Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 97

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 92
• 93
• 94
• 95
• 96
• Archive 97
• 98
• 99
• 100
• 101
• 102
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

FAR

I have nominated Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Voting for the September coordinator elections is now open!

The election phase for the September coordinator elections has begun; all members are encouraged to vote for any of the candidates they support. Voting will conclude 23:59 UTC on 28 September. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Baden (1915) now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Baden (1915) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for John Babcock now open

The featured article candidacy for John Babcock is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire now open

The A-Class review for List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page - The Most Hated Family in America

There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).

• AFD is located at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Alton now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Alton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ORP Gryf (1944)

I've rewritten and expanded this article. It needs reassessment. I've also raised a source issue on the article's talk page and would appreciate some input from members of this WP. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not B-class yet. You need at least one citation per paragraph. In the future, please leave assessment requests here. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikicopter, I believe the article you need to assess is at ORP Gryf (1944), which does appear now to have several citations per paragraph, apart from the opening para. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Military history articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Military history articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Pedro Álvares Cabral now open

The featured article candidacy for Pedro Álvares Cabral is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for January 1964 South Vietnamese coup; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing using an iPad

Editing articles using an iPad does not work that well. There is no feature to allow scrolling of the text which is being edited (I.e. On can only access the first part (visible) of the text, scrolling down to a lower section is not possible). Any suggestions as to where this issue should be raised? Farawayman (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience, it's actually possible to scroll the edit input box using a two-finger swipe. It's still somewhat inconvenient, but doable. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it works. But as you said, rather inconvenient! Farawayman (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for unexplained absence

Hi all

Just a quick note to apologise for not leaving any notice for my absence over the last three weeks

I had flu in the early part of the month after returning from a wikibreak with family and did not expect to be away for long. As it turned out I lost my PC to a little infection and after this had problems with my ISP which left me unable to use the internet for just under two weeks.

Everything seems to be fixed now (mainly the two failed modems !).

I must apologise to those who posted about the co-ordinator role. It appears I have missed to deadline now and so the point is rather moot. Once again though I must say that I do not think my experience would be of a high enough calibre to warrant putting myself forwards. Maybe in another six months or year or so the experience will be to the stage where I would be confident to progress along those lines.

I would say that I lack the knowledge necessary in the areas of both editing and reviewing milhist articles - something I hope to fix by "getting stuck in" over the next year!

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and welcome back! :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I really am glad to be back ! So much to catch up on though lol - the BEF, Charnwood/Normandy research and others as well as the RFA for HeWhoShallNotBeMentioned lol Chaosdruid (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure your expertise will be very welcome at Charnwood (I'm in the process of squeezing in a copyedit there, as always between other things I'd rather not be doing, like work). As for the latter, thankfully that seems to have died a death... for now :) EyeSerene^talk 12:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Liverpool (C11) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Liverpool (C11) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Imjin River

There is a discussion here that would really benefit from an outside opinion; can anyone comment? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've weighed in on this, but I'm not sure I've really managed to move things forward. A greater variety of opinions on the conflicting views expressed would still be useful. David Underdown (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy now open

The A-Class review for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for January 1964 South Vietnamese coup; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stryker vehicle controversy

FYI, Stryker vehicle controversy has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kongō now open

The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kongō is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Action of 9 November 1822 now open

The peer review for Action of 9 November 1822 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16

FYI, Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hill 303 massacre now open

The A-Class review for Hill 303 massacre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey - a wrong righted

When I posted the combined table of contributions to A-Class Reviews and Peer Reviews results earlier this month,[1] I failed to include YellowMonkey's copious contributions. (It was a cut-and-paste error from Word to Wiki: his was the last entry and probably didn't get highlighted.) I have updated the archived table accordingly.[2] His contributions were as follows:

• A-Class Reviews Jul-Dec '09 - 25
• Peer Reviews Jul-Dec '09 - 18
• Total: 43
• Position: 3rd overall

• A-Class Reviews Jan-Jun '10 21
• Peer Reviews Jan-Jun '10 6
• Total: 37
• Position: 5th overall

Thus, not only did he miss out on the awards but also on the associated mentions in The Bugle. Given the scale of his work, a lesser man would have felt miffed but YM took it cheerfully in his stride.

I take this opportunity to apologise to YM for this error; to belatedly congratulate him on his efforts; and to thank him for his many contributions to the project. The appropriate barnstars have been retrospectively awarded.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence, I pass forth my congratulations to YellowMonkey. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stellar contribution. Great work, YM. Thanks for sorting this out, Roger. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations (and thanks for his forbearance!) to YM, and thanks to Roger for putting things right. EyeSerene^talk 12:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, YellowMonkey, on a great corpus of work. AshLin (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Monthly backlog elimination drive?

I was wondering does this WikiProject have its own backlog elimination drive for dealing with unassessed articles, sort of like what the GOCE has. I mean there are over 300 unassessd articles at the moment and I don't think that any one person can review so many articles alone. Category:Unassessed military history articles Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:43pm • 06:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Been a while since we had such a drive I think. Highlighting here always helps. I knocked off about 25 German aircraft articles myself the other day (setting a goal of eliminating a group of similar articles works for me, maybe others) but it's clearly creeping up again. If everyone reading this just did 10 it wouldn't take that long to get down to zero... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, I just did 2 myself but I'm not very confident reviewing the articles themselves. I've been reading up on the reviewing process and how to assess articles etc. so if I do make a mistake feel free to give me help or nudge me :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:50pm • 07:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On a tangentially related topic, we've recently added backlog indicators to the major open task categories on WP:MHOT; if anyone is bored and looking for something to do, that's a great place to find it. :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that having a drive every month would reduce the urgency of it so much that there wouldn't be much point. Might it be wiser to have this as part of any review contest, as has been suggested on other pages recently, if that is implemented? – Joe N 23:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Eliot Morison

A long-running discussion over wording concerning criticisms of this author's books has re-started at Talk:Samuel Eliot Morison and it would be great if other editors could comment there. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added my take. It would be good to get a couple more opinions, if anyone has some specific knowledge. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Military mottos for deletion

Given the scope of the AFD I thought I had better let the project know that I have nominated a large number of articles on military mottos for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naval Vessel Mottos: United States. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Logistics

The current Logistics page is said to be up and running, but I'm not sure if anybody still knows it is there or if anybody uses it. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Mississippi class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Mississippi class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for ARA Moreno now open

The featured article candidacy for ARA Moreno is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the weirdest book...

E. Hicks, James (1941). Notes on U.S. Ordinance Volume II: 1776 -- 1941. Apparently, Hicks was a major in the U.S. ordinance department, and he spent some of his off time during the war writing this text. If anyone ever wants to write up Rifle, Carbine, Pistol, Artillery, etc., they should call me =) So I have to ask, what is the oldest whole book in your possessions? ResMar 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Ordnance, not to be confused with Ordinance.   Cs32en Talk to me  23:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The oldest books I own aren't really that old - they're volumes of various World War II official history series published in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I'm getting into WW2-era memoirs after reading Edward Young's excellent book One of our Submarines. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Kipling, Soldiers Three, 1914--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A-class review for Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open

An A-class nomination of Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open. Any interested editors are invited to participate. Any input is welcome! Constantine ✍ 11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Thomas C. Kinkaid now open

The A-Class review for Thomas C. Kinkaid is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC for HMS Princess Royal

The Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive2 needs eyes. Please read the article and leave your thoughts about any issues it might have on the page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FAR notification

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Pusan Perimeter order of battle now open

The peer review for Battle of Pusan Perimeter order of battle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kronprinz (1914) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Kronprinz (1914) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War

