven't been issued. I might add I have a daily Google News search for "operational service medal" and so far, Zippo.Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the government needs positive announceables like a man in the desert needs a drink of water, I'd say no, they haven't been issued. <grin> Nicely stated! Yes, given the government's current circumstances, I expect they would make any such information very easy to find. Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Australian Operational Service Medal for civilians for service in Afghanistan?

It seems I didn't state my question clearly enough.
I'm told that the Australian Operational Service Medal for civilians for service in Afghanistan is currently being awarded. However, I can find no evidence anywhere that the OSM for civilians has been awarded to anyone for any service anywhere, (much less for service in Afghanistan).

• On 12/12/2012 the GG announced conditions for award of the Australian Operational Service Medal (Civilian) with Clasp: 'EAST TIMOR', 'ICAT', 'IRAQ 2003', 'SOLOMON IS II', 'TIMOR-LESTE' - NO mention of current operations like ISAF.

As User:Anotherclown points out below, closer examination of the above document DOES mention ongoing current operations. For example:

ICAT Clasp: Operation SLIPPER - for the period commenced 20 February 2012 within the area bounded by: 39°N,32°E; 39°N,78°E; 23°N,78°E; etc.

Similarly Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste - see (recently updated) Australian Operational Service Medal#Clasps for declared operations - Civilian version

So, although there is no information about any having been awarded yet, there is certainly provision for it. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• On 12 Feb 2013 is was announced It is also notified for general information that the Governor-General has approved certain conditions for the award of the: Australian Operational Service Medal – CIVILIAN, but there is no information given about what those certain conditions are.

Can anyone throw any light on the issue? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Gday. I could be missing something here but ICAT = International Coalition Against Terrorism (which in the Australian context is Op SLIPPER, and includes service as part of the ISAF in Afghanistan) so its still a "current" operation. As far as I could tell from the refs above the OSM (Civilian) can be awarded with clasp ICAT for service on Op SLIPPER. As such I'm still struggling to understand your question. Are you asking whether it has actually BEEN awarded as opposed to AUTHORISED to be awarded? Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the question here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I could be missing something - You could be, but I expect the "missing something" is me. I had not linked ICAT with ISAF; nor had I linked ICAT with any other current operations. What you say explains what I had categorised as a gap. Thanks.

I thought "I can find no evidence anywhere that the OSM for civilians has been awarded to anyone for any service anywhere" was unambigous, but to be clear: I am "asking whether it has actually BEEN awarded". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

And if the absence of any mention of it happening on Google News, Defence website etc is to be believed, the answer to your question is no. Of course, you could just ring Honours and Awards and ask them to make sure. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm. Yes, I could, couldn't I. Thanks again, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

March article-writing contest log

Calling entrants in the March contest -- could use assistance verifying entries so awards can be handed out and the contest results section of the next issue of the Bugle updated. If you haven't done this before, remember you can verify anyone's entries but your own, checking that an article's assessment level has changed as indicated in the table during March (not before or after) and that the resultant points are correct. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tks Bushranger, Zawed and Rupert for your prompt assistance -- all done now, I'll tally and hand out awards tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help identify USS Wasp

Resolved

See Talk:Casimir_Pulaski#Ship_on_which_Pulaski_died. It is likely the disambig USS Wasp is missing an entry. Help from American naval history experts needed. Please direct all comments to Pulaski's article for a centralized discussion. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 470th Military Intelligence Brigade (United States)

The article 470th Military Intelligence Brigade (United States) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable military unit. Unit does not meet MILHIST standards for inclusion, nor does it have significant verifiable coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. I'm completely fed up with enormous numbers of U.S. military units creating articles with just some copied info from a U.S. military website. Unless this article is improved with a number of GNG-compliant references, I will nominate it for deletion on the grounds of lack of compliance with the GNG (which trumps MILUNIT). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggest some waiting time before the article is deleted. The article needs improvement -- right -- as do most articles in Wikipedia to one degree or another. Given the relatively small (as compared, for example to the Cold War) force structure of the U.S. Army today, brigade-sized combat support units can be argued to be notable by virtue of their size. Regarding the sources for the article, MILHIST editors should realize that of all military units, intelligence units will likely be among the least documented by public sources. Finally, as I mentioned to Sephiroth storm, if this article goes then all of its "sister unit" articles should go as well. If one MI brigade supporting a major command is significant, then IMO they all are or they all are not. Keeping one article of this stripe and deleting another of identical type would be sloppy. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, that argument is essentially WP:ALLORNOTHING, which isn't a valid reason to keep an article. Some MI brigades might be notable, while others might not be. That's how the general notability guideline (which is the basis for determining whether we keep an article or not) works. Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree if this was a major combat unit. Combat support units are different in that they are not as prominent in public perception. Intel units especially do not get a lot of coverage. Are they notable in the Wikipedia sense -- perhaps -- but again, perhaps not. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree. All brigades and larger (and most battalions too) should be considered notable. This to me is no more than common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just not how Wikipedia works. Nothing automatically has notability simply by its category of topic. Reliable and independent secondary sources need to be present to justify an article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. "Not how Wikipedia works" indeed. Wikipedia works by consensus and opinion, not by rules. Common sense trumps all of the odd and inaccurate beliefs held by some editors that Wikipedia is a rigid rules-bound bureaucracy. The ultimate arbiter is AfD, not unbending rules. It's simply not true that "nothing automatically has notability simply by its category of topic". Try and delete an article on a settlement, a member of a national legislature or an Olympic athlete, even one with zero coverage except the fact of their existence as a member of one of those categories, and see how true that statement is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a high-quality reliably-sourced article deleted under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's always possible that they may decide that military articles have no place in Wikipedia. In the meantime, all brigade-sized formations are presumed notable by virtue of their size. And no, GNG does not trump MILUNIT; the latter is our established consensus on what GNG means with respect to a military unit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that AfD is not for cleanup. If the article lacks "GNG-compliant references", fix it. Nominating it for deletion because it lacks sources in the article runs afoul of Wikipedia's policy: the sources need only exist, not be in the article. Buckshot, I'm dissapointed to see you commenting like that - I thought better of you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Necrothesp - what I said reflects longstanding consensus at AfD. Articles must meet GNG to be kept, and local guidelines do not trump GNG.

Hawkeye - GNG does trump MILUNIT. Wiki-wide consensus always trumps WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the point is that being a military unit of this size = notability, the same way as, per longstanding consensus at AfD, any populated place or geographical feature that passes WP:V through WP:RS automatically meets WP:N. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, not wanting to rain on anyone's parade, but some quick and dirty research shows this brigade (and it's previous incarnation as 470th MI Group), has been around in one form or another for most of the time since 1944 (certainly 1944-1997, and again recently). In the mid-60's it was based in Panama and helped Manuel Noriega establish the intelligence system that later brought him to power. In the 1980's it used training manuals that taught the use of torture of torture, abduction and murder and distributed them to members of the armed forces of Latin American countries. In 1990 it received a battle streamer for engaging in combat in Panama during Op JUST CAUSE. Its employment at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq insurgency is well documented. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your considered comments on this matter. Bushranger, yes, you may be disappointed, and I was intending to raise this issue in the only way which I thought might induce some discussion; a deletion threat. I will repeat that I am sick of enormous numbers of badly referenced U.S. unit articles around purely because of US PD rules. I choose not to note the obvious response that such an AfD might be heavily commented against, and raise the response of AfD is not for cleanup, for which I was intending to respond IAR. I believe it hurts the reputation of this encyclopedia to have all these badly referenced U.S. military unit articles hanging on by threads. My aim was to get a good number of GNG-compliant, not bad takeoffs of U.S. military webpages, references added to the article.

Peacemaker67, thank you for the most substantive comment on the matter. Would you kindly please link the webpages/sources concerned?

Everybody else, I apologise for my almost WP:POINTY actions, but would plead the greater benefit to the encyclopedia under IAR. Further comments warmly welcomed. Should note that this brigade is a test case, not a one-off, and I reserve the right to nominate other U.S. military unit articles for the same reasons and in the same fashion. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As requested, 470th Military Intelligence Brigade sources [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and probably more than one issue of the Journal of Intelligence History (on that one I'm guessing). The Senator Joe Kennedy report on the training manuals is linked at fas.org here Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, and I know how it feels about seeing "nastygrams" in articlespace. However, there is WP:NODEADLINE, and it's always better to improve than delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that isn't true either. Common sense trumps everything. Always has done, even at AfD. AfD, despite some editors' beliefs to the contrary, is not about quoting "rules" over and over again and screaming illegality when people put forward a contrary opinion. It's about discussion. If it was just about articles conforming to some set of mythical rules then explain to me why we bother having AfD discussions at all? They would be completely unnecessary if an administrator could come along, say "yup, that doesn't conform to GNG" and delete the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that the 409th Support Brigade (United States) entry (it's a contracting unit in Europe, and it's actual title is the 409th Army Field Support Brigade) does not meet the standard of WP:MILUNIT#Independent sources for military units and formations, especially as regards footnote 5. As such, especially in line with the AfDs on deletion of CSS battalions, it might be considered as not suitable for inclusion. All opinions warmly welcomed. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Now THAT one's looks like "terminate... with extreme prejudice". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be the 409th Contracting Support Brigade. It shouldn't be an article, I agree, but it should be redirected to whatever its commanding unit is (LOGCAP?), not deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, AFSB is a former designation (I wasn't quite up to date). It's under the Expeditionary Contracting Command of Army Contracting Command of Army Material Command.([16]) Thinking on this, I intend to move the page to Army Contracting Command instead, and write a short blurb about the whole organisation. This will create a wikipedia page about something which is quite important - mucked up military contracts have cost billions in Iraq and Afghanistan - and raise it from brigade to command (at least division) status, and even I'm not so gung-ho as to try and start deleting command-level pages !! Buckshot06 (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A most cunning plan, m'lud! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial collection's photostream on Flickr

Hello. Not sure if this has been posted here before but given the latest attempt to delete post 1945 Australian images from the encyclopedia I thought some of our editors might be interested in this link [17]. I contains a small collection of seemingly free images from the AWM as posed on Flickr. Its a bit limited (and most of the images are 'posey') but it covers a fairly wide period from WWI to the present and might prove useful to someone. Anotherclown (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: Is there any counter-argument to prevent deletion of the post 1945 {{PD-Australia}} images? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because something is copyrighted does not mean that we cannot use it. Government policy is to use a CC licence, which we can sometimes use. So the effort has been to persuade government departments to licence under CC in places where the rule of shortest term does not apply. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

My reading of the current deletion discussions is that those AWM images will be kept. I could always be wrong though! Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That's encouraging to read! Can you provide a link / links to those discussions please? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A-class milestone

Hi folks, we've just hit a remarkable 400 A-class articles! Obviously the number fluctuates as many of the articles are subsequently successful in attaining featured status, but I think this is a milestone worth celebrating. More importantly, it gives me an opportunity to say thank you to the nominators for trusting in our A-class review system, and of course our indefatigable reviewers, without whom there would be no A-class reviews, and the coordinator team who act as the guardians of the process and keep the wheels turning. So thank you to all who keep the process going, and here's to the next 400! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of high quality articles! Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

1 user likes this.

Iga-ryu ninja

FYI, there's a notice at WT:WikiProject Martial arts about a proposal to merge all the Iga Ninja articles into the province article. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mine detector

FYI, Polish mine detector has been proposed to be renamed to mine detector, see talk:Polish mine detector -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone up for collaborating on some USAF SOF articles?