Last night 121.220.77.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) changed links on about a hundred articles from Great Patriotic War to World War II or Operation Barbarossa. What to do? Some of the changes are actually improvements but doing wholesale changes without discussion seems inappropriate. He has stopped for now. Do we have a policy on this sort of thing? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tricky. As you say some do seem to be improvements, but others are a little bit less so; I think I saw a link or two to WWII when it should be Eastern Front, and occasionally the change has been made to "world war II" (without capitals). As Great Patriotic War is just a redirect to WWII there's little harm done otherwise. I guess its just a matter of whether Great Patriotic War is POV/non-neutral or not. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I've contacted the IP and let him/her know about this discussion. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article about the phrase says it is seldom used outside Russia, and was created to inspire patriotic feelings in participants. Most of the articles where the phrase appeared were about Soviet soldiers. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. Do you treat it like British/American spelling and just go with whichever fits the context (or was there first), and let variations naturally proliferate? I don't think so, in this case. Even though it is significant to many Soviets that the war is called something different, and that its referent is a specific subset of the larger war, most readers simply don't know what the term means. Whereas a patriotic Soviet (or today's version of one) might feel heartened by seeing the familiar term, they would still know what the generic WWII meant. Meanwhile, an unpatriotic Swede would have no idea what the Great Patriotic War was, and assume it had nothing at all to do with WWII. That is a small benefit for one reader and a big problem for another. I think common interests triumph here and WWII should be the default. The exception would be articles which referred specifically to the Soviet term or to specific dynamics about the East/West Russian Front. Better disambiguation might help. I don't have the historical background to comment further. Ocaasi (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Great Patriotic War might be a good article title to discuss the way the Soviets saw, or at least portrayed the war and their allies. The tricky thing would be doing it without just regurgitating Stalinist propaganda, but instead showing the difference between the propaganda and more reasoned analysis of the war. Edward321 (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO this is a rare situation when Stalinist propaganda reflected a real state of things. The term just reflected the obvious parallelism between the Napoleon invasion (which also was called a "Partiotic war") and the Soviet-German war. The parallelism is quite objective and correct, so the term survived Stalin's death and now is used by both Stalin's supporters and opponents. Incidentally, I am not sure why the main article on this subject is called "Eastern Front": for one of two major participants of the conflict it was a "Western front".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the common English-language name for the war. I agree that it's unsatisfactory though. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Something similar was done by an IP editor a week ago. I do not remember where the incident was reported, maybe WP:AN/I. I think these should all be reverted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted most of the edits not already reverted by Illythr. The reasons are diverse and one or more of the following:

1. The edits are grammatically incorrect.
2. The term Great Patriotic War is used in a strictly Soviet context (example), often in reference to commemorations (example).
3. The IP claims neutrality, but in fact expresses a fringe POV, as evident in this edit.
4. It is impossible to replace GPW with WWII as they cover different time periods and different contexts. A similar example is the term Continuation War used in Finland for its limited role in the Eastern Front of WW II.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the reverts; unless there's a compelling reason to change the status quo I don't think it's a problem and, as Petri Krohn notes, the Great Patriotic War, Operation Barbarossa and the Second World War aren't really synonymous. EyeSerene^talk 08:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Excelent work, WikiProject Military History! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Légion d'honneur

FYI, Légion d'honneur has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It looks a bit more complex than the move request suggests - I've left some notes. Shimgray | talk | 21:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil

Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil is currently assessed as a Start class article by our project due to concerns with grammar. I've attempted to address these concerns, but have found it a little beyond my capabilities (I don't have access to any of the sources, just came across it during a peer review a while back). If anyone with copyediting skills is looking for work, you might consider taking a look. I don't think it would require much work to bring it up to B class. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at this one at the weekend - it's quite a big job. The original English isn't too bad but it's complicated. Also some signs of defensiveness over the translation on the talk page. If someone else wants to have a go, be my guest. BTW, if it is a further attraction, this looks like a genuine "one short of a B" - fix the grammar and I think it's there.Monstrelet (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lindsay Hassett now open

The A-Class review for Lindsay Hassett is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet

FYI, Harrier Jump Jet has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election for Tranche X

The September 2010 election for Tranche X coordinators has concluded, with one lead and fourteen coordinators selected. This tranche will serve for a one year term, the extension having been passed by referendum in the March 2010 election. Thanks to all who participated in the election, and special thanks to Tom, whose past year of service as the lead coordinator is greatly appreciated. The complete listing of coordinators for the new term can be found here.

On a side note, an important discussion took place during the election about how to make our review processes more open to new reviewers, and more generally, how to increase the number of editors who participate in article reviews. In case anyone missed it, the discussion is still on-going, and has been moved to the Strategy think tank here. I encourage all editors to weigh in.

For the coordinators, Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to all the coordinators - I thought that this was the strongest-ever field. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't that could quite be true without you being in it -- but I'm sure we all appreciate the sentiment... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Title

Hi.... we're having a bit of an issue with the title of the Invasion of Goa 1961 page. Some say that 'Liberation of Goa' is too much Indian POV, while others say that 'Invasion of Goa' sounds like Portuguese POV. As such we're short of NPOV ideas for the title

We would like your opinion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1961_Indian_Annexation_of_Goa#Title_tag Tigerassault (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Permission and Copyright - Military Unit History

Hi there,

I have been referred to this section in an attempt to educate myself. I originally came up with the concept of writing a full history on a former South African Military Brigade I once belonged to and does not exist anymore, at least to the degree which it once was (It has been scaled down to a Regiment) I have received many extracts from literary works as well as individual articles by former commanders of sub-units and military archival material which has been released to me by these military commanders. I have pieced everthing together to reflect a chronological history of this brigade. In the process of editing my article on Wikipedia I was informed that my article had multiple copyright infringements and I am now in the process of getting releases from all who have provided content to me.

The question I want to ask is that if I re-write / recreate / re-organise the article to look in no way looks like the orginal piece of work do I still need to get releases from the persons who have contributed these individual pieces?

I also would like to know in what format does Wikipedia accept these requested releases? Signed and Scanned letters of release with appropriate wording? Please assist me as this project is very important and I have a large stakeholder group of former Brigade members who have tasked me to put this together and I want to deliver successfully

Many thanks --Smikect 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)

To answer your first question, as long as your article does not directly copy or closely paraphrase any of the copyrighted material, it's fine. That being said, you should of course cite the original articles from which you're getting the information. For your second question, you can have them contact OTRS, where a record of their release will be established. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Smikect, and welcome to Wikipedia. Have you read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and looked for relevant material via Wikipedia:Copyright assistance? If the information you're looking for isn't there, the noticeboard Wikipedia:Copyright problems would probably be the best place to ask these questions. As general guidance, if the wording of material you add to articles is substantially different from the original (eg, in that the wording is different and the structure not identical) then you're in the clear. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick,

Thanks for answering my query. I have done some research as recommended by Wikipedia and googled content from every single paragraph in the 37 page article I put together (which comprises a handfull of donated content) and I have discovered two web infringements. I will remove the one web infringement and just put a link there. The other web infringment I have already received tacit permission from the web content owner however I will need to ask this person correctly as recommended by Wikipedia under the guidelines. The balance of the handfull of donations are from Authors of books and military commanding officers. My question is do I ask them in the same manner as I ask the Web owners? Can I use the same template provided? Please advise

Many thanks --91.72.134.188 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do would probably be to re-write the information so that it is not a copy of any of the copyrighted material you have. That is what most of the articles on Wikipedia are. See, for example, Horses in World War I - many different sources are used, most of them still under copyright, but because the information is reworded, restructured and presented in a different manner it is not considered a copyvio. Most authors are not keen to relicense an entire work under a free license - it means that they basically lose all right to profit from their work and anyone can copy from them at any time - it's not allowed to be a "wikipedia-only" license, and it is non-revokable. However, if they really do want to re-release it under a free license, then it needs to be explicitly licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA), per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Again, your best bet with copyrighted print materials is to just re-write the information, except for an short, pertinent quotes. Everything should still be properly sourced and attributed, of course, but this way you will avoid the copyright issue altogether. Check out some of the other military articles listed at WP:FA and WP:GA for more examples of sourcing vs. copying. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for RfC input

There is currently an RfC at Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts about the nature of that subject. I suggested that it seems to me that, if there is sufficient notability for an article on Judaism and the military (or, maybe, Judaism and government and/or social repression, which I think may historically be more or less the same thing) that there would be no reason not to have an article of that type. Honestly, for most of the major historical religions which have had significant impact beyond a single national entity, I think such articles, as perhaps 3rd level articles, or subarticles of "History of (named religious group)" would be reasonable. If any of you, who I think might know more about this subject than me, know whether there is sufficient notability of such topics for major international religious groups, please indicate below or at the RfC linked to above. Alternately, if others think it might be reasonable to have a broader discussion at perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, please let me know either at the RfC, here, or on the Religion project talk page. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

30.06 Cal SAR (Search and Rescue) Rifle

I have added 30.06 Cal SAR (Search and Rescue) Rifle sub-section to the Ruger M77 rifle article. Does anyone have any more info on this rifle? I could only find one website with info. MFIreland (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec now open

The featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Parker Hale M82 variants

There is 4 articles on different variants of the same rifle. They are the Parker Hale M82, C3A1, Parker Hale L81A1 and L81 A2 Cadet Target Rifle. Should they be merged?--MFIreland (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so; we don't, for example, have separate articles on the M16, M16A1, M16A2, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, merge. Its not as if they are all fully fledged articles with lots of content.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

JUst to clarify the stress was on "all" meaning in total - the C3A1 is a reasonably complete article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles merged. It still needs some tidying up. Parker Hale M82 --MFIreland (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lam Van Phat now open

The A-Class review for Lam Van Phat is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy now open

The featured article candidacy for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Coandă-1910

FYI, Coandă-1910 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is undergoing an edit war, and has been protected multiple times. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Consolidating department talk pages

To help centralize discussion within the project, I would like to propose that we redirect the talk pages of the four departments (assessment, contest, logistics, and review) to this page. This will serve to reduce the number of different discussion venues that project members need to monitor, and to lower the risk that someone will post a question and not receive a response.