I currently have some article drafts in my userspace that I was looking to expand some more before moving them to the mainspace and I was just wondering if anyone else would be interested in some collaboration on them. Here are the two articles: User:Dainomite/21st Special Tactics Squadron and User:Dainomite/720th Special Tactics Group if you want to take a gander at what I have so far. I'm also open to any questions, comments or any of the like regarding them. Thanks, — -dainomite   01:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Give me a jingle when you're ready to move articles into mainspace. I can help out with lineage and source information in particular. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sound goods. Do you want me to move them out now? Or would you want to work on them in userspace prior to moving them? Either way works for me. — -dainomite   23:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond shortly on your talk page --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikilink question

Is a wikilink to Coats of arms of U.S. Infantry Regiments a necessity on See also section in the article 185th Infantry Regiment (United States)? I have started a discussion regarding that question here. Interested editors are invited to join in the conversation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion on this issue has broadened to include whether Coats of arms of U.S. Infantry Regiments should be a regularly assessed article (as it is now), a list article, or if its contents belong on Wikimedia Commons. There are similar articles on US military units arms that this would apply to as well. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed modifications to U.S. Navy's carrier onboard delivery page

I am writing regarding inaccuracies of the content on the following webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_onboard_delivery. I have attempted to resolve them myself, but they have been changed back each time. I think it is important to note that all of the information below did not appear on this specific page until a couple weeks ago and are not accurate to the U.S. Navy’s mission.

The introduction – “Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) is a type of aircraft able to ferry personnel, mail, and high-priority cargo, such asreplacement parts, on and off a naval ship, generally an aircraft carrier,” is inaccurate per the U.S. Navy (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=100&ct=1). The mission page states, “…primary mission is the transport of high-priority cargo, mail and passengers between carriers and shore bases.” Furthermore, Northrop Grumman’s C-2 Greyhound is the only COD platform that has ever existed for the U.S. Navy. That point is not accurately reflected.

I'm proposing a more accurate statement that reads: “The U.S. Navy’s carrier onboard delivery (COD) mission is responsible for the delivery and transport of high-priority cargo, personnel and supplies from shore bases to aircraft carriers at sea. Northrop Grumman’s C-2A Greyhound has served as the Navy’s primary COD platform for 50 years.”

I understand that this may be viewed as a small, minute change, but it is significant in terms of accurately reflecting the mission requirements and what actually occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcdev12 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So we should reflect what the Navy used to do instead of what they are planning to do? Hcobb (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The above reflects what is currently occuring today. C-2 is still in operation delivering supplies to the carriers. Represents the past, present and most likely future of the Navy's mission. They haven't decided on the future of the COD, so no reason to speculate.

Shouldn't the article reflect other nations COD as well eg Fairey Gannet and Sea Kings on Invincible and flightglobal reported Brazil buying Grumman Trackers for their own. At the moment it's rather US-centric. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As the primary editor involved in reverting the OP's changes,. The lead of the article does need to reflect the fact that COD missions have been preformed by other aircraft in the USn and in other navies in the past, esp, the RN. As written now, it focuses specifically on the US Navy and the C-2, which severly limits the scope of the article. I am willing to adjust the lead to address the editor's concerns, but as of now, I don't understand what the editor is objecting to specifically here. As far as the specifics of the article, we should address them on the article's talk page, as this page is quite active on other issues. - BilCat (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"the only COD platform that has ever existed for the U.S. Navy" See also the Grumman C-1 Trader--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that he overlooked the C-1 also. Perhaps he didn't think it qualified, but the Navy appears to have considered it a COD, as it did the TBM-3R and US-3A. I have rewritten the Lead to address what I think are his concerns, and to make it more global in scope also. - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Polllilur socks

The recent activities and article creations of this active sockpuppeteer/hoaxster might need some attention from this project. I've tried looking at some of the "sources" he provides, but nothing really clicks. FallingGravity (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that several are obvious hoaxes, speedy deletion category G5 applies to articles created by blocked editors attempting to evade their block. I've just zapped a few, and if you want to put together a list I'll delete them as well (if another admin doesn't beat me to it). Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just gone through and deleted all the articles which hadn't been turned into redirects. Starting single-paragraph articles about pre-modern era wars in Asia, Africa or North America vaguely 'referenced' to an obscure or wide-ranging publication is a popular tactic by hoaxers, and I'd suggest treating all such articles with extreme suspicion. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. FallingGravity (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ships ahoy

There are a lot more ship FACs up than usual, and all of them need reviews: Pennsylvania-class battleship, SMS Prinzregent Luitpold, Japanese battleship Yamashiro, USS Kearsarge (BB-5)‎, USS Saratoga (CV-3), and Zong massacre. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Some Help about MOWAG Vehicles?

Hello I tryed to create a few articles about MOWAG vehicles but i runn into problems. I am not a native english speaking person and creating articels on the english wikipedia is differend to the german wiki. There exist a Main page about MOWAG and Sub pages about the MOWAG Piranha, Eagl Duro. I collectet informations about some other MOWAG vehicles, and i would be very happy if some one could help me creat this articels or even would like to use my prework to create a article. I have placed the informations (temporay9 on the talkpage of MOWAG and on my talk page (but this IPnr is used from differend persons and so maybie not safe). I have also some Infos ready about some swiss tanks and Saurer Military vehicles. and a, still very raw, article about the last swiss fighterjetproject ALR Piranha.

See here User:193.5.216.100/sandbox at the moment i have here prepared the Informations about MOWAG Tanks- —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

193.5.216.100 (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

TFA for 25 April: Military history of Australia during World War II

In recognition of ANZAC Day, Military history of Australia during World War II will be today's featured article for 25 April (starting in about half an hour). There's generally an upsurge in vandalism of Australian military history articles around ANZAC day, and this is obviously going to be a major target. I'll be checking in regularly today, and I'd appreciate it if other editors could also keep an eye on the article. Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Excellent work on the article, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to everyone who monitored the article. It got off fairly lightly, but was attacked by the first-ever automated spambot I've seen on Wikipedia (hopefully not a coming trend...). Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Double-boats Cancer and Gemini

Sidney Smith (Royal Navy officer) is reported in the Morning Chronicle of 26 November 1805 to have invented the "double-boats" Cancer and Gemini, both of which foundered. Am I right in thinking that by "double-boat", a catamaran was meant? Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, see here - the first ones to be built for the RN, although the idea had been proposed and failed to get funding before then, and William Petty made a catamaran ferry for the Irish Sea in the 17th century. (obviously there had been double canoes in the Pacific for a long time before that) Le Deluge (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Allied Land Command

What would be the appropriate task force for this article? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would guess the nations and regions which it supports, because that's what the banner on NATO's talkpage does, as there's no taskforce more specific to an article of this nature. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Task force tags added. Any missed? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Aid station

Any ideas about which task force this should be under? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put it under SciTech on the basis that it includes "strategy, tactics, doctrines, military theory, and technology developed for military purposes". Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Armored spearhead

This would probably be a good canidate of a collaboration. It is in need of an expansion, especially in regards of sources. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You could try nominating it at WP:TAFI, if you want. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

For some time now I have issues loading this page. Page load takes up to a few minutes and not all the boxes get included correctly. Am I the only person with this issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I just had a really long load time with it, too. It looked to load completely, but there may have been an issue with the article ranking flowchart. Intothatdarkness 16:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No prob here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Norman conquest of England needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Norman conquest of England; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

WW1 map copyright and use on WP

I have a few very relevant WW1 maps relating to Battle of the Hohenzollern Redoubt and nearby that have come down to me from my grandfather, Geoffrey Vickers who fought there. Some are clearly marked as by Ordnance Survey, which I understand we are able to use because OS copyright lasts only 50 years, however others are not marked. If the maps are in his own work then we have legal copyright and can release them on a suitable licence, however they could have been produced by someone else unknown. Should I upload them on WP Commons, if so what should I say about copyright? Or would Flickr would be better if there are copyright doubts? I note that the map on the current article is flagged with a query (I have a copy of the same map but from an earlier data with the trenches shown in different ownership). PeterEastern (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Since they're WWI, and thus before 1923, if there's doubt, you can upload them here (that is, en-wiki, not commons) using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. That's what I generally do. {{PD-UK-unknown}} may also be an option, though, as commons can be a bit funny at times, if I was going down that route, I'd upload them here first, and throw a {{KeepLocal}} on it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

1923 is only for published material, though; if they were someone's own work and survive as family copies, isn't there a good chance they were never formally published?

Personally, I would be inclined to say "we believe they are his own work, previously unpublished, and we can thus license them as [whatever]". You don't have solid proof, but it's a fair assumption to make. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I have now added a couple of maps as you suggested and will see how they get received! [18] and [19] showing different extents of British advance during the battle, but unfortunately without dates. PeterEastern (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; presumably, the date of the work is ca 1918. If the work is unpublished, then the copyright has not expired. An author must be determined and a release must be obtained. If the author died before 1943, then it is public domain. If the author is unknown, then it is not. See the Cornell copyright summary. Glrx (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's a shame. In that case I will probably not bother with additional uploads! Fyi, the maps are definitely from 1915, the author is almost certainly British and the maps were almost certainly published in the UK or in France. I think it is reasonable to assume that these maps were surveyed, printed and distributed, ie published.PeterEastern (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• What would be very handy is if someone could tell us that WW1 official maps were crown copyright, which conveniently only lasts 50 years from date of publication to this day. I note that National Archives explains that "Crown copyright is copyright material which is produced by employees of the Crown in the course of their duties. Most material originated by ministers and civil servants is protected by Crown copyright". Would it be reasonable to say that someone produces a map for soldiers during a war was doing so in that way? PeterEastern (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• I notice that this website claims that trench maps are crown copyright (which has expired). It reads "Sketch and trench maps - The maps in this section are ones I have found tucked away in the unit war diaries. Unless stated they are all Crown Copyright." PeterEastern (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that UK soldiers producing trench maps as part of their duties would probably be a crown copyright. I also believe that distributing maps to soldiers would probably constitute publication. However, if a soldier penned a description of the battle in a personal diary, then I would not consider that description to be a crown copyright or to have been published. Consequently, a diary would need a release unless the author died before 1943. Annotations added to crown-copyright map could have their own copyright; instead of writing in a diary, a soldier may have made private notes (not in the course of his employment) on a trench map; those private notes would be a separate copyright issue and belong to the soldier rather than the crown. Glrx (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am fairly confident WWI official maps are crown copyright, lapsed through time since publication; certainly anything formally printed will have been considered "published". There is a bit more of a grey area around hand-annotations on maps (both the examples above are hand-drawn on printed blanks, I think?) but in most wartime cases we can reasonably consider those Crown material as well. I can't imagine that there will be many situations in which there is a significant amount of non-official duties material on these maps, and where it is (eg personal notes) it's likely to be quite obvious. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The maps were hand-drawn, but the given examples could have been reproduced with something like a hectograph. Glrx (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but a straight reproduction is not enough labor to qualify for copyright afaik. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to adjust the licence information to say that they are almost certainly crown copyright which has expired. He claimed to have carried these maps in action and he stopped writing his diary (unfortunately) for the duration of this action. PeterEastern (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Harv errors and dup links

Hi all, just a general note for those who don't have them installed, the following scripts are useful for detecting Harvard citation errors and duplicate links in your articles (and in those you're reviewing):

• User:Ucucha/HarvErrors
• User:Ucucha/duplinks

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK on Order of battle at Jutland

Dfvj (talk · contribs) has recently been linking some German officers from this article, on which no article exists yet on the English wikipedia, to their equivalent articles on the German wikipedia. I reverted those edits to restore the redlinks on the basis of Wikipedia:Red link, including the section on interwikis which states that if such links that are to be made, they are to be done in a different way to how this user is doing it anyway. Yet he continually reverts. Perhaps other users could have a look and weigh in, just in case I have a wrong understanding of the linking policy here. If there are articles on other wikipedias on a subject the English wikipedia does not yet have, is it better to link to foreign language wikipedias rather than leaving a red link on the English one? Benea (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's better to leave it red. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That was my feeling as well. I've restored the redlinks twice, he just tells me to write the English articles or allow them to be linked to wikipedia de. Rather than get into a one on one, could someone else revert? I've also noticed the German wikipedia doesn't have an article on one officer, so he's just linked to a tangential article on the German wikipedia, which seems to be stretching things too far. Benea (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that they should remain red; interwiki links do not work that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the English historiography name for WWII Soviet "Lusatian operation"?