The four department talk pages all have minimal levels of activity:

Page	Activity
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment	81 discussion threads since May 2006
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Contest	24 discussion threads since May 2007
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Logistics	6 discussion threads since March 2008
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Review	17 discussion threads since April 2007

Merging this activity into the main project talk page could be done without noticeably increasing traffic load here; as a point for comparison, this talk page has had more than 200 discussion threads since the middle of July.

Further, the department talk pages have a relatively small number fewer editors watching them, increasing the risk that posts will go unanswered:

Page	Editors watching
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment	109
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Contest	38
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Logistics	56
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Review	69

As a point for comparison, this talk page currently has 705 editors watching it.

Considering these factors, I think that consolidating the departments' discussion here would bring significant benefits from the standpoint of centralized discussion, without incurring any major drawbacks.

Any comments on this idea would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to me and I completely agree. --Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Monstrelet (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For want of any alternatives, I agree. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea too. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. EyeSerene^talk 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As there haven't been any objections, I've gone ahead with archiving and redirecting all four pages here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Help required at Expédition d'Irlande

Hi all, I was wondering whether anyone would mind taking a look a the article linked in the title, where a content dispute between User:Ledenierhomme and myself is in danger of becoming an edit war. Our respective positions are laid out on the talk page and I'd appreciate some uninvolved advice on where we should go from here. Many thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I second Jackie's request. The editor in question seems to have a poor grasp of wp:consensus, wp:undue and basic good manners. Ranger Steve ^Talk 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hadong Ambush now open

The A-Class review for Hadong Ambush is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

V-2

FYI, V-2 has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral edits on Nazi Germany

I've noticed a number of concerning edits to the above article. A couple of examples:

• 9-11 million victims of the Holocaust changed to 6 million victims (ref supports 6 million Jews, not total victims)
• 30-45 million Slavs planned to be exterminated (supported by ref); changed to lower figure only; note the edit summary
• Highly debatable source used for 600,000 German casualty figure due to Allied bombing

A trend is apparent. More eyes and especially input from subject experts would be most welcome :) Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 12:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted most of Illraute's edits and left a note on the talk page explaining why. Thanks for bringing this up, I'll be keeping an eye on him. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'd have done so myself if I had the time, but I was already late for an appointment. I've seen the editor around elsewhere - the impression I got is of someone on a crusade, so I thought it bore watching. EyeSerene^talk 16:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Its still ongoing I'm afraid. I've fact tagged one change as the source doesn't actually support either version, but I can't access the other sources. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you have a look at the "talk page"; I am not following any agenda - many of the current numbers given in the article do NOT match their source. (see talk) Quotations, ie. cited data has to match its source. That applies also to all of you.--IIIraute (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the talk page, but I'm afraid that changing a figure that doesn't match the source to another that doesn't match the source doesn't seem to be a solution to me. Feel free to disagree. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

...write whatever you want and follow your own political agenda; I don't care... I've already reverted my edits. Such a rotten article... if I continue arguing here... it makes me feel sick.--IIIraute (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you think that my edits constitute a political agenda, in fact I can assure you that they don't. Please try and respect that some people are genuinely trying to improve wikipedia and aren't doing it because of some nationalist or political reason. Fact tagging a figure that is still wrong after being changed is pretty common sense if you ask me. In any event I note that Hans Adler has provided more precise figures and sources to back them up, so the issue I raised is moot. Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

...don't worry Ranger Steve, my comment was mainly oriented towards the clever contributions of EyeSerene and Parsecboy. No hard feelings. Arrivederci, Over and out!--IIIraute (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Stormtrooper

FYI, Stormtrooper has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Imperial stormtrooper. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy now open

The featured list candidacy for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Intermediate cartridges

A most curious AFD in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intermediate cartridges. Curious because the nominator has some points, and the article is indeed in poor shape. East of Borschov

Is there a lot of potential for expansion? If not, I'd almost be tempted to suggest merging this into cartridge (firearms) or some similar higher-level article. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Jo0doe

Hi all

Well I am finally free of the flu although I am finding it hard going catching up on the month and a half I have been away.

One major issue is the resurfacing of Jo0doe after his six month block. He is really only a one topic editor and has been busy editing articles concerning Ukraine and specifically WWII related articles since his return. I have found a few articles that were on my watchlist that he has returned to and some that were not.

Unfortunately I do not have enough knowledge of these topics as I would like and need help in locating a Ukrainian reading editor who can maybe check some of his sources as well as someone to verify if the level of Ukrainian quotes is acceptable. I realise that a reference is a reference no matter what language it is in but feel that the overly weighted inclusion of these as well as Polish and Russian refs are going to be difficult to verify for the majority of English speaking people.

The edits of concern here are those which are under the MilHist project banners, such as the Nachtigall Battalion article where large changes have been made [3].

Can anyone help with these matters ? I am comfortable dealing with the 14thSS article 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian), as we have had discussions on that matter over the last year and a half, but other articles I am not so familiar with. His contrib list is here [4] if anyone has the time and knowledge any help would be greatly appreciated.

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks

I've opened a discussion at WT:SHIPS#Lists of shipwrecks about standardizing the format of the various lists of shipwrecks. Members of this WP are welcome to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

There hass been an ongoing Edit war on the Missile page, really don't know why anyone but me and the other guy haven't noticed. We are in dispute over the lead images of the "Basic Roles" section. Please advise. Victory in Germany (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For convenience, here's the link: Talk:Missile -fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject United States questions

Over time Wikipedia:WikiProject United States has been left in the desert to die. Although individual editors have been busy and some subwikiprojects are very active the over arching project seems to have gone unattended. After ignoring it and hoping someone would step up I am going to take the initiative and try and resurrect it and see if I can get it back on track. I am starting here because a huge amount of the active editors seems to originate from MILHIST US or ACW. Your going to see I a lot on the next couple paragraphs but "I" would love it if that changes to "we" over the next couple weeks or months.

Also, since there are changes in the works for task force restructuring I thought now would be a good time. Below I have several suggestions for streamlining some of the US related content. I have also left a message here. Please give me any comments and or suggestions so I can make sure that the transition goes as smoothly as possible.

My starting suggestions are:

1. Inactive talk pages - Redirect the talk pages of the Defunct and Inactive SubWikiProjects related to the US to the talk page for WP US. This was recently done by the Milhist WP and I think it would be good for the US project as well.
2. Inactive Projects - Begin the process of Archiving and eliminating the Defunct inactive US related WikiProjects. Some have already been squashed but there are a lot left.
3. WP US Restructuring - Restructure the WP US project to be more organized and I stole your format. I hope you don't mind. I have already begun building a new format here and once I get a little more developed I will solicit votes on changing to the new format. Please feel free to make comments or make changes. I could use all the help I can get.
4. Consolidate like content - Create subpages (that can be transcluded into the various projects related to them) for some of the Common themed activities. For example, I created a subpage for members at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Members but I am planning on breaking it down even lower. For example Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Main/ACW (for those users that work on American Civil War related topics). That members page could then be transcluded here and on the WP Milhist ACW task force page. One shot, one kill; so to speak.
   1. Same applies for Featured content
   2. Same applies for To do
   3. Same applies for Articles for Creation
   4. Others as identified/needed
5. Make sure that the US related articles are properly categorized. Currently there are 8000+ articles on the WP US list but there are over 18000 American military personnel. Plus some of the subprojects such as US History, ACW, and US Military history far exceed that. -Kumioko (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts, in no particular order:

• Transclusion of membership lists to task forces will mean that the main one will contain a large percentage of duplicate names (as people tend to join more than one task force, at least here); I'm not sure that it would be worth it, given that.

• Thats a good point but I was going to only do the ones with large numbers and very specific like for the Americna Civil War or for the US task force. Those 2 were the main 2 I was thinking of between the 2 projects that could be shared. Since both these 2 task forces are US specific I didnt think it would be a problem. --Kumioko (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• You might want to take a look at the auto-generated listing of recognized content we've set up for the new task force approach; it's not as "real-time" as a manually updated listing, but it involves less work, which may be useful for a project that doesn't have an established base of editors updating such things.

• Thats a great idea, I will look into that thanks. There are several projects that fall under WP US that have the recognized content and from what I can tell none use an automated approach. --Kumioko (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Transclusion of to-do lists is a good idea; I would suggest borrowing the template-based format we use (see {{WPMILHIST Announcements/Task force}}, as that will allow the lists to be compatible between our project and WP US.

• I will thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• The assessment numbers probably have to do with the fact that the sub-project assessment systems don't automatically generate the US tags as well. If you can get the sub-projects to add that, it will give you the bulk of the assessment statistics without having to actually go out and tag thousands of pages.

• Thanks. Thats a good Idea. I knew I needed to do some more research before I start mass tagging pages but that gives me a good place to start. --Kumioko (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Example of Members suggestion above - I have created subpages for ACW and US military history Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Members/USMILHIST, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Members/ACW. --Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The approach is probably a workable idea in principle, but I think we'll need to fiddle with the transclusion a bit to get things to show up right in both projects; if nothing else, the headings displayed will probably be different depending on where the page is being transcluded to. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thats fair and quite frankly there is no requirement for the 2 projects to "share" member lists or anything else. It just seemed to make sense to me. --Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany versus German Reich and/or Greater German Reich

I have a question regarding the use of the term Nazi Germany versus German Reich and/or Greater German Reich. A number, if not all German World War II related articles, refer to Germany as Nazi Germany. Technically Germany was at the time the "German Reich" and in 1943 it called itself "Greater German Reich". Are we making a fundamental error in referring to Germany in this timeframe as Nazi Germany? Shouldn't Wiki use the legally correct term of German Reich instead, even though it is referred to as Nazi Germany by the English speaking community? Again I am just questioning what is technically and historically correct here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this has come up before but the diff will be buried in one of the associated articles somewhere. I would say Nazi Germany, not only as its invariably the one used in most reputable sources, but also the most common, everyday term. Probably worth further discussion though. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed a while ago at Talk:World War II, and probably elsewhere. From memory, the general view was to stick with the common English-language name, which is 'Nazi Germany'. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the most commonly used term in my experience, though as MisterBee points out not the most technically correct. For me the only real problem is the term's closeness to using the word "Nazis" to refer to all Germans of that period, which I definitely don't support. EyeSerene^talk 07:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion might be appropriate we don't refer to the UK at the same time, as the Conservative coalition United Kingdom or the Democratic United States .--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - during the last discussions I preferred using 'Germany'. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good point, but the UK's and USA's political landscapes have remained largely unchanged for generations so there's perhaps no real reason to distinguish one historical period from another in quite that way. A closer parallel would probably be Tsarist Russia vs Communist Russia vs post-Communist Russia, which form distinct periods because there are such huge political differences between them. That's why I see some value in using a political label to distinguish Germany under the National Socialist party from Germany at other periods in history. However, we should probably use the neutral "Germany", the common "Nazi Germany" and the more correct "German Reich"/"Greater German Reich" (and even "Third Reich") where the article and sources call for it. I see no need to use one term to the exclusion of others - I guess this is similar to the Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War debate further up the page. EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Bentonville now open

The peer review for Battle of Bentonville is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Usage of non-free historical images

During last year most Soviet Union related WWII images have been removed from virtually all WWII articles. They were either replaced by unsatisfactory photos, which do not serve the same encyclopaedic purpose, or removed completely. That happened as a result of the change of the new Russian copyright laws, according to which overwhelming majority of war time photographs are not in PD in Russia (although they are in PD in, for example, Ukraine). As a result, the Soviet Union related article look much poorer than they could, and a reader, which a priori is less informed about this part of WWII, gets almost no visual information about these events. Military WP articles become biased towards US, German and UK, despite the fact that Soviet historical photos do exist and their usage is allowed in WP under fair use terms per the Foundation's resolution [5] ("Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works"). However, my attempts to prevent removal of non-free photos faced stubborn opposition of some editors who interpret guidelines literally, and whose treat the historical photos in the same vein as numerous Pokemons, album covers, etc. I already discussed this issue on the neutrality noticeboard [6] and my concern is shared by other editors.

In connection to that I propose to select several (few) non-free Soviet related photos to use them in WWII articles. To minimise usage of non-free photos, I propose to use the best photographs which would allow us to achieve needed effect using only minimal amount of non-free photos. For the beginning, I plan to add three non-free photos into the WWII article, because the article which has almost no Soviet related photographs cannot be considered neutral any more and, therefore, its GA status can be affected by that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me; I think this has to be something we approach with common sense. Wikipedia's non-free image polices are stricter than US law anyway, and within that framework our ultimate purpose is to inform and educate our readers by building a credible body of work. Just because a policy can be strictly applied, it doesn't mean that doing so is always good thing for the encyclopedia. EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That is exactly how I see that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Centaur Tank

On the off chance, I thought I'd see if anyone had, or knew where to find plans for the British Centaur Mk IV Tank (a development of the Cromwell Tank)? If they're free to use they would of course make a welcome addition to the article or wikicommons page, and they would also be quite handy for me in real life (even if not free). Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The 95 mm gun version? Exterior or interior or both? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the one, used by the Royal Marines support groups. Both interior and exterior would be great if they're available. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You thinking of building one, Steve? There must be easier ways of getting back and forth from the Isle of Wight, even if WightLink is kinda slow. To actually contribute, the IWM would probably have something like that on file somewhere, or maybe the Royal Engineers Museum in Chatham. Skinny87 (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Something by Fletcher and/or emanating from Bovington is probably worth investigating. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not plans, but this may be of interest: WW2 Drawings. Farawayman (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help folks, especially those drawings Farawayman, they're lovely! Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review and A-Class review awards

   

Fifty members have been given awards for their participation in the Milhist A-class review and Milhist peer review processes during the period 1 April to 30 September 2010. I am sure I join with all members of the project in thanking them for their efforts.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Username ACR Jul–Sep 2010 PR Jul–Sep 2010 Total Jul–Sep 2010 User:Airplaneman 1 0 1 User:AirplanePro 0 1 1 User:Alexf 1 0 1 User:Anotherclown 11 0 11 User:AustralianRupert 36 11 47 User:bahamut0013 1 0 1 User:Buckshot06 1 2 3 User:Buggie111 1 0 1 User:Climie.ca 2 0 2 User:Cplakidas 0 1 1 User:Cryptic C62 0 1 1 User:Dana boomer 1 0 1 User:Dank 14 0 14 User:Dhatfield 1 0 1 User:Diannaa 1 0 1 User:EyeSerene 2 0 2 User:Fifelfoo 11 1 12 User:Fnlayson 1 0 1 User:GraemeLeggett 1 0 1 User:Hchc2009 1 0 1 User:Ian Rose 9 2 11 User:IceUnshattered 2 0 2 User:Intothatdarkness 4 0 4 User:Jim Sweeney 3 5 8 User:Jim101 1 0 1 User:Kevin Rutherford 1 0 1 User:Kirk 0 1 1 User:Magicpiano 2 0 2 User:MBK004 1 0 1 User:MisterBee1966 2 0 2 User:Mjroots 1 0 1 User:Nick-D 9 5 14 User:Nigel Ish 1 0 1 User:Parsecboy 8 0 8 User:Piotrus 1 0 1 User:Ranger Steve 1 2 3 User:saberwyn 1 0 1 User:Simon Harley 0 1 1 User:Skinny87 1 1 2 User:Sturmvogel 66 12 0 12 User:Sumanch 0 2 2 User:The ed17 5 0 5 User:The Land 1 0 1 User:TomStar81 6 0 6 User:Villick 1 0 1 User:White Shadows 1 0 1 User:Woody 0 3 3 User:XavierGreen 2 1 3 User:YellowMonkey 2 0 2 User:Yoenit 0 1 1

Could we also include people working with WP:GAN? I understand their work is harder than that of a peer reviewer or maybe even a A-class reviewer. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 03:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd second GANs. As people know, I mostly review things on Wikipedia. I'm currently reviewing a "Whole of field" level economic history article (think equivalent to World War II) through GAN, and it is a beautiful article, full, well written, cited, style, high quality prose. And it is taking weeks to review the thing, and the primary editor on it is being brilliant, but GANing an article can be really really difficult. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I get tired just reading the MOS. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 04:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem is is that it's hard to keep track of the reviewers at GAN and FAC. That's why I have people self-report for this month's GAN drive. Maybe we need to look at doing something similar, perhaps as part of the monthly contest?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could get GA bot to tell us who the reviewer is. I'm kidding. But seriously, you have a point there. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 04:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't GAN Military History items, but if I were reviewing GANs as part of the project, and doing one of these every six weeks (or will this economy article take eight or twelve weeks?) I'd certainly be happy to report the reviews done, if nothing else than to cathartically purge the equivalent of a hardcopy copyedit plus one person FAC review. Maybe other editors GAN simpler articles :) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes they usually do. I can't imagine taking so long for a review unless extensive revisions were needed to meet completeness criteria. Even then I'd be more inclined to fail it, with notes as to areas needing improvement, and tell the editor to resubmit when they'd been worked on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Conversation regarding using accessdates in the external llinks section

There is a conversation regarding the use of accessdates in the External links section here Wikipedia talk:External links#Question about accessdates. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Commanders Box for U.S. Military Units?