Please see Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Lusatian_operation.3F. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Something I came across today

Have a look at these old historic images please. Amazing quality. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata + Infobox FYI

Pls. note http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Infoboxes_task_force#Phase_2_on_hold_f.C3.BCr_military.2Bweapons_templates Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Indian Armed Forces

I would like to draw the attention of the regular users of this board to the 'criticism' section of this article. I have filed an RfC regarding this section that aims to gain consensus on the validity of this section, particularly in the light of wikipedia policies concerning criticism sections. Generous commentary on that page is invited.Handyunits (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

List categories

I've noticed on the ACW task force page that any list articles above start class are lumped with the other articles instead of being in their own category, even though the list's talk page might have the disignation. (For example, Talk:Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1861 is listed as BL-class but is included in the regular B-class category.) Any way to change this? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a known issue; when the list-specific assessments were introduced, only the project-level support for them was implemented, not the task force-level support, so as to allow easy reversion to the old system if the new system had significant problems. At this stage, we're ready (in principle) to implement the list-specific assessments at all levels; however, this will most probably be rolled in to the Lua rewrite of the project banner (which I'm currently working on, and hope to have done by the end of May) rather than implemented in the existing banner framework. Kirill ^[talk] 18:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Uprising of the Iga Ninja

the existence of the article Uprising of the Iga Ninja is under discussion at WT:WikiProject Martial Arts -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tactical Autonomous Combatant

The article Tactical Autonomous Combatant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neologism. Has seen practically no meaningful (i.e. not vandals or bots) editing since 2007. Non-notable: from Google search, program did exist, but little came out of it and the term hasn't to my/Google's knowledge been used ever again.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ansh666 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Military robot (the only page that had linked to it) as a reasonable enough redirect, and added an Internet Archive ref to the original page mentioning it there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

British Volunteers in the Napoleonic Wars

We don't seem to have an article about these (a sort of early Home Guard) and I thought I would have a crack at it - this page gives an overview. The Volunteer (disambiguation) page has a Volunteer Infantry redlink, although I believe that there was Volunteer artillery too. We already have Volunteer Force (Great Britain) for 1859-1908, and Loyal Volunteers redirects to an article about colonial Pennsylvania. Can anyone suggest a better name for the article? Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I've encountered "Volunteer movement", but I can't remember which group it applied to! "Rifle volunteers" gets used for the 1860s groups sometimes. Sheppard's Short History of the British Army uses "Volunteers" and "Volunteer Force" for the two groups respectively; the Oxford History of the British Army likewise uses "Volunteers" for the Napoleonic groups. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Volunteer Force" or "Volunteer Corps" are the usual terms for this organisation in its various incarnations (spasmodically 1757 to 1783; 1784-1803; 1804-14; 1859-1908). Specifying the actual period should prevent any confusion with the 19th century Volunteer Movement, sparked off when the French (Britain's allies in the Crimea shortly before) suddenly seemed to be becoming aggressive. The article would need to make a distinction between "volunteers" and "militia" - the latter a system of parish-based conscription which existed alongside the volunteers. Good luck with the article - it would clearly fill a gap. Buistr (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above two posts):This extract from Hansard of 1804 (talking about consolidating various earlier parliamentary acts regulating volunteer forces) seems to suggest Volunteer Corps. The 2nd Earl of Spencer said "He was by no means an enemy to Volunteer Corps. He had the honour to belong to one since the year 1794, the period of their first formation". This article ("The shop-keeping army": The Membership of Volunteer Corps) seems to back this up but on the whole there doesn't seem much consistency. Further mentions of volunteers in Hansard of the time include this 1807 question to the chancellor ("Volunteer force of Great Britain and Ireland" and "Volunteer corps") and this earlier 1904 debate on the consolidation bill ("volunteer corps"). The following seem to contain useful information: The British Armed Nation, 1793-1815, The British Volunteer Movement, 1794-1814, The English Master of Arms:From the Twelfth to the Twentieth Century, Resisting Napoleon:the British response to the threat of invasion, 1797-1815, The Volunteer Movement as an Anti-Revolutionary Force, 1793-1801, Yeomanry wars: The history of the Yeomanry, Volunteer and Volunteer Association Cavalry : a civilian tradition from 1794, The English Volunteer Movement of the French Wars, 1793–1815: Some Contexts, British Society and the French Wars, 1793–1815 and Revolution Debate:Britain in the 1790s. Whatever title you decide do let me know, there seems to be enough info out there for a decent length article on this interesting subject and I'd be glad to help out - Dumelow (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps Volunteer Corps (1797-1814)? Or should I create separate articles for each time that they were raised? Alansplodge (talk)

I have started a stub article called Volunteer corps (1794-1814) which I'll try to flesh out in the next few days; please feel free to contribute. Thanks for your help. Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

British soldiers in the eighteenth century is a detailed article which makes a few mentions of volunteers in the British Army, the creator of that article might help you. On a side note, the title Volunteer corps (1794-1814) does not identify to a nation.. any country can have a volunteers' corps, and there are a number of other articles on wiki with the same wording in the title. Would be better moved to British Volunteer corps (1794–1814) so it's less ambiguous, easier to categorise and easier to search for. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Carrite has renamed the article Volunteer Corps. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to British Volunteer Corps because the British usage of "Volunteer Corps" cannot be claimed as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC whilst several other articles use the term in their title. The redirected Volunteer Corps should be set up as a disambiguation page to the articles which use the term. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is now done. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Splendid! Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

2 resources on regiments

• Almack, Edward (1900). Regimental badges worn in the British army one hundred years ago. East & Blades.
• Wickes, H.L. (1974). Regiments of Foot: A Historical Record of All the Foot Regiments of the British Army (PDF). Osprey Publishing.

Found these when expanding the article on the Ups and Downs (69th Foot), in case anyone else wants to check them out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar

Could anyone tell me if this is useful? Feel free to review the submission. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What? You didn't link to anything. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm such a dunce! Sorry about that, mate, here it is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Military of the Sassanid Empire sidebar. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Sassanid Empire or AfC policies to review it objectively, but with regards military history templates in general it appears to be okay and there are plenty of article to place it on. Once approved, can you please add it to Category:Middle East war and conflict navigational boxes, so it is in the MilHist category tree; I think that will suffice, it's the only Middle East category I can find for that region. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem.  Done Where are such things placed? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sidebars? Typically they're placed under the main infobox, much like navigation boxes, to provide quick access to links relating to the topic. Some lengthy articles might place them a little further down the page, especially when there's a long lead, they might place the sidebar in the top of the first section after the TOC to make the top section less cramped. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, that was very frank. I meant where are those sidebars found together? Is there some sort of Wiki-receptacle for them? I'm particularly interested because I want to know where this one should go. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, try Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Templates, though normally they just go into suitable categories, if I understand you properly. Milhist tends to use period/campaign specific navigation box templates more than general topic sidebars, so I don't think the sidebars that have been created for the odd topic are as well organised. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Request help on Androcide

The Androcide article used to be a stub, I added some materials from Gendercide but it needs a full treatment. Help requested. Thanks!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Image question

I am wondering if someone else can look at the image located on this webpage. The image is published in a reliable source, but the photo is "Courtesy of Vance Peterson", who at the time that the image was taken was an active duty lieutenant colonel in the United States Army. It appears to be a personal photo, not taken in an official capacity. Therefore, the question is, as an active duty individual at the time which the photo was taken, is the image in the public domain, or is it not? I have looked at the WP:NFC, and if it isn't in the public domain (per Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works as other images produced by U.S. federal government personnel are, then it would not be usable per WP:NFC#UUI. So which is it?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not useable because it's not an official gov't photo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So images taken by active duty personnel for non-official purposes are not in the public domain? Got it.

So the images taken in Abu Ghraib are in the public domain are public domain because they were taken while the individuals were doing their job, even though their actions were against policy?

At what point is someone active duty, deployed, not considered on duty and thus the images not considered in public domain?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

When they are not acting in their official capacity, like template:PD-USGov-Military-Air_Force says, "This image is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." Most released military images are taken by Public Affairs/Combat Camera personnel where it's their sole job to "go around snapping pictures/video" so when they take pictures and the military publishes them then they are in the PD. That's why when the mil releases them they almost always put who took the photo. Here's an example, the Tyndall AFB photo gallery on their website, each of those are taken by Public Affairs and released by the AF giving credit to the PA individual who took the picture. Now, if I'm at work and I snap a picture of a dolphin jumping out of the water, it's not automatically in the public domain just because I'm in the military and it was taken while I was at work. Here's a personal photo I took while deployed that I released as the copyright holder, File:Dazzler mounted on M-240B in Iraq.jpg. The Abu Ghraib stuff I'm not 100% about but I'm sure they were confiscated by authorities and released into the PD that way, again I'm not sure about that one. Hope this helps, — -dainomite   02:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Another version of the image can be found here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Template about Modern IFV and APC

I think the template Modern IFV and APC is in need of a major clean-up. I already took out prototypes, that have never gone into production, links to company sites, trucks, etc. but one fundamental problem remains: most people that added vehicles to the template did not know what actually an IFV or an APC is! Therefore there are a lot vehicles listed that do not belong there. If I were to be bold I would remove almost all the 4x4 vehicles, as most of them do not qualify as an APC; but I think it is better to establish first consensus about what belongs on the template and what not and then make a note at the template so that people don't keep adding MRAPs or LAPVs (as i.e. the LAPV Enok).
The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe defines APCs and IFV as follows:

"The term "armoured personnel carrier" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped to transport a combat infantry squad and which, as a rule, is armed with an integral or organic weapon of less than 20 millimeters calibre."

"The term "armoured infantry fighting vehicle" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, ..., and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher."

A lot of the 4x4 vehicles in the template can only transport 3 or 4 people, which is not even half a squad (the drivers and gunners of the vehicle don't count). As a compromise all vehicles, which are armoured, can transport at least half a squad and carry a weapon could stay in the template. Anyone else has an opinion about this? noclador (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think the WP:COMMONNAME definitions might be more useful than the legal ones. Which would basically define a APC as "an armored vehicle, wheeled or tracked, intended for carrying squads of infantry", with IFV being "an APC that is designed to allow the infantry carried to engage in combat without dismounting" - at least that's always been my understanding of the term IFV! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually you're very right. I took the part about the infantry able to engage in combat without dismounting out from the legal definition to make it a bit broader. The full definition in the treaty is: "The term "armoured infantry fighting vehicle" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which normally provides the capability for the troops to deliver fire from inside the vehicle under armoured protection, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher." I think one very good point to define IFV and APC is that they can carry an infantry squad. Should only vehicles that can carry a full squad be in the template? Or is half a squad the minimum? (i.e. the Italian Puma 6x6 carries a fireteam of 4, but the Pumas are always used in pairs; thus carrying an entire infantry squad). noclador (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The British Army doesn't let the issue of not firing from inside stop them referring to Warrior as an IFV [20] (because they believe in the vehicle carrying the troops up to the area of the objective and then once they have dismounted providing supporting fire - in part I suspect because at best you can only get half the troops firepower as some sort of broadside and none in the forward direction). The combination of troop carrying and substantial supporting fire seems to be what distinguishes an IFV from an APC. And worse case there's always RS to argue from if a vehicle doesn't look like it makes the grade as an APC. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, an IFV is easily to recognize - it has a turret with major firepower (20mm to 40mm autocannons) and carries a squad of infantry. APCs are the same but without the turret. The other armoured vehicles intended for the battlefield are Main Battle Tanks and fire support vehicles (like the M1128 Mobile Gun System, or B1 Centauro) (as well as tank destroyers). MRAPs are just for ferrying infantry around, but have no battlefield role. Armoured patrol vehicles don't carry an infantry squad around. What are the thoughts about adding the following definition to the template: "Please add only armoured vehicles that can carry at least half an infantry squad (4 infantry soldiers) onto the battlefield. Reconnaissance vehicles, fire support vehicles, tank destroyers, patrol vehicles, MRAPs and similar vehicles, which do not carry infantry troops or which are not intended for battlefield use, should not be added to this template.". noclador (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I split the template into 4 templates to put the various vehicles into more fitting groups:

• Wheeled infantry fighting vehicles and armoured personnel carriers
• Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles
• Wheeled armoured combat vehicles
• Wheeled armoured reconnaissance vehicles

A further template was needed for Armoured Jeeps as i.e. the Ocelot. So I created a template provisionally named Modern light tactical vehicles, but I did not yet add this template to any article. Basically that last template groups armoured cars and Jeeps together. If anyone has suggestion on how to improve the templates, please feel free to do so. noclador (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of sources: a question

I've been advised to ask here about a matter which may have a wider remit than just the single article in question. We have had a situation on Ian Fleming recently that has resulted in the inclusion of an article from a fanzine, largely at the insistence of the author, whose approach and attitude has ensured a rather toxic talk page for a while. Although the new information (which I inserted with this edit) is probably correct and replaced what was probably an incorrect and unsupported statement, it is still based on something from a fanzine, which makes a number of editors rather uncomfortable. Given the source to be a fanzine, published by the James Bond International Fan Club—and this edit to have been pushed by the author of the article—would people generally consider this information to pass muster as a reliable source in any article, much less an FA? - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone could possibly claim COI based on the author's advocacy of his own work, let alone the origin of the article. Intothatdarkness 14:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And, at some point in the life cycle of articles that are "historical" (in some sense), the bar gets raised higher than "whatever's in marginally reliable sources", and becomes something more like a search for historical consensus. We don't want to be too quick to slap down new editors or unconventional sources, because that would put us on the wrong side of history ... the Web 2.0 movement includes the proposition that everyone's entitled to a voice and a fair hearing in knowledge generation, and we're on the forefront of Web 2.0, and we're winning and will continue to win that battle. But we've decided that WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV are the best ways to be fair about giving everyone a voice in a competitive editing environment. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

On a related point, I'm concerned about the difficulties we used to have with Audie Murphy and that we're apparently having with Ian Fleming now, and what that says about what direction Wikipedia is headed. More later. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm the troublesome editor mentioned by ShroCat above. :) He's missed a few salient points, I think. Firstly, my edit was miniscule. It was to correct some very small errors about an unpublished James Bond novel from the 60s, Per Fine Ounce, and all the information I added was already in that entry on the novel, where my article has been cited as a source for the past six years. In fact, my article is the source for most of the information in that entry on the book, as stated by the editor who put it there on the talk page in 2007. I do appreciate that fanzines are generally not seen as reliable sources, and agree with that - but I think sometimes they can be sources of in-depth reporting into specific topics, for obvious reasons. When I wrote that article in 2005 I was working as a full-time professional journalist, but would probably have struggled to get a mainstream magazine or paper to publish something so in-depth on a rather esoteric part of James Bond lore.

I do appreciate that there is apparently a distinction between the Per Fine Ounce article and the Ian Fleming one in that the latter has a cherished 'Featured Article' status and SchroCat doesn't want to lose that status by having a less than secure source in it. But I think the content of the article itself is rather relevant here - occasionally, the best source of something might be an unexpected one. SchroCat asks if people would 'generally consider' information from a source such as this fit to 'pass muster as a reliable source in any article'. Generally, perhaps not. But exceptions can occasionally be made for common sense reasons, I hope. For example, I found four draft pages of the novel, and this is mentioned in the Per Fine Ounce article. There's no other way to cite anything but my article as the primary source for that discovery, despite it being published in a James Bond fanzine. As it happens, there are no inline citations making this clear, but if you remove all the parts of the Per Fine Ounce article that draw on my research, relying solely on books and non-fanzine magazines, there will be very little of that article left - and it probably won't be accurate, either. I think it's also highly relevant that I both wrote the article while working as a professional journalist and have since published several fairly high-profile articles researching Ian Fleming and James Bond, which are cited both on my own Wikipedia entry and on the pages in question. I've been a professional journalist since the 1990s, and a full-time published author since 2008. My next book is in fact military history of a sort. I think all of this could easily be pointed out if objections were to be raised to citing a 'mere' fanzine. I think it's fair to say, hand on heart, that in this case most James Bond 'experts', if there is such a thing, would regard my article as the most authoritative on Per Fine Ounce. I know that sounds immodest, but I can't see any other way to make that point other than stating what I'm sure is the case! As I've pointed out numerous times in the (amazingly long) debate about this, it isn't my proudest acheivement in life to be the authority on this obscure piece of Bond trivia, but it is nevertheless the case.

I also didn't push to have my article cited, but simply made the change because it was a tiny one, correcting an inaccuracy in the article to what was already expressed (in almost precisely the same terms) in the entry for the book as a whole, and because I knew it to be the case as I was the source of the information. I clearly noted all this when making the change, asking that people check the entry for the book first before just reverting the tiny change unthinkingly. It was reverted anyway and we went to Talk, where again I explained that this was a tiny edit that reflected what was already in the entry for the book, and gave a link to my article so it could be read in full and gauged. I understand the problem with conflict of interest, and of using unreliable sources, but surely common sense can also apply? If not, it means that the Per Fine Ounce article will be accurate and the Ian Fleming article will contradict it and be inaccurate. It also means that, even when making tiny changes, I can't apply any small esoteric expertise I have to Wikipedia without it being taken in bad faith, which seems a shame, as I'm simply trying to be responsible and correct inaccuracies. I don't have anything to gain by it.

Schrocat notes my 'approach and attitude has ensured a rather toxic talk page for a while'. It has been toxic, but there are two sides to every story. My view of it is that the Ian Fleming page is essentially locked to new editors. I have tried in the last three or four days to make some very small changes indeed - some of a matter of a couple of words - correcting misrepresentations in it of the sources cited. They were all reverted, most of them by Shcrocat, some of them within minutes, some within seconds, despite my providing my reasoning for the edit clearly, as I have done on several other pages with no problem at all. I then had to go to the Talk page to reach consensus on this at Schrocat's insistence - but he immediately admitted that he hadn't even consulted the cited source for my edit. We agued for over two days, nearly non-stop, about three tiny common-sense edits. SchroCat argued at one point that three brief articles reporting a historian's research were a stronger source than his research. He eventually resorted to emailing the historian to try to contradict his own 400-page book on the matter. Which he didn't. Finally, he restored all the edits I had made. The entire argument was unnecessary, because ShcroCat could simply have checked all this himself in ten minutes, and found I was right, without forcing me to engage in a very aggravating and time-consuming discussion when he hadn't checked. He is not alone in this - about five editors of the Ian Fleming page have reverted incredibly minor edits in a kneejerk fashion. This is bad faith - the presumption every time has been that my edits are wrong, without checking the sources or, in some cases, even reading the edit I had made. As I say, two sides to every story. I think the fact that all my tiny edits were eventually restored gives an indication I knew what I was doing, though.

In my limited experience of reading and editing here, I think that as well as issues of how to deal with Web 2.0 sources, blogs, fanzines, and articles behind paywalls, there is often a problem with the concept of original research on Wikipedia. I understand the reasons for it, of course, but essentially that principle means I can make edits to lots of articles except on the stuff I actually know best. I have to hope that others correct the inaccuracies on here about my research, or risk being accused of a conflict of interest or, worse, being an unreliable source. That limits how helpful my contributions can be immediately. I can see several small inaccuracies I could clear up in other articles, but am now very hesitant to do so. Toxicity also spreads - when you are right about a very small thing and someone ties you up for days to get it into an aticle, tempers get even more frayed. I felt exhausted by it. Another problem with the original research angle is that it is so often a matter of opinion - I have had my blog cited in articles on Wikipedia, but then in other articles that would be ruled as inadmissiable. The Per Fine Ounce page cites my article on it - the Fleming one finds that a problem. So there are inconsistencies, which is to be expected - but it seems there is also quite a level of control. I was unable to override SchroCat any other way than waiting for him to finally see sense, and that took a very long time. I suspect most people in my position would have given up a lot quicker. Jeremy Duns (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much for putting in the effort, hopefully we'll get this resolved. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - and sorry to write at such length, but there's a fair amount of nuance and 'back story' to this - and I'm also still in rather a bad mood from what I regard as the toxicity of repeatedly tying up tiny simple edits in days of argument. Jeremy Duns (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, two days to decide the primacy of one reliable source over another is not a long time: an WP:RFC could have been opened up which could have resulted in a much longer discussion of around a week or so. To be honest, when you edit-war your way into a discussion, which is what you did, it really doesn't engender much in the way of a consensus to start with, nor does arguing with any other editor who tries to explain how things are done on Wikipedia (yes, actually trying to help you, and not giving you "shrill lectures"), and when people have a difference of opinion with you it is not bad faith that is the root cause of that. In terms of the current question that I have asked here, it is a general point about whether a fanzine is a reliable source. Personally I'd remove the sentence and the source from the article to be on the safe side, as it's largely irrelevant to the Fleming piece as a whole. Finally, Jeremy, and just as an aside, to say that your edits "were all reverted, most of them by Shcrocat" is just plain misleading: people here know how to read a history page well enough to see that you actually warred against five different editors in your rush to insert material. Is it any wonder that the page turned toxic against that background? - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, SchroCat, but you're being disingenuous. It wasn't a question of deciding the primacy of one reliable source over another at all. I cut just nine words from the article, and added eight. In doing so, I removed three separate pieces of small information. The origin of two of those were the same source, Ben Macintyre’s book Operation Mincemeat, which was cited already but had been misrepresented. So all you needed to do for those two was check that source, which you later claimed you had already read. But you didn't even bother checking it before demanding a consensus discussion. If you had, you’d have seen I was right. The other piece of information I removed was admittedly claimed in two sources (though not cited in the article), but in both cases was mentioned in passing in a single sentence, and in a very vague way with no primary sources given to back them – but the information was not in any of the full-length books or documentaries about this operation, and there have been several of both. Simple common sense says that it is infinitessimally unlikely that several respected historians independently researching one of the most famous deception operations of the Second World War in depth can't all have missed one of the most famous writers of the 20th century assisting in its planning.

You demanded I take all of these very small changes to Talk to reach a consensus with you, so I did. Have another look at my first post explaining them, currently at the top of the Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Fleming That's a very reasonably toned comment that explains my reasoning in detail. I think any editor with common sense should have seen from that first post of mine that I'd read the cited source, Macintyre’s book, extremely closely and was right on all three points. A skeptical editor might not have taken my word for it and gone away and checked the book to see if I had accurately presented it, but they should have done that first, before seeking consensus. You didn’t even do it after I made my comment! It soon became clear that you not only were refusing to check Macintyre’s book but were actively trying to find other sources to contradict me – including emailing him! – rather than simply reading the chapter cited, and which I had explained backed my very small edits. When you repeatedly refused to see sense, yes, I became annoyed. It felt like banging my head against a wall.