Apologies if this has come up before, but I've been going through the entries for U.S. cavalry regiments and noticed that many of the officers listed in the "notable commanders" box were in fact NEVER commanders of the unit covered in the entry. Is this box intended only for commanders, or should it be reworded to "notable officers"? By way of example, the 4th Cavalry article lists J.E.B. Stuart as a commander when in fact he never rose above company command with that regiment. Custer with the 5th Cavalry is another example. Is there a defined protocol for this, and if not is one needed?Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the military unit infoboxes in a while, but I'd definitely reserve the notable commanders entry for just that. Notable people who have served in the unit can be listed elsewhere in the article, preferably integrated into the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That was my take as well. It's very misleading for someone to see someone listed as a "commander" who in fact did not ever command the unit in question. I won't start shifting them right away, in case others have a different take on the commander box.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For some smaller units, especially during the conscription period, it's quite possible that members are "more interesting" than leaders - perhaps it might be worth adding a second section to the infobox for this?

Peer review for HMS Avenger (D14) now open

The peer review for HMS Avenger (D14) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

EYES on proposed move of Légion d'honneur

Requesting impartial opinions regarding the move from Légion d'honneur to Legion of Honor. The proceedings are being swamped by people from frWiki, canvassed or no, and the reason for the move is not being addressed (move discussion; Google test results). Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's present the facts as they are:

• Out of 14 taking part in the discussion so far, there are 3 French persons - hardly a French tsunami, not canvassed by anyone, regular users of en:wiki, who did not know each other before this.
• The reason for the move is being addressed, with a majority of the participants opposed to the move from the very beginning:
  • 4 support
  • 8 oppose

Also, Mr. Direktor is not mentioning his flagrant animosity against the French with use of disparaging remarks, accusations of nationalism & of "inviting their buddies from frWiki to oppose this, rendering the debate difficult.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment but the whole thing is bizarre. There is some ugliness creeping into the debate though, so should perhaps be watched. Maybe a reminder on WP:CIVIL from an admin?Monstrelet (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As a participant, yes, I'd appreciate a fresh pair of eyes. The discussion, such as it is, seems to be rapidly moving towards stonewalling and rather dubious imputations of motive... Shimgray | talk | 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

...and it's now pretty much got there. If someone uninvolved could have a look over this and decide one way or the other, I think all of the participants would appreciate an end to the acrimony! Shimgray | talk | 23:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

...outraged at the attitude of the proposer of the move toward those not in agreement with him, unfortunately not only myself, I am stepping out of a discussion that is taking the Légion d'honneur and other France-related articles as battlegrounds.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As of today:

• 4 support
• 9 oppose - should be 10; however, one of the French contributors crossed out his "vote"[7] in protest to Mr. Direktor's attitude toward French participants. Inadmissible to be bullied on en:wiki for one's (French) "nationality" - and on the Légion d'honneur talk page !

--Frania W. (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941 now open

The featured list candidacy for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A-class review is open for Arado Ar E.381

I've recently listed Arado Ar E.381 at the Aviation WikiProject's (WP:AV) project A-class review. I haven't gotten any comments yet, and I would appreciate it if you dropped by, as this article is entirely in the scope of MILHIST. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 18:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Invasions of the British Isles

A recent editorial decision has been made to expand Medieval invasions of the British isles to Invasions of the British Isles, covering the date range of prehistory to present. This is a mammoth undertaking and editors, particularly those with specialisms beyond the original article remit, are invited to participateMonstrelet (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii and Guam

How many people on the project live in Hawaii and Guam?

I have some photo requests relating to those places, so I would like to know if military history would be a good place to make that inquiry... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is correct when writing on Russian subjects, "Great Patriotic War" or "Second World War"

Hi, hope you guys can help. I am in a dispute with User:WorldWarTwoEditor over which to use when writing on Russian subjects. For example, "The village was occupied by German troops during the X", should "X" be "Great Patriotic War" or "Second World War" (with the latter piping to Eastern Front (World War II)?

He maintains that "Second World War" is the more neutral term and that "Great Patriotic War is propagandistic and bombastic. I maintain that "Great Patriotic War" is the one used by Russians and it's western-centric to use "Second World War" when describing Russian events. Any advice would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it is used only by Russians should be ample enough evidence that it suffers from NPOV. If you disagree with the use of "Second World War", why not opt for a more neutral term like Russo-German War, or Soviet-German War? JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It could be argues that 'great patriotic war' refers to the purley Russo-German conflict whilst WW2 refers to the wider global war. Thus 'great patriotic war' is part of WW2 but WW2 is not part of 'great patriotic war'. In respect to the question I would say use "Second World War" Its not as if 'great patriotic war' was not part of the wider conflict 9and indead Russia recived large amoounts of aid as part of that wider war.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest avoiding "Great Patriotic War" (we have an article on it, incidentally) completely - it's an irreparably biased term. It'd be the equivalent of piping the American Civil War as the War Against Northern Aggression. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

From a purely practical point of view, a far larger proportion of the readership will recognise WWII over Great Patriotic War, making the context of the article easier to follow without using the link. Using Great Patriotic War is the equivalent of referring to the Pacific War as the Greater East Asia War in any articles about Japanese subjects. It just doesn't strike me as particularly clear. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with what's already been said here. The Great Patriotic War is biased towards the Soviet point of view and most readers will not recognize it. Simply World War II, Second World War, or [[Eastern Front (World War II)|]] will serve the readers better and avoid Soviet propaganda issues. – Joe N 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is biased, and there are plenty of options that it can be changed to, such as World War 2, Second World War, Eastern Front (World War II), even German-Soviet War and (if discussing the beginning of the Eastern Front) Operation Barbarossa. --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Front is just as bad as Great Patriotic War, or just as not bad. When writing about a capture of a village, surely the context is the actual offensive / defensive operation, not the War in General, for example, "captured by Soviet forces during Operation Uranus, part of World War II," provides both appropriate contexts.. When writing about Soviet experiences of the War, GPW should be used, unless of course we're talking about Soviet citizens in the UPA or Polish Underground. GPW isn't inherently biased, it does however clearly represent a popular self-conception. Use with care when discussing Soviet perceptions. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose GPW. Enough of this fluff. Maybe someone should check out Bangladesh Liberation War; there have been some arguments on the talk page there on and off, but the Bengali majority have their way. They use "freedom fighter" and "martyr" everywhere as well :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, well. OK. This is one I thought I would win, but it just goes to show that you never know. Hats off to you, WorldWarTwoEditor, and carry on, and I apologies for doubting you, and thank you for your contributions I will say this in parting, though: "Great Patriotic War" is not a propagandist title or "fluff" or whatever. Granted it was obviously given the name by the government, it currently is and has long been the title by which essentially every Russian of every political stripe refers to the war, much as Americans say "American Civil War" or whatever. The Russians do not conflate their conflict with events at Sedan or Tobruk or Midway or whatever. And changing "Androsov's monument to the Great Patriotic War..." to "Androsov's monument to the Second World War..." would sound frankly bizarre and actually insulting to a Russian. But this is the English Wikipedia, so OK. Thank you all for taking the time and consideration to contribute. WorldWarTwoEditor, you should refer to this thread if further challenged. Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is certainly scope for using "Great Patriotic War" in some contexts, but not as a general replacement term for WWII. In the sentence you give above, what does the source say? I'd imagine something like Androsov's monument to the "Great Patriotic War"... might be a suitable compromise, sources permitting? EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd just been thinking much the same thing. There will be exceptions to the rule - names for instance should not be changed (say in the context of the name of a book, painting or other work of art), nor should quotes. I'm similarly unsure of the context of the example above, but if it was considered the official or unofficial name of the monument it should be left as it is, with an explanation in brackets afterwards, eg. "...Androsov's monument to the Great Patriotic War (the common Russian name for the Eastern front of WWII) was blah blah...". Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that would be equally acceptable. In the context of writing about how the Russians perceive their part in WWII, I think using "Great Patriotic War" is perfectly fine. As a general term though, it falls foul of the naming convention guidance to use the most common English term (which I guess would probably be Eastern Front). EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For something like a sculpture, inscription, or quote, GPW makes sense. It just isn't appropriate for use in general articles describing military operations. I think that's basically what Steve and EyeSerene said above, although in fewer words. – Joe N 02:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Great Patriotic War.