I didn’t edit-war my way into the discussion – I made some very small edits to improve the change and they were removed by another user within two minutes. It became very clear in the discussion that not only had he not bothered to read the source first (how could he have done in that time?), he hadn’t even read the edits he reverted!

I do owe you an apology for a genuine mistake in my last comment: when I said my edits 'were all reverted, mostly by you', I got muddled with terms - what I meant, of course, was that in the end you put all my edits back into the article. Because you were wrong on every single one of the points you unnecessarily demanded I discuss with you for days. It was bad faith because you (and others) chose immediately to suspect that my edits were wrong, and you demanded a consensus without even checking first. I don’t mind being challenged, but if you demand a consensus for something that means you have good reason to doubt it. You didn't. These were very small edits indeed, and it was clear I knew the source very well. If it hadn’t been clear from my comments on the page history making them (which I think it was), it should have been very clear indeed from my first comment on the Talk page. Look at the discussion! Look how long you dragged this out before putting all three of these minor changes back in again. My first comment was at 10:09 on 29 April, and the last of these three edits of mine was replaced by you, after a very lengthy and almost non-stop argument about it that took me thousands of words and had me tearing my hair out at your inability to apply common sense to reading and weighing sources, at 15:01 on *1 May*. Look at how long that discussion is. If you’d spent 10 minutes consulting Macintyre first, you could have avoided tying me and you up in such a frustrating, soul-sapping dispute. The toxicity here is that you and others editing the Fleming page are treating tiny sensible edits from others in bad faith by dragging them into immense debates as though they're enormous controversies, and you're doing so within minutes of the edits being made, without even checking them out first, at all. There’s a really simple way around that: just calm down, check the sources that have been given for the edit in question first, and once you’ve done that it you still have an actual valid reason to disbelieve the edit, *then* question it. You're shooting first and asking questions later. And it has been extremely time-consuming and energy-draining to make you understand the fact that passing mentions of Fleming planning an operation in two Fleming bios in are self-evidently erroneous when not one of several authoritative full-length accounts of it mention him doing any such thing. Jeremy Duns (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[ec caused by comment editing above]Y'all might want to take the wall of text fight somewhere else. Personally I feel that there are many problems surrounding the way this place treats both research and scholarship, but I also understand the frustration that goes with trying to get an article through the convoluted upgrade process. Article get derailed for little things, often raised by people who don't necessarily know much about the subject. Tense times. Intothatdarkness 19:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess, having made similar small edits to a few other articles without any problems at all, I wasn't prepared to have to argue for the best part of a day non-stop to remove two words from this one with someone who hadn't even looked first. Jeremy Duns (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it's frustrating. From what I understand, the Fleming article had some challenges getting to where it is now, and those who took a hand in the process are keen to make sure it doesn't slide back. And if you're an author making changes based on something you wrote, there might be someone in the review process who would claim COI or something similar and derail the entire process. The joys of working here....Intothatdarkness 19:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I do understand that, but I think there is such a thing as being overly sensitive to any edits at all as a result of that fear, and I think it has stifled any possibility of editing this article from anyone but a handful of editors. If you have to argue for days about miniscule changes with people who refuse to even consult the source inaccuracies will fester - and editors with knowledge will leave. The amount of time and energy it's taken me to make a handful of tiny, uncontroversial and entirely accurate edits to this article borders is insane. There's a line between sensible precaution and crazy time-wasting. SchroCat and others who effectively control the editing of the page by pushing every minute change to a consensus debate for days have just shown me they are way over the line into crazy time-wasting. Jeremy Duns (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to drag this out any further, as I started a discussion about what constitutes a reliable source, not to give another forum for you follow me to in order to rehash the whole tedious argument again: deciding on which of the reliable sources takes precedence is not "uncontroversial", surely you can see that? And it's not about the number of words being added or taken away: I hate you. I like you. Words changed = 0; meaning changed utterly and totally. And yes, when you revert to get back to your own preferred version of an article, that's the definition of edit warring. Not that you'll listen to me (or anyone else) about it. Now, can we drop the crap about "he-did, she-did" and concentrate on whether a fanzine can be considered a reliable source for an FA, or for any article? - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

:) That's a fair point that it's not about the number of words - yes, I can see that. I hope you can still see that these were all very small and uncontroversial changes, though. Deciding which reliable source took precedence needn't have been controversial at all, as you could have checked all of them first yourself without any discussion - insisting on taking two days to argue about these points with me was sheer lunacy, especially as you did it for a *very* long time after it was clear I was right: it's just basic common sense that on matters involving Operation Mincemeat, the single sentences in Ian Fleming by Lycett and James Bond: The Man and his World by Henry Chancellor are not as reliable as the entire book Operation Mincemeat by Ben Macintyre, as well as several other detailed accounts. Seriously.

And I loathe this terminology, 'revert', 'edit-warring'. It really all sounds like it's out of a dystopian future in a Philip K Dick novel. The reality is I made some small changes to the article, and someone then undid them all within 2 minutes for no valid reason: I knew there was no valid reason because he couldn't possibly have consulted the given source in that time, and in fact made it obvious by saying 'sources' were already cited when there was just one for this. I also had the source in front of me as I had used it to make the edit. So I undid his stupid, knee-jerk, wrong change. He undid it back. We both undid each other's changes. The idea that only one of us was 'edit-warring' is just daft. Same applies with you and me. There's no difference between me undoing a change you make and you undoing a change I make. You're not my boss, or senior to me in some way. What counts is the information. The officiousness of all this jargon, and editors peeved at being proven wrong by rushing to stamp policies and acroynms and warnings everywhere, as both you and several others have done, is incredibly frustrating. Good old common sense gets you a lot further. Within 11 minutes of you demanding I stop edit-warring and seek a consensus I had posted to say I would do so, and then written and published a detailed comment on the Talk page outlining my reasons in clear terms that should have closed the discussion right there. Within those same 11 minutes, you left me the same officious message demanding I stop edit-warring in three different places! At one point in the consensus discussion (CONDIS?) you actually wrote the following to me: 'You were one revert away from a trip to ANI this morning, and that would have led to a ban for warring.' Just read that sentence again with fresh eyes. Do you recognize it as normal language, or a discourse of officiousness that reads like a melding of Kafka, 1984 and Judge Dredd? I fully understand that Wikipedia needs to have tons of guidelines and they all need to be named things, but do they really need to be bandied about in this way, and so frequently? And often so incorrectly? It's soul-destroying stuff, this! It must surely be obvious to you by now that not only was I acting in good faith by making every one of these tiny changes to what appears to be your Ian Fleming article, and that I was right all along on every point and have improved the article, but also that to get there *you*, not me, needlessly wasted an enormous amount of time 'warring' with someone who actually knows more about some aspects of Ian Fleming than even you do. Not all. I know very little about some aspects of Fleming. But I know a lot about other aspects.

As for whether or not a fanzine can be considered a reliable source, I've made my position clear above: generally no, but occasionally, if common sense and research into it says the article in question warrants it, yes. I think mine does, but if you don't perhaps consider it in concrete terms. The entry for Per Fine Ounce currently states 'Four draft pages of the manuscript were discovered in 2005, in which we learn that the Double-O Section has been closed down and James Bond defies M on a matter of principle, resigning from MI6 to pursue his mission in South Africa alone.' I hope you'd agree that in terms of this unpublished book, the fact that draft pages were found and that they reveal these details isn't just interestiong, but also really has to be present in the article or it would be missing some very significant information about this subject. But the source for this is my fanzine article - I discovered the pages, and revealed what was in them. So if you can't ever source a fanzine, what do you concretely suggest be done with this part of the Per Fine Ounce article? Remove significant information you know is accurate because the magazine happens to have been published by the JBIFC? Leave it in but refuse to mention the source for the same reason? Or is there an alternative? I can't think of any, and think it shows how, occasionally, a fanzine, or a blog, or some other not generally accepted source, can be the best source for a piece of information. But then, I would say that. All I'm interested in is myself and that is obviously why I made the edit, not because I happened to spot an inaccuracy based on my knowledge. I'm clearly a *COI perp*. Jeremy Duns (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

♠I'm frankly split on this one. On one hand, 'zine articles will tend to be by people who know the subject backwards & sideways; otherwise, there wouldn't be a 'zine in the first place. On the other, the sourcing of that material is often questionable, even non-existent.

♠Could we establish a "safe list"? Find 'zines that generally get it right, & count them as RS? Here, I'm thinking of, frex, Trek (is that even around anymore?), which I'd count as among the best for factual articles. Would a 'zine need to be published by an official fan organization? By the biggest?

♠On a related note, where does that put the likes of Fangoria? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely such a list would be incredibly long and cumbersome, considering all the types of fandom there are, and would need to be constantly updated, and no doubt warred about at great length to boot? Why not simply decide on a case by case basis, using common sense? All sources need to be weighed - it's part of the art of being a good editor. It's rarely simply just about who has published the material, and always in some way about gauging the content of the material itself.

SchroCat has accused me of 'following' him here, but he's discussing my article and if the conversation here goes one way I think it will probably result in the wrecking of a whole Wikipedia entry, on Per Fine Ounce, because a lot of significant information in that entry is drawn from the research in my 2005 fanzine article. So I'm here to make the case for why information in a fanzine, or on a blog, or self-published, or in fact anywhere, *can* be the best source for some information. Just as information on CNN can sometimes be wrong. Michael France produced the Bond fanzine Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang years before going on to write the screenplay for Goldeneye. In fact, many renowned Bond names have written for Bond fanzines - that doesn't mean all of them should be accepted willy-nilly, but quite a few contain very valuable and authoritative information from experts. In a rather small way, I'm a Bond expert. Also a published author, with Penguin in the States and Simon and Schuster in the UK and Canada. I think this article is well established as being the authoritative article about Per Fine Ounce, and it's actually probably better known than my article on The Diamond Smugglers script I found, which was published in the Sunday Times. I think in general fanzine articles shouldn't be cited, but if someone makes a decent case for one being cited, and others look into it and agree, applying common sense, being bold and making an exception would work fine, and improve articles. Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

See my discussion of these controversies below at Operation Golden Eye; I think this is an open-ended dialogue (an argument, really) that is not situated towards finding a solution or reaching a consensus. I think discussions like this are sometimes healthy, but not when they're so predominated by two editors so as to discourage most potential participants from engaging in the discussion. Because of the treatises that have already been written, I, for instance, don't want to get involved, whereas I have an actual opinion. My suggestion is that this be taken to a place where a consensus can actually be reached, such as WP:RS/N, which would allow for broader participation by Wikipedia editors outside MILHIST (as this isn't really a MILHIST-specific question). Place a notice here when an RS/N discussion or an RfC is opened. Cdtew (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks: will do. - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Now done. Comments are welcomed at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fanzines. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Eyes On

I recently added a ribbon picture to the article Awards and decorations of the United States military. An editor has questioned the validity of this image, although I have provided some on-line links and other references. Other editors are needed for comment, so we can build consensus. The discussion is at: Talk:Awards_and_decorations_of_the_United_States_military#Chaplain.27s_Medal. -OberRanks (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

CFB Chilliwack needs attention; wikify, cleanup, pics, refs

Just came across it while updating BC communities listings.....it's in rough shape, and has no refs other than the post office one I just added.Skookum1 (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Operation Golden Eye discussion on title change, basic factual inaccuracy in the article

On the Talk page for Operation Golden Eye I've been involved in a discussion with SchroCat, firstly about the name - consulting the primary sources, I think it should be changed to 'Goldeneye' as one word - and then in a separate section the title of the article itself, as again according to the primary sources this wasn't an operation, but was instead the codename given to a British intelligence unit that was based on Gibraltar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Golden_Eye#Was_this_a_plan_or_an_operation.3F

ShcroCat and I now have some history - see above! - and he's withdrawn from trying to reach consensus with me on this. I agree that it's not a tiny thing to change the title of an article, and I won't without discussing it with others first - but I can't reach consensus with SchroCat, clearly, as he's withdrawn. I think I've constructively addressed the various criteria suggested in WP:UCN, and my feeling is that even though most secondary sources do call this Operation Goldeneye or Operation Goldeneye, the title and the body should be changed to reflect the primary sources, so we don't continue to perpetuate the error, leading to yet more sources getting it wrong in the future. One reason a lot of people still call it Operation Goldeneye will clearly be because of the Wikipedia entry.