• The term defines a specific period of World War II, distinct in its time limits from the whole of World War II and even more so from Operation Barbarossa or German invasion. Operation Barbarossa is a particularly bad replacement, since it defines only the initial German offensive, and is German-centric. Eastern Front (World War II) is European-centric, since for Russia and post-Soviet sates the front was in fact Western. German-Soviet War is perhaps the most neutral of possible replacements, but in fact the term is not quite correct, since there were Hungarians, Romanians, Finns and many others on the German side. So, the term "Great Patriotic War" is appropriate and the very best when used in the limited Soviet or Russian or Ukrainian etc. context, i.e. not on the world scale or on pan-European scale. For example, in the article about a Soviet individual it can be pretty misguiding to see "he went fighting on Eastern Front" or "during Operation Barbarossa he..." (there was no any Operation Barbarossa for the Soviet people at that time, and the name covers only the few initial months of World War II).
• More to say, the term Great Patriotic War is not propagandistic or bombastic, but rather exact description of the war from at least the Soviet point of view (and that of modern Russia, Belarus and Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, that is over 250 million people). With all the losses and destruction, the war indeed was the greatest one in the history of Eastern Europe and, in fact, the world history. And pretty much patriotic it was too. I hope nobody here would question, for example, the terms American Revolutionary War or American War of Independence and try to replace them with American rebellion or British-American War etc., though, perhaps that could be appropriate in the British context. My suggestion is not going too much nationalistic or, as well, anti-nationalistic, and use every term in its appropriate context. GreyHood ^Talk 12:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, everyone, please note the similar discussion above. GreyHood ^Talk 13:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think anyone is seriously proposing Operation Barbarossa, that is obviously historically wrong. The reason why I, at least, prefer Eastern Front (World War II) is that most English-speaking readers are going to recognize it, and most readers of the English Wikipedia speak English. While it is true that for former Soviet countries the fighting was in the west, in most English-language sources it is described as the Eastern Front, and it seems to me that we should focus on making it accessible to English speakers and compatible with English sources, not Soviet or Russian ones. – Joe N 14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course Eastern Front is the best solution in the general articles or in the articles about non-Soviet events and people, but it can be misleading in the context of articles centered on the Soviet events and individuals. Besides that, both "front" and "operation" are stylistically bad in too many contexts, so we have to use mostly the German-Soviet War or Great Patriotic War. The first term has its drawbacks, especially when referring to the war on Finnish and Karelian, and Romanian fronts. The term Great Patriotic War is also encountered in the English language sources, and hopefully at least the western WWII specialists and historians are well aware of its meaning, while common readers can just any time click on the name and see the explanation on-wiki. GreyHood ^Talk 18:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support, for many of the expressed reasons. In a Sov context, or from a Sov POV, this is the term of art. Should it appear outside that? Probably not. Will it? I really doubt it; Eastern Front is far more likely IMO, even once the front has technically moved to their west. Also, IMO, exposure to & usage of it outside the historiographic community is greater now than it might have been when most of us were learning, so it won't be as much an oddity as we may think. Moreover, any other term is a neologism, isn't it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Eastern Front (World War II) is a misleading term, and even if someone didn't understand what it was they could click the link and read about it. I think great patriotic war would be more misleading because it redirects to Eastern Front (World War II). --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Eastern Front obviously can be geographically misleading, while Great Patriotic War can't. Besides that, the War seems to be stylistically better in most contexts, while Eastern Front (World War II) is clumsier. GreyHood ^Talk 00:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As ranger steve said, "From a purely practical point of view, a far larger proportion of the readership will recognise WWII over Great Patriotic War, making the context of the article easier to follow without using the link. Using Great Patriotic War is the equivalent of referring to the Pacific War as the Greater East Asia War in any articles about Japanese subjects. It just doesn't strike me as particularly clear." --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This comparison isn't good, since it doesn't reflect all the problems we have with neutral, stylistically good and geographically clear replacement for the Great Patriotic War. GreyHood ^Talk 11:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I only meant it as an example, you should see the discussion that went into the coverage of Pacific War for exactly the same reasons... Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And foir many (such as the Poles and Ukranians) calling it the great patriotice war is equaly biased. It was not only a war about the Soviots keepiing mother russia free (and indead they actualy enterd the war in 1939 by inivading POland, lets not forget that).Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This can count as one more argument against the Eastern Front, since 1939 events in Poland actually happened in the Eastern front and shouldn't be confused with the later 1941-45 period, which is covered by the terms Great Patriotic War or German-Soviet War. And I don't think that anyone in his right mind would insert the Great Patriotic War into Polish context. GreyHood ^Talk 18:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One Poland was a battle field during the WW2, including the fighting on the eastern front after the invasion of PLoand. Two Ukrainian nationalist (partriots) faught against Russia (and the Germans) on the eastern front. The great patriotic war represents only the soviot view of the conflict. It ignore Polish and Ukranian (and dare we say Finsish) sensabilities. WW2 is neutral. Also lets not forget that the great patriotic war was not a seperate conflict, the Soviots recived large amounts of Aid from the western allies. So its not conflict isolated from WW2.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody tries to present GPW period as isolated from WWII and it has nothing to do with Polish or Finnish sensibilities until it is placed in the appriopriate context (descriptions of Soviet war memorials and art works, biographies of the Soviet individuals, etc., i.e. the limited Soviet or Russian or Belorussian or Ukrainian etc. contexts; yes, Ukrainian too, since the Western Ukraine is not the whole of the country). GreyHood ^Talk 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the neutral point of view that GPW has. If anything it glorifies war with words like "great" and "patriotic". --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, no other war in history deserves the attribute "Great" more, because of its sheer scale. And I just have to repeat my comparison with American Revolutionary War / American War of Independence - not that neutral, but perfectly acceptable names. GreyHood ^Talk 08:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Per others above, I think it makes sense in a general context to use "Eastern Front" or a near equivalent, simply because this is what most of our readers will search for and recognise without having to follow disambiguation links, and in my experience this is what is generally used in English-language source. As a very rough-and-ready barometer, "Great Patriotic War" returns 258,000 Google hits while "Eastern Front" (and its variations such as "Eastern Front WWII") return around 1,000,000. I agree that part of our mission is to educate as well as inform, but we can always write something like "...the war on the Eastern front (referred to by the Soviets as the 'Great Patriotic War')..." in articles where we need to do so. EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody would argue about renaming the article Eastern Front (World War II) into Great Patriotic War. Naturally, most readers will search for Easter Front. What we are arguing about now is the extent to which we can use the Great Patriotic War inside a text of a random article. I agree that this usage should be rather limited, and that we should prefer other variants in general contexts. But it seems that some users, like WorldWarTwoEditor, want to eliminate the term GPW from Wikipedia completely. This is obviously very wrong thing. GreyHood ^Talk 08:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above I agree that in some (likely to be self-referential) contexts, GPW is perfectly fine when used in a way that reflects the sources. The situation strikes me as similar in some respects to the British referring to the First World War as the "Great War"; the term is not widely used but it certainly has a part in the historical lexicon when it crops up naturally in context. I agree that it's a mistake to try to artificially remove one term in preference for another. Neutral writing isn't necessarily about enforcing what we as editors perceive to be neutrality, but about accurately reflecting the sources in a non-judgemental way. Both terms have their place. EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was worthwhile to write up the result of all this on a page, which is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Nomenclature, WWII Eastern Front - Great Patriotic War. Whether this is worthwhile or not, I don't know, but I'll ask the mavens at this project if they want it, or if not it can be deleted or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog drive

We would like to announce that we are holding a mini-Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive. The drive covers only the articles in the War and military section of the WP:Good Article Nominations page and prizes will be awarded for the reviews made. The contest page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/GAN backlog elimination/October 2010 and contains all necessary information on procedures and awards. Any questions may be directed at myself or posted on the contest's talk page. For the coordinators, Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, the GAN backlog drive has commenced. A number of reviewers have signed on so far, but there is always room for more. Even if you can only find the time to review one or two nominations in October that would still help in reducing the backlog. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Air campaign articles