I've tried to apply common sense to come up with a constructive solution for those searching on Operation Goldeneye or Operation Goldene Eye - a redirect for both, plus a short parenthetical statement in the lede saying that the unit is sometimes referred to in those terms. Could someone please come and have a read of the discussion and help me reach a consensus on this? It seems a shame to leave this entire article as inaccurate simply because others have got it wrong, when we can apply common sense, be bold, and make it right. Jeremy Duns (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Operation Golden Eye" and "Operation Goldeneye" are the two WP:COMMONNAMEs found in secondary sources. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is the reason the current name is present. WP:PRIMARY is the reason why we don't base article content or article titles on Primary Sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to be involved in this discussion or not, SchroCat? You just said you were withdrawing from discussing it with me and told me to consult the wider community, so I took your advice and created this page - and then you've immediately come here to discuss it with me again! What are you up to? As explained above and on the Talk page, I went through all of the criteria on WP:COMMONNAME, which explicitly says 'Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.' I went through each of the criteria on WP:NAMINGCRITERIA on the Talk page - they are suggestions not rules, as stated there, and anyway I think they (and common sense!) also weigh in favour of junking the inaccurate title, as I explained in detail there.

WP:PRIMARY states: 'Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.'

I'm suggesting we use the primary sources with care. They make it crystal-clear that Goldeneye was a delegation, not an operation, and this has been backed by a very reliable secondary source indeed: in The Churchill War Papers: The Ever Widening War vol 3, the editor Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill's biographer and one of the most widely respected WW2 historians there is, states: 'Goldeneye: British Liaison Delegation for Spain, based in Gibraltar.' (p1722) He made the same point on page 456 in a footnote to a letter Churchill wrote in 1941 about the possibility of closing down Goldeneye. A lot of other sources, some reliable and some not, have admittedly got this wrong. So have we. There's probably a link between those two facts: Wikipedia is an extremely influential source, in my experience, and many journalists and authors often use it as a starting point for their research, and some go no further. So the longer this article inaccurately claims Goldeneye was an operation, the more secondary sources will cite it, solidifying the reason to keep the inaccuracy. So that is a circuitous argument. If we change it, fewer secondary sources will state this in future. That's something we should want, I think.

The British government's documents on Goldeneye have all been declassified by the British National Archives - from memory, they did that in the late 90s - and quite a few of them are available to download for free from the National Archives site. I've given all the links to these on the Talk page. I am suggesting using the primary sources to make 'straightforward, descriptive statements of facts', and those facts 'can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge'. As I explained on the Talk page, one of the reports deals with a ciphered telegram 'from GOLDENEYE' and another states 'inform GOLDEN EYE'. Any educated person has access to these sourcese, and can tell with no specialized further knowledge that you can't receive a telegram from an intelligence operation, and neither can you inform an intelligence operation of something. You can receive a telegram from an intelligence unit, and inform one of something.

As the primary sources are now public government documents, I'd guess there's also a way we could even reproduce one of the memos about it, or an excerpt, in the article as an image. They're rather fascinating and fun to see.

Does anyone else have any comment to make on any of this? I feel at this stage that SchroCat and I would be unlikely to reach consensus on what day of week it is! Jeremy Duns (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It matters not if the Eastasian armed forces called something "operation Buttery" if it is popularly known in history and works as "the battle of Marje". The etymology of the history of the naming might belong in the article, but it would still under the Common Name element of article naming criteria be "Battle of Marje" with a possible redirect from operation Buttery. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Why, then, does WP:COMMONNAME state that inaccurate names for article subjects 'are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources'? Jeremy Duns (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this really is out of hand. Jeremy, the proper avenue for this discussion is via WP:RM/CM, and you can invite others from MILHIST to that discussion once it's started for comment on the article's talk page. Once a consensus is reached, you'll have your (relatively) final answer on the matter. This and the above discussion have occurred in several places, including already book-length comments on the respective articles' talk pages, and on SchroCat's talk page. There are procedures to resolve disputes like this -- RfC's for instance -- and moving these disputes to MILHIST's talk page just presents another fora for grievances, not a possible avenue to a solution. Cdtew (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for posting it in the wrong place - as you can see, I did ask SchroCat where I should start such a discussion, but then felt he was unlikely to respond as he had literally just said he was withdrawing and wanted nothing further to do with discussing it with me. I thought this was the page to do it, but will start a WP:RM/CM. I'm a new editor at Wikipedia, so this is all fairly confusing for me. I don't know what an RfC is. I don't know how to invite people from MILHIST to the Talk page. And I'm fairly frustrated that I'm cited policies against doing this when the policies make explcit references to how it is possible and often happens! Anyway, will start the discussion on the Talk page now. Apologies in advance if I get the formatting of it wrong. I hope people can make good faith allowances for me being new and not being able to figure out what appear to me to be rather complicated procedures. Jeremy Duns (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, no apologies needed. Read WP:RM/CM thoroughly, and read WP:RFC thoroughly. You didn't necessarily choose the wrong forum for airing this discussion, but let me put it this way: I'm an attorney, so I deal with conflict frequently. Oftentimes conflict cannot be resolved by open-ended discussions, which in reality become just long-winded arguments without a conclusion. Instead, I like to file lawsuits. That gives a set structure and procedure for arguments to be decided in, and it has a conclusion to it -- a point after which, at least for a time, the argument can cease and a decision can be made. Wikipedia isn't a courtroom, but it has procedures that are supposed to help break through gridlock -- or at least cap it so the argument has to cease temporarily. If you think of it like that, then these procedures become all the more useful, and will make the quality of your Wikipedia experience that much better. Remember, our primary purpose here isn't to argue or debate -- it's to create! So best of luck creating, and don't let disputes in certain articles be too large of a stumbling block for your creativity in other articles. Cdtew (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much - that makes perfect sense. I've just created the proposal. Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

New U.S. Civil War category

I'm going to create a category for Union support in the South during the American Civil War (for articles like State of Scott), and a subcategory for Southerners who supported the Union (for biographical articles like John Netherland), but I'm not sure what to name them. There is an article entitled Southern Unionists. Any suggestions? Bms4880 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What about just one category, "Southern Unionists in the American Civil War"? I took a look around at other categories involving the English Civil War, the Ulster Unionists, etc., and I really don't see anything comparable, so I think this fix would be relatively novel. Then I took remembered Loyalist (American Revolution), and realized that there was only one category, "Loyalists in the American Revolution", with two subcategories of "Loyalist military personnel of the American Revolutionary War" and "United Empire Loyalists". In this case, though, I think you'd only need the category, as it describes both things you're trying to categorize. For instance, the main Loyalist category covers units and people, so ostensibly your category could include units, political movements, rebellions, etc. Cdtew (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I went with that. There is also a "Royalists in the Hispanic American Revolution" category. I'll wait a day or two before mass-adding pages. Bms4880 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Cowan (soldier)

Does this person meet the notability guidlines? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Help, anyone? 76.7.231.58 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've tagged for notability. (But too interested in other stuff at the present to do an AfD.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial capitalisation of German ranks

G'day all, During the current ACR of Artur Phleps and GAN review of Helmuth Raithel we've had a couple of discussions about the use of initial capitals for German ranks (in these cases Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS ones). WP:JOBTITLES says that ranks are common nouns and as such they are not capitalised, but if the rank is followed by the person's name it is capitalised. Per "Captain James Bloggs" but "James Bloggs was promoted to captain". However, in many articles about Germany and Germans editors use the German rank rather than the (sometimes rough) equivalent in English, but may follow it with the English equivalent in parentheses. In the German language all nouns have initial capitals, thus Hauptmann (captain) and Leutnant (lieutenant), not hauptmann or leutnant. Complicating this further is the fact that all Waffen-SS and Allgemeine-SS ranks include an initialisation (SS) and a hyphen, and many senior ranks include the proper noun "Waffen-SS". An example would be SS-Obergruppenfuhrer und General der Waffen-SS. If we applied WP:JOBTITLES strictly to this rank it would be per "SS-Obergruppenfuhrer und General der Waffen-SS Artur Phleps", but "Phleps was then promoted to ss-obergruppenfuhrer und general der waffen-ss" or something similar. Of course, this strict application of JOBTITLES doesn't reflect what the sources use when referring to Waffen-SS ranks. For example, [21], [22], and [23]. I propose that we adopt the guideline that all German ranks have initial capitals whenever mentioned, or alternatively that this exception to JOBTITLES be applied only to Waffen-SS ranks. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

We might be able to give everyone something they can live with by going with "captain (Hauptmann)" rather than "Hauptmann (captain)", but we'll have to see who weighs in. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I took 8 years of German, and appreciate well its fondness for capitalization. I do, however, see the point that adding the German rank is, many times at least, merely for flavor or illustration. But since these ranks (especially the Byzantine Third Reich rank system) don't have NATO-style universal equivalents, adding the English-language rank first may be misleading. I'd rather see the German rank and then an English "explainer" that lets an average leader know what the German rank is. This gets complicated, however, in the SS and SA. Think about ranks like Obersturmbannfuehrer. How the hell do you put a parenthetical after that? You either have to transliterate it as (Over-/Senior Storm Band/Unit Leader) or use literary translation (Senior Storm Battalion Commander). That can get tricky, but the constant is always the German word. Hence why I think relying on the German is likely easiest. The capitalization then, in my mind, follows easily as we're using a word from a foreign language that should, best as possible, be treated the same as if this were de.wikipedia.org (without, of course, the funny German sentence structure). Cdtew (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking "rough equivalence" rather than translation. ie SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer (lieutenant colonel). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess my concern there is that "rough equivalence" can be misleading at times. I can't think of an example right off the top of my head, but I seem to recall there was a situation where two german ranks were of the same level, and labeling both as (lieutenant colonel) or whatever they may have been would be confusing to an untutored reader. Cdtew (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the best examples would be Oberführer, is it senior colonel or brigadier? But trying to translate and using "Senior Storm Unit Leader" or similar is worse IMO, it tells you nothing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge the SS-Hauptscharführer and SS-Standartenoberjunker are both equivalent in rank to Oberfeldwebel, just like the SS-Standartenführer and SS-Oberführer are equivalent to Oberst. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To the original question, I would capitalize the borrowed German nouns. I would also opt for German rank names first with possible parenthetical explanations. Alternatively (or in addition), there could be a wiktionary link: wikt:Leutnant, wikt:Oberst, wikt:Hauptscharführer, wikt:Oberfeldwebel, .... If the rank does not exist in wiktionary, then it's a good time to add it. Is there an article on the German rank system? Glrx (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There is World War II German Army ranks and insignia and Table of ranks and insignia of the Waffen-SS as well as Uniforms and insignia of the Kriegsmarine and Military Ranks of the Luftwaffe (1935–1945). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the rank system of any other military match up perfectly with systems we're more familiar with? If not, what's the argument for listing the German words first for Germans because they don't translate exactly, but not listing the other foreign ranks first (usually) in other articles? Are Nazis cooler than other militaries? Do English-speakers have an easier time with German ranks than other foreign-language ranks? I don't have a position, but I don't understand the argument. - Dank (push to talk) 10:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the underlying discussion is about capitalisation of nouns, Dan. I'm relaxed about the order they go in, although I have reservations about the precision. The German methodology of capitalising all nouns doesn't conform with JOBTITLES which only capitalises proper nouns. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it less precise if both words are there? And on second occurrence, we usually won't be listing either rank. We get less pushback from the WP community, and fewer "corrections" from people who aren't into learning our rules, when we give people clues of some sort to expect non-standard orthography; parentheses are one common kind of clue. - Dank (push to talk) 11:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think German first is more precise because it is the actual rank the guy held, and following it with a rough equivalent gives some guidance to the reader. This is as opposed to using the rough equivalent then following it with the precise one. If I write Senior Colonel (Oberführer), someone will soon say, "oh no it's not, it's actually Brigadier (Oberführer), just as much as the reverse. I don't share your view that we will get less pushback. Just have a look at Talk:General_of_the_Cavalry_(Germany) if don't believe me. We'll just have the same problem in reverse. However, this discussion appears to have gone completely off-track. If no-one has a problem with the capitalisation of the German ranks, I'll just get on with it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The actual rank in that countries terms should go first, whether a German General or a Spanish Colonel. If the language the rank is in capitalizes, then capitalize it (MoS on capitalization is written in terms of the English language but it says at the top "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources...are capitalized in Wikipedia" - so if sources have caps, then so should the WP article. If the context doesn't make it clear what sort of ranking or role importance they held (eg "X was promoted to Ober... and given command of the 4th Division") then you can either link to an appropriate article, give an explanatory note in parentheses or add a footnote. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(What's the record for leading colons?) I thought Spanish was "Coronel". But to the point, if German ranks are given, for whatever reason (good or bad) IMHO the German system of capitalization should be followed. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Robert Bacher needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Robert Bacher; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. One more needed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Artur Phleps needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Artur Phleps; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

One done, another reviewer still needed. Zawed (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of sieges of Gibraltar needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of sieges of Gibraltar; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. One more needed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Order of precedence" vs "Order of wearing"

My basic question is: Is there a difference between "Order of precedence" and "Order of wearing"? If so, what is the difference?

I have sufficient reliable data to support that in Australia and Canada they are the same thing. (See my talk page for details.)

However, the contents of the field at the bottom of infoboxes on medals pages (titled "Precedence") continue to contain statements either explicitly stating, or implying, things like "GC is the same order of precedence as VC", when quite clearly they are not the same in the order of wearing. (See VC, OzVC, CV, GC, etc.) Where is this "order of precedence" defined? Nowhere can I find a document specifying an order of precedence that is different from the order of wearing.

Can anyone attempt to enlighten me? (Or failing that, inform me?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(BTW: If they are the same thing, that seems to me like a reason to change the contents of the infoboxes. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC))

From the British point of view, the "order of wear" is, um, the order in which awards are worn, e.g. GC OM KCVO CBE. The "order of precedence" is the precedence between people, i.e. the recipients of the awards not the awards themselves. So a KCVO outranks a CBE and both outrank a GC and an OM, because those awards confer no precedence. I would have thought when talking about medals, "order of wear" would be preferable. Opera hat (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In Australia, what Opera hat is talking about is called the Table of Precedence [24], and it varies from state to state and the Australian Government has its own. It is about who sits where, gets introduced first etc. Australian Army Standing Orders for Dress used to say "Honours and awards are worn in order of precedence as detailed in the Order of Wearing Australian Honours and Awards", as published in the CoA Gazette Monday 17 June 1996. The GG's itsanhonour website says "There is an established order of precedence for the wearing of Australian decorations." then refers to the "Order of Wearing". So they essentially appears to be the same thing, in Australia at least. I think "Order of Wearing" is more precise when referring to the wearing of awards. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. So far, so good. (i.e. You are saying a) what I also think, but more so, b) what I want to hear.)

So, where is "GC is the same order of precedence as VC" coming from? And, is it a correct or incorrect statement? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how they could possibly be of the same precedence. The Australian order of wearing is very specific and linear. If someone had the VC and the GC, then they would be worn in that order according to the Order of Wearing Australian Honours and Awards [25]. Off track I know, but in terms of the Table of Precedence I linked above if you look at point 32. at the bottom it says that the last in order of precedence are recipients holding decorations and honours taking precedence over Knights Bachelor and Knights/Dames. So, if an otherwise unlisted VC recipient and an otherwise unlisted GC recipient were at a function, the VC recipient would be introduced before the GC recipient and the GC would be introduced before Sir Bernard Wyldbore-Smythe. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think there is a difference between order of precedence of people and order of precedence of decorations. You are right about the order of precedence of people, but I think Pdfpdf is highlighting claims by some on Wikipedia that all "first-level decorations" (VC and GC) are actually equivalent, all "second-level decorations" (DSO, CGC, GM) are equivalent, etc. This is simply not true. No two decorations or honours are ever "equivalent" under the British system. And "second-level decoration" or whatever is not even used officially. I have even had someone insist that if someone won both the VC and the GC we can't state which would take precedence in wear or otherwise as it has never yet happened. This is clearly rubbish, as the VC is long-established as the highest award. This seems to stem from a certain annoyance that under the British system non-combat decorations are lower in precedence than combat decorations. I would agree that in practice the VC and GC are equivalent, the DSO, CGC and GM are equivalent and the DSC/MC/DFC/AFC and QGM are equivalent, but officially no honour or decoration is equivalent in precedence to any other. This is a long-established principle. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Good. With regard to my question "So, where is "GC is the same order of precedence as VC" coming from? And, is it a correct or incorrect statement?" (which you had not seen at the time you were writing), it appears you would answer "It is incorrect".

So, it seems to me that there is sufficient reason to change the contents of the infoboxes.

As this is a non-trivial exercise, what do others think and/or suggest about embarking upon this task? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Just for completeness, here are two links to Debrett's that put this to bed [26] and [27]. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The phrase ‘order of precedence’ has not been used since 1991 in the title of the official document covering wearing of Australian awards. The phrase does not appear anywhere in the latest document published in 2007. I therefore support using the phrase ‘order of wearing’ in info boxes and other Australian pages. The phrase ‘order of precedence’ does not appear to have ever been used in the British honours system but other systems such as the Canadian do use the phrase. I support the change on a country by country basis. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "order of precedence" is used by the US Military to indicate order of wear, as shown by the US Army's Institute of Heraldry webpage [28]. Really, I would say that for the military awards infobox "precedence" could be replaced with "order of wear" as the default and be a more inclusive description since "precedence" seems to be a hang up in the English speaking world outside of the U.S. Barring that change you can manipulate the | precedence_label = parameter in the infobox to be "Order of Wear" as I tried out just now on the Victoria Cross article. EricSerge (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Very sensible solution. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Operation Normandy in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's Operation Normandy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer review for Crusades not appearing on article alerts page

G'day all, I've been trying to keep the Announcements page up to date, and yesterday I discovered that Crusades was nominated for a peer review on 17 April per [29], but it doesn't come up on the article alerts page here [30]. It is a Core Contest article, could that be the reason? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the PR-template on the article's talkpage is missing (step 1 of WP:PR). GermanJoe (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If I add it will it create a new one though? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. I would have done it myself, if i knew :). GermanJoe (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming Australian Honours Order of Precedence to Australian Honours Order of Wearing

It is proposed renaming Australian Honours Order of Precedence to Australian Honours Order of Wearing. If this proposal is successful the former title would be linked to the new title. The Governor General of Australia from time to time notifies for general information the positioning of the wearing of Australian Orders, Decorations and Medals. The most recent notification was in Commonwealth on Australia Gazette No. S192, Friday, 28 September 2007 and the title of the document is THE ORDER OF WEARING AUSTRALIAN HONOURS AND AWARDS. In the context of positioning of the wearing of Australian Orders, Decorations and Medals the phrases order of precedence and order of wearing are interchangeable. However, the change in article title is being proposed because order of precedence has not been used in the title of the Australian document since 1991 and does not appear anywhere in the current document. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthony, you are the expert on this subject, and we'll go along with whatever you think is best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hawkeye7. Thanks a lot for raising this Anthony, and your recommendation looks spot-on. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Support this move. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes - Korea?

There is currently a disagreement about whether Korea should be listed as a location in the lead of Japanese war crimes. Please provide your opinion in the existing discussion on its talk page if you think you can help. (Hohum ^@) 12:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War topic Peer Review invitation

I have an article I'm trying to get FAC-ready, so please drop by Wikipedia:Peer review/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/archive1 and give me your thoughts, if any. If I don't have other comments within the next day or two, I'll go ahead and close the Peer Review and nominate for FAC. Thanks Cdtew (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on [[User talk:WhatamIdoing|my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope this works better than the thing at Wikia. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor.

(So do I. I've never used it, but it doesn't have a good reputation among power users.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying "feedback overall has been positive" might be a stretch, but I'm glad to see that this may finally be implemented. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

First edit I tried to make with it did not work. This is going to be painful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Laurence Castner

Just discovered this article today. I don't know if anyone here is more familiar with Castner's Cutthroats than I am (and my familiarity doesn't really run all that deep), but it should be obvious that Castner was not best known for competing in the 1924 Olympics. In fact, the first biography I consulted doesn't even mention it. Anyone feel like rescuing this article? RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 02:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

French corvette Prony

An intriguing daily double for y'all. An article of interest to both the French task force and the American Civil War task force. I started it because I came across its end while I was working to improve USS Stars and Stripes (1861), so its end is reasonably well covered but could probably use some improvement, but there's currently nothing there about its construction or career. Carolina wren (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher

In recent days, there has been editing done by another user, which I do not object too. I left a message on this users talkpage as well as on Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher talkpage. Honestly, I feel he is only semantic, while his reply on the article talkpage stating that the changes he made are "preferable". Preferable to who? This particular user? Basically, I'm asking the Coordinators of WikiProject Military History and the one's who assessed it (for GA and A class assessments) to state their case why wasn't any of this changed back then? If this was "preferable"? Please reply to this on the article talkpage and to address this particular user and his changes. Adamdaley (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, I had a quick look at the article and the edits appear constructive and although they weren't raised in the GA review or ACR they seem reasonable to me. Editing (and reviewing) can be a subjective process. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Tombs of Unknown Soldiers

I have created and populated Category:Tombs of Unknown Soldiers. Please feel free to add or remove articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed for Gallipoli Campaign

Gday all. A few editors have been working on adding citations to the Gallipoli Campaign article. Unfortunately there are a few intractable ones that we don't seem to have any sources on. In particular there are a few IRT Winston Churchill's fortunes after the battle that I was hoping someone here might be able to dig up. A few others scattered through out the article too. If we can get these it will probably be B class. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If anyone has access to Manchester, William (1983). The Last Lion. Vol. Vol. I Visions of Glory. Little Brown & Co. ISBN 9780316545037. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help), I would think it would have the needed reference. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Looks like another editor has dug up a reference for this material. Still a few others unsourced statements that need citations though, including:

• "In the case of the former, Kemal perceived the British would use their navy to command the land from every side which the tip of the peninsula would allow. In Gaba Tepe, the short distance to the eastern coast meant forces could easily reach the Narrows."

•  Done

• "Only one Dubliner officer survived the landing; of the 1,012 Dubliners who landed, 11 survived the Gallipoli campaign unscathed."

Lt O'Hara [31] is a start, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish59 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 May 2013

Yes that's is a start (for the fact only one survived the landing). Thanks for that. Anyone know of a ref for the other stats? Anotherclown (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "There is only one French cemetery on the Gallipoli Peninsula, located near Soroz Beach, which was the French base for the duration of the campaign."