There seems to be a rather systematic exclusion of the air battles that run concurrently with land battles in the articles on the Second World War. Would there be sympathy for introducing complementary articles to discuss the air's contribution to the land campaigns in a separate sister articles? For example the Battle of Berlin and Battle of Berlin (air). Of course these battles are not connected, but something along these lines for the various campaigns in Europe. Something like Battle of Normandy (air) to supplement those ground articles. Dapi89 (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the air and ground (and often naval) campaigns formed the same campaign, it seems best to cover them in a single article except for where there's a really good reason not to do so. I don't see how you could separate the air battle over Normandy from the ground campaign, for instance given that it was conduced almost entirely in support of the ground forces. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of my focus is on the Normandy campaign so I can only really comment on that, but certainly all of the articles I've worked on include a mention (and often a dedicated section) for the air component. Having said that, these sections tend to be less detailed than those for the ground components and there are notable moments in the Normandy air campaign - the controversial bombing of Caen, the strafing of Rommel's staff car etc - that would perhaps merit more detailed treatment from the air perspective. Other areas are the tussle that went on behind the scenes between Montgomery, Tedder and others, the reluctance of the air commanders to divert effort from what they saw as their strategic mission of attacking German industry to instead provide ground support, and the notion that the battle was directed in part by the need to secure forward airfields. For those reasons, which I don't think are dealt with anywhere else in a joined-up way, I wouldn't mind seeing a Normandy (air) article. EyeSerene^talk 08:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If it would sway Nick, I could guarantee that such an article(s) would focus exclusively on the aviation aspect without repeating information relating to the land campaign, other than to list the result. So they would be about the same campaign but be from a completely different perspective. The detail would also improve the understanding of the battle overall.

Some issues raised by EyeSerene would be among the core reasons for an article like this. Perhaps more would be:

1. The struggle of the German air forces to influence the campaign, the dilemma for the Luftwaffe in choosing were and when to pick its battles/Abandon the frontline to protect the homeland
2. Recognising no ground offensive against the beachheads could be made if German formations could not move or even attempt a build up without air superiority. They would merely provide Allied air forces with target pratice. Build ups would be prime targets for strategic bombers
3. Added to this would be the German Army doctrine of decisive battle. Concentrating and going all out to seek a decision was their way. Allied air superiority denied the Germans the chance of a decisive battle. Instead it forced them to Allied will-the battle of the Materialshlacht, which the Germans hated and were not in a position to conduct let alone win.
4. The massive amount of damage done to the German logistical effort, crucial in the race to build up forces and to maintain them.
5. Perhaps a little something related to the strategic air war against oil which is a critical issue as regards to Normandy.
6. Operational and tactical levels would be included – of course the restraints placed by tactical air forces on German movements were enormous. One could tell the tale exclusively from German sources and there is plenty of those- Rommel/von Rundstedt etc.
7. I’d plan it and set it out according to the three general levels – Bomber Commands effectiveness in blowing holes in the German lines at various points.

Just a few more comments off the top of my head. Dapi89 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to worry about swaying me - I'm always happy to see a good article and don't mind being proved wrong :) The key point in my earlier post was "it seems best to cover them in a single article except for where there's a really good reason not to do so" - I think that you've demonstrated that Normandy is a good example of a case where there is a really good reason for a separate articles. As a comment though, there seems to be no reason to only use German sources or focus on the German experience - Anthony Beevor's book D-Day (for instance) covers the debate among Allied leaders about how to best deploy their air power and the roles this played in the campaign. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, though I meant in harmony with the Alied perspective (as Eye said). Dapi89 (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that that seems to be okay, does anyone have any suggestions on a title? I think Normandy campaign (air) is a bit simple. Perhaps Normandy air operations, Aerial operations during the Normandy campaign or Normandy air campaign? Dapi89 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I like Normandy air campaign, but I'm not sure that it's going to be possible to establish a consistent naming pattern. Middlebrook uses the Battle of Berlin in his book, which has absolutely no relation to the ground Battle of Berlin. Battle of Berlin (air) is ugly, but Aerial Battle of Berlin could work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Aerial operations during the Normandy campaign works best for me, as it emphasises that these operations were only part of the overall campaign. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Both are good choices. I think Sturmvogel 66 would agree with Nick's argument in favour of the later. Dapi89 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Nick's suggestion (obviously with a few redirects for the various permutations). EyeSerene^talk 07:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Special Forces Underground

Hello, my adoptee, Cymbelmineer, is making an article in his sandbox about the Special Forces Underground for his first task. I don't know much about military and thought that it might not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Does anyone think this is notable enough and where could I find information on them so I can give it to my adoptee? Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The stand-out issue when looking at the sandbox article is the lack of sources. Your adoptee will need to establish notability by showing non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources; if (s)he can do that, then yes, it's probably notable :) However, from what I gathered from poking around, the group's claim to notability may be largely due to something that happened some time ago - in which case they may fall under WP:NOTNEWS and not survive AfD. EyeSerene^talk 08:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer (GA) review for Adlertag (Eagle Day)

Any comments and or advise welcome before I take this to GA. Thank you. Dapi89 (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd shape up the lead first; it doesn't really summarise the article at all (the actual day itself only receives one sentence) and appears to be a political background (that isn't expanded upon in the article) rather than a complete summary. The strengths section of the infobox doesn't really list strengths either, just involved units. A sprinkling of pics in the second half of the article might help a bit as well - airfields or aircraft related to the events perhaps. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a major period for me but I hope my comments as a generally interested non-expert are useful. I think your major question has to be how much general background info do I need to put in? Some sections only touch on Adlertag being really discussions about the Battle of Britain generally. Could these be trimmed and more main article cross references be put in? I would also like to see more on the specific planning and objectives for Adlerangriff, rather than the whole campaign.Monstrelet (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, both are helpful. I'll correct these things. Dapi89 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Greco-Persian Wars

Could I get a couple comments here? I'd like to close it but since there's differing opinions, anything to show a clear consensus would be helpful. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of War in Darfur

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article after an editor placed a reassessment tag on the article talk page. You are being notified as your project banner is on the article talk page. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:War in Darfur/GA1. I have delisted the article as it is not in a good state. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo requests

Where are photo requests related to this project posted? Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks doesn't seem to have a section about photo requests. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure either. In the past the requests have been posted here. Are you looking for an image or are you looking to see which need to be filled? --Kumioko (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to refer to another project to here. I am making a WikiProject Hawaii photographs page. I stated that if people want a request for a Hawaiian military base, they could also post the request to WikiProject Military history. Also I am thinking about linking to WikiProject Military history from the Guam project page. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

We do have our logistics page, specifically the photo requests section but I am not sure how many people are watching that page at the moment. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Woody! Wikipedia:MHL#Requests for new photos seems to be what we want. Would it be alright if this page was linked from the open tasks page? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Nguyen Chanh Thi now open

The featured article candidacy for Nguyen Chanh Thi is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Demobilized equipment sold to civilians

What's the technical term for that? I am thinking about translating Polish Wikipedia stub on pl:demobil, but despite appearances, it appears that this is not an English term... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably use "military surplus". EyeSerene^talk 07:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that, but that's usually unused extra stock isn't it? I think there is a term for used materials, but I can't think of it now... Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In the UK at least there are different classes of surplus, ranging from unusued to pretty poor condition.

ALR (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

IDK if it's "official", but I've seen "dewat" used (& by guys who should know, IMO) for ex-AFUS gear. I get the impression it's an abbreviation, but what of, IDK. I'd agree "surplus" is "extra" (tho "used" also applies). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:38 & 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As ALR said, in the UK "surplus" (shorthand for "surplus to requirements") includes new and used kit; kit can become surplus to requirements late in its career. However, would "decommissioned" perhaps be less ambiguous? EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: "DEWAT" apparently stands for "deactivated war trophy", so not quite the same thing. "Demilitarised" may be another suitable alternative for Piotrus though. EyeSerene^talk 09:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Demilitarised" would be a bad (and confusing term). As far as I can see (and I use the stuff) Army Surplus is used for both decomisioned (but for sale to civilians) and (effectivly) second hand millitary items (I.E. used). I really fail to see why this is an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Military surplus to my mind is the term understood in the UK, whether it be an unused ration pack, well worn trousers, or a Bedford 4 ton truck. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

However the Defence Export and Sales Organisation, now part of UK Trade and Investment, facilitate sale of surplus kit to other nations for re-use: Hermes to India, T2600s to the Canadians. That's in addition to their trade responsibilities for sale of UK originated defence equipment.