• Got a ref for this now. Anotherclown (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• ""Çanakkale geçilmez" (Çanakkale is impassable) became a common phrase to express the nation's pride at stopping the massive assault. "Çanakkale içinde" is a famous and still very popular country song (tūrkū) commemorating the Turkish youth fallen there."

•  Done

If we can add those this might be B class again at least. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Only one left. Anyone got a source on the Irish units at Gallipoli? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

All done now. Thanks to those who dug these up. Much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst

This article contains the line "Its history begins as a munitions-testing site for the Imperial Russian Army in 1916". There is no further reference to this in the text.

Either this line is spurious or it is not. I feel that obviously if it is then it should be removed from the article. However, if it is not then the events that led this to occur merit more than this passing mention. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's not cited, delete it. Seems very unlikely that the Imperial Russian Army would be testing weapons at Lakehurst in 1916. Can always be readded with cites if it's factual. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

See this site. Also The property now known as the Naval Air Engineering Station dates back to 1916 when the Eddystone Chemical Corporation bought the first parcel of land from the Manchester Land Company with the intent of using it as an ammunition testing Ground for the Imperial Russian Army. from this site. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Rotary vs. Gatling Cannons

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but it said military firearms should be discussed here. The Rotary Cannon page and other pages relating to weapons of a similar type all refer to "Gatling-type" weapons. I feel this is inaccurate since Gatling Guns were hand-cranked, rather than gas-powered or electric. It would be better to change all instances of "Gatling-type" to "Rotary-type". --Trifler (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Back in the 1940s, General Electric, as part of Project Vulcan took some late 19th century Gatling guns and attached electric motors to them. This is the basis of the rotary guns we know today. So no, they were not always hand cranked. They are one and the same, and are still widely known as "Gatling-type" guns. I suggest that it would be better to leave the articles as they are. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

agree, on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, Gatling gun is easily the common name for this type of weapon system. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Gatling gun was unique for its rotating barrels, which makes the modern versions "Gatling-type" weapons. It's all about the rotating barrels, which were pretty much unique to Gatling's design, and not how the barrels are rotated. Intothatdarkness 17:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The modern versions have rotating barrels, too. Did you perhaps mean something else?--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you mean me, I know the current barrels rotate. My point was that it's the rotating barrels that make a Gatling-style weapon what it is. The method used to rotate them isn't the issue. Intothatdarkness 21:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I generally prefer rotary, but "Gatling-type" is very common, & in a WP context, more accessible for the general reader. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer rotary as the generic term with Gatling being of a more specific design. Hawkeye when you say "back in the 1940's" that was waaaaay past their design and since GE attached electric motors to them, you're talking about a modification of a Gatling gun at that point. I know at least two of my university instructors (both with Ph.D.'s in History) did not consider a Vulcan to be a Gatling gun. They considered them rotary cannons, with the Gatling being the first rotary cannon design. The Gatling design itself is patented, just like the Vulcan. Again, this shows rotary to be the generic with Gatling and Vulcan being the specific. I just think it's wrong to use gatling just because it's common. Likewise, I fail to see the point of having both a Rotary Cannon page and a Gatling Cannon page if you consider them one and the same. --Trifler (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone has access to The Journal of military history?

I am looking for:

• Fanning, WJ (1997). "The Origin of the Term" Blitzkrieg": Another View". The Journal of military history (0899-3718), 61, p. 283
• Robert M. Ponichtera, "The Military Thought of Wladyslaw Sikorski," Journal of Military History, vol. 59 (1995), pp. 283-285 (alt cite I see lists pages 279–302)

For some reason they show for me as in JSTOR but not online (weird as I can assess many other JSTOR stuff). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

the journal is moving to Project MUSE and meanwhile the JSTOR files seem to be iffy. email me at rjensen@uic.edu and I will send a copy of Bltzkrieg (which is allowed by JSTOR rules). Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also WP:RESOURCE. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Superav

If the Iveco Superav is typed in, it redirects to the Marine Personnel Carrier page. The Superav is an entry in the MPC program. Does anyone know why it redirects there? Also, is there a Superav page or does it need to be made? America789 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

According to this page, the VBTP-MR is a development of the Superav. Does this make the Superav notable enough for its own article? Perhaps. One thing - the mention of Superav in the Marine Personnel Carrier article should -not- link back to the same article -- better to have the link removed for the time being. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, how do I remove the redirect link to the MPC article? America789 (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you knew how to do that. Select "edit" for that section of the article. In the edit box, remove the two left and right square brackets around the word Superav and then save the edit. That will remove the link back to the redirect page for Superav. The redirect page points back to the MPC article which is why having the word Superav linked in the MPC article is pointless.

If you want to set up a separate article for the Superav, then I'd suggest writing the article in a sandbox. When it is done, copy the edited text and paste it over the redirect statement that currently is the only content of the Superav page. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Suitable name for a campaign

Hi! I'm uncertain what would be an appropriate title for the Yugoslav People's Army strategic offensive against Croatia that took place from 20 September 1991 till 3 January 1992. Since the offensive consisted of numerous engagements, and aiming to have a short (or not as long) article title, I was thinking about "JNA campaign in Croatia". Would that be fine or is use of the acronym problematic? (note: there already is a GA titled "2011 NATO attack in Pakistan" using an acronym, although NATO is far more common term than JNA) Sources refer to the campaign in descriptive terms i.e. "Yugoslav People's Army strategic offensive against/in Croatia" or as the "JNA strategic offensive in Croatia". As far as I can tell from sources discussing the offensive, there is no proper name or codename for the campaign - at least not in the secondary sources. Any suggestions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The titles and the topic of the article you proposed violate WP:NPOV. The article Croatian War of Independence covers the topic quite well. Croatia was part of Yugoslavia until the beginning of 1992 so Yugoslav army could not attack its own territory in 1991. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The only name that is actually proposed above is "JNA campaign in Croatia", the rest are merely terms used by the sources, so maybe this is a misunderstanding. I'd support that name, as it is fairly straightforward and does not imply too much. (I don't think JNA's activity was fully planned, much of it was reactive, so "strategic offensive" does not really fit.) "JNA" might have to be expanded to "Yugoslav People's Army", though, as the former is not really an established acronym in English-language sources.

A valid point, though: as a topic, how "JNA campaign in Croatia" differs from the initial stage of the Croatian War of Independence (i.e. from its beginning until the cease fire and the arrival of the UN forces)? GregorB (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that much of activities of JNA in that period were reactive. The point is that the term military campaign applies to "large scale, long duration, significant military strategy plan". No plan - no campaign.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav campaign in Croatia would be an option. I know the Yugoslav Navy and Air Force were involved. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67 here.

To address the above raised issues: According to sources (Kadijević (Moje viđenje raspada, Politika, Belgrade, 1993, p.127), Jović (Poslednji dani SFRJ, Prizma, Kragujevac, 1996, p.142) and ICTY Milošević trial documents) there was a plan for an offensive or deployment, developed in early 1991 and amended in early October 1991. As far as the overlap of the early stages of the Croatian War of Independence and the proposed period (September-December 1991) is concerned - yes they do overlap, but that is quite alright per WP:SUMMARY so long as the level of detail in the Croatian War of Independence article is scaled down accordingly. Since the CWoI article is fairly large (within 250 largest ones on wiki) it likely would benefit from such a development per WP:LENGTH. I am here to inquire about an appropriate title that would comply with MILMOS which readily offers solutions such as "Battle of X" as an example of a neutral title. There is an example of a "campaign" title such as "Gallipoli Campaign", but it is not as easy to apply the formula to this situation. Activities of the JNA were in fact largely reactive, but the sources unambiguously identify a "plan" and place its start at 20 September 1991 - arguably as a response to current events (but that's for the article to explain).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav People's Army = Ground Forces + Air Force + Navy, so this is actually correct.

WP:SUMMARY argument is a solid one, and I agree.

Antidiskriminator makes a valid point in that even "campaign" is perhaps not the ideal term. However, actions of the JNA, largely reactive as they were, still pursued a clearly defined strategic objective. In the first phase, it was to maintain security and preserve the territorial integrity of SFRY. After the Ten-Day War, this objective was abandoned, and from then on, the goal was to keep (or gain) control of as much of the Serb-populated areas as possible. (I'm simplifying quite a bit here, of course, but I'd say generally that was it.) So, while I feel that "campaign" is reasonably close, I'd be happy to consider other suggestions, if any. GregorB (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If the topic of the article Tomobe03 wants to create is the initial stage of the Croatian War of Independence then it should be named accordingly. It would be wrong and against WP:NPOV to present the initial stage of the Croatian War of Independence as some kind of "Yugoslav People's Army strategic offensive against Croatia". Yugoslav side saw this stage of war as "Campaign of Croatian separatists against Yugoslavia". That would be also bad title although Croatian separatist forces also had military plans. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A very good point too, I must say. GregorB (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how's "campaign" a POV term. I was challenged above to produce sources for existence of military plans (through an argument that if there were no plans there was no campaign) - and I did precisely that. What exactly is contentious in the proposal that the Peacemaker67 made - "Yugoslav campaign in Croatia"? Croatia was in existence throughout the period, Yugoslav military planned a campaign and all the relevant events took place in Croatia (i.e. within its internationally recognized borders) except for mobilisation of troops, which is not so uncommon in any war. Granted "kampanja" in Serbian (and Croatian) may be perceived as a POV word, but this is in English and the term has absolutely no negative connotations.

The "Initial stage of the Croatian War of Independence" is inaccurate title as the campaign took place on 20 September 1991 - 3 January 1992, months after the war was considered to have started. Argument that the "Croatia was part of Yugoslavia until the beginning of 1992 so Yugoslav army could not attack its own territory in 1991" is flawed because Yugoslav Army did not attack territory - it attacked Croatian military, Croatian police and civilian population in Croatia (whether a federal unit or a declared and partially recognized independent state).--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefix the title with 1991 - the few days of 1992 turned out to be inconsequential, it's overwhelmingly known as "1991" locally anyway. Also, the notion that the juxtaposition of JNA and Croatia is POV is flawed - JNA did indeed lead a campaign against the legitimate government of the Yugoslav constituent country known as "Croatia" under its own interpretation of federal laws (that was ultimately rendered illegitimate by the Badinter Commission, but regardless). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A general comment: "campaign" is OK inasmuch as it does not imply "attack", "offensive" or anything like that, so it is reasonably neutral. I don't think that calling this topic "JNA campaign in Croatia" is POV as in biased, but it arguably might be construed as POV as in one-sided, as it singles out JNA in the role of principal agent. There is a counter-argument to that, though: in the wider context of Yugoslav Wars, JNA was a principal agent, taking part in all conflicts, and pursuing essentially the same goals. GregorB (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Joy and would support such a prefix as additional disambiguation device (even though I'm not 100% sure what would exactly be disambiguated from). As far as the "principal agent" is concerned, yes, the JNA was undoubtedly the principal agent in a military plan devised by its own command, there's absolutely nothing POV or unusual about that - that's a statement of fact true to any plan devised by any in the world. The title "1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia" or "JNA campaign in Croatia" or any possible combination of those two is neither judgmental, nor biased, but a cold statement of fact. Even if the title contained term "offensive" instead of "campaign" it would simply reflect the fact that the plan entailed advancing of military units, providing armed response to any opposition or obstacle presented to such an advance. Any questions regarding motivation and rationale behind such a plan/campaign is for the article itself to present in an unbiased manner.

Even though I find the term "offensive" to be non-offensive (pun intended) in such a context, I also prefer "campaign" as a more accurate term - it implies multiple battles and "offensive" does not. The original post here simply conveyed what the consulted sources used to describe the campaign.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)