ALR (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Stores which sell old or new military-specification equipment to civilians are called 'Army disposal' stores in Australia. My understanding is that it's now a pretty small industry as the Australian Defence Force doesn't normally sell old equipment. When creating an article on this topic it might be worth specifying the distinction between the sale of demilitarised weapons and heavy equipment (eg, tanks converted into tractors, aircraft, etc) and military variants of what's essentially civilian equipment (eg, trucks, clothing, tents, etc) as different rules apply to different categories of military equipment. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite, for some reason governments don't seem to like selling second-hand tanks with functional main armament to their citizens. As far as I'm aware, the US use "military surplus" as well as the UK; I hadn't heard the term "Army disposal" before. EyeSerene^talk 11:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(OT) EyeSerene's comment reminds me of Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, who tried to purchase a military surplus Soviet fighter plane, but fell afoul of US laws concerning the ownership of such things. IIRC, he had to settle for an unarmed Soviet training plane. The affair makes for entertaining reading; I wonder if the incident would pass Wikipedia's notability rules for an article. If not, one might be able to write it up for publication in print or another website, if one doesn't mind exchanging one's chances for an FA for receiving money. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there is so much discussion. It does appear to me that military surplus is the correct term here (we already have a stub on that). The stub from pl wiki translates roughly: "Demobil refers to military equipment sold to civilians. Such items include clothing, but also more advanced items such as engineering equipment or vehicles. Demand for such items comes from various collectors, survivalists, and fans of airsoft guns and paintball." It does appear to fit the military surplus article quite well, I hope you will be able to help expand it with information from the above discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for help - identifying photo source

Does anyone recognise the publication this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_CONCORD_SPORTS.jpg photo is from? Unfortunately all the pictures from the same source seemed to have been clipped around the edges so the publication name doesn't show. The photo is now listed for deletion on commons due to lack of full accreditation. NtheP (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on tineye.com. Are both photos from the same publication? EyeSerene^talk 11:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's the same page. I think it dates from 1936 just after the Concord won the Battenberg Cup for the second time. I was wondering if it's a US Navy publication as the language assumes a reasonable degree of knowledge of ranks, formations etc. Also the accredited photographer of the top photo is well known as an official photographer for the USN. NtheP (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

How would one contact an admin about personal attacks on a talk page? I've been involved in a discussion on the 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa talk page for quite a while now and things have gotten pretty heated. Though i myself am not the subject of personal attacks several remarks by user Bcs09 about another editor border on viciousness. At what point does critisizm become a personal attack?XavierGreen (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As soon as it's not focused on the article and/or proposed material which should be included in the article and makes you feel uncomfortable. You can ask uninvolved admins to look into this at either Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left a general note on the article talk page (another editor asked for advice on my talk page re the same article). This dispute has been rumbling on for some time and I think might bear keeping an eye on. EyeSerene^talk 07:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Steyr HS .50 M1

Does anyone have anymore info on the Steyr HS .50 M1 .50 BMG rifle? I have added a sub-section to the Steyr HS .50 article for the HS .50 M1 rifle. There is very little info on the web about the rifle and it is not mentioned on the Steyr Mannlicher website but is for sale on UK gun dealer Sportsman Gun Centre website. MFIreland (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Current Goals

500 featured articles: 96.2% complete

No, according to :

Military history pages by quality Quality Total pages

FA	561

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment

--Iankap99 (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That includes featured lists as MILHIST do not have a separate assessment class for FL in the milhist template. The full list of Milhist FAs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FA. Does that help explain the discrepancy? Regards, Woody (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't use FL? Even when WP:MHA says "Note that lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status."? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Watchlist on AdNavy & ListGenerals

A fairly new user appears to be proposing original research theories on List of United States military leaders by rank and Admiral of the Navy (United States), mainly that General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy are now being retroactively applied to the Civil War and that several other officers now hold these ranks in addition to the historical accepted persons of Washington, Pershing, and Dewey; this is something which appears to be a theory the user has arrived at and does not seem to be supported by any mainstream history source. The material has been added and reverted twice. I suggest others add this to their watch-lists. -OberRanks (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge three noticeboards

I have started a proposal to merge three United States related Noticeboards into one due to all three having no, or extremely limited activity, in the last year. I believe this will invigorate the noticeboard if we keep any of them at all. I propose merging:

• Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board
• Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board

into

• Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board.

Please provide comments here (including support or oppose). Comments are necessary to ensure that this does not intefere with ongoing efforts. If no comments are received in 7 days I will assume there is no problem and proceed with the merger. --Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Indefatigable (1909) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Indefatigable (1909) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Borodino class battlecruiser now open

The featured article candidacy for Borodino class battlecruiser is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Defenses

Is it possible to make the Category:Defenses and put Category:Medieval defenses below this category ? Also, is it then possible to use the image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pictogram_defenses.png for use as the main image for this category ? Thanks, KVDP

German WW 2 Sonic Cannon - real or not?

This new and unreferenced article popped up on 4 October. I removed a lot of what appears to be speculation from it today (much of which had nothing to do with the topic of the article and seemed to become increasingly outlandish as it went on), but am wondering if this was ever a real project. A Google search on the topic produces some hits to 'secret weapons of the Nazis' type websites, but nothing which looks terribly reliable. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To (partially) answer my own question, a Google books search of German "sound cannon" produces some reliable sources: [8]. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have heard of the concept and believe it did exist as one of many sometimes bizarre avenues of German wartime research, but I have no sources. Anyhow, the article is much improved by your surgery (and to be fair, the Germans weren't the only ones with strange ideas for weapons...) EyeSerene^talk 11:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been a project, but sadley I can't verify any of the sources. It does however read like the P1000 and I wonder if development got any furthr (the artciel implies tests were carried out).Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that a History Channel documentary probably isn't exactly a relable source, I'd think. ;) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 6th Armoured Division (South Africa) now open

The peer review for 6th Armoured Division (South Africa) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre now open

The A-Class review for Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Chesapeake (1799) now open

The peer review for USS Chesapeake (1799) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Ollantaytambo now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Ollantaytambo is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Kengir uprising FAR

I have nominated Kengir uprising for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk) 06:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lynx 335 AfD

Lynx 335 is at AfD right now, and as it is in the scope of this project, I thought you might want to comment there. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynx 335) WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The A-Class review for Arado Ar E.381 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:PortugalIV

I have some slight concerns regarding some of the changes by this user, concerns that they are a little Portuguese-centric (though, to be fair, we could all use some decentralisation from Anglophonic sources!) Changes inserting "Portuguese military victory" to battles which are really more complicated than that ([9], [10] and at Mozambican War of Independence where I first noticed it) as well as changing citations which seemed okay in the first place [11] slight changes of language to make victories against Portugal less conclusive, [12] and the removal of non-Portuguese-sourced opposition casualty figures [13]. All minor things but I sense a little trend of non-neutrality in his edits. I have left a message at his talk about a couple of them but wanted to bring it to your attention to. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dalmatian cohorts

In the course of working on article structures in the hot tasks lists, I came across a number of articles on Dalmatian cohorts of the Roman army (I think there are nine). I have created a structure ( e.g. Cohors IV Delmatarum). The problem I have is that all nine share about 50% of their text. What remains is a record of service which is sometimes very thin. A combined article on the Dalmatian cohorts could actually be quite solid and, with a little attention to supporting materials easily B class IMO. So, for clarity is it better to have nine similar start articles or a beefier composite? Monstrelet (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of combining the nine; do you have something like a list article in mind, ie: with a blurb at the top and the information on the nine cohorts tabulated? It could retain the individual information without the repetition and the other articles could be turned into redirects. I think the question is what would the reader find most useful; if someone's interested in one of the cohorts, they may look at the others and the attrition of coming across almost identical material over and over isn't ideal. Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Structurally, I'd go with the ethnographic lead (it's the same in each article), followed by a section on service histories, subsectioned by cohort. Each cohort sub-section would have a personnel sub-section. Currently, each cohort has an info box - don't know how that could be handled. Problem is not so much with the edit - the scissors and paste job is easy and I could do that - but a nine-way merge is beyond me. I was hoping someone with Roman army interests might take the project on. Monstrelet (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion. I think the infoboxes could simply go to be honest (what they say can be covered by prose). I don't have much experience in the area of Roman military units, but EraNavigator (talk · contribs) might be the person to ask for assistance. Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to cover the auxiliary regiments (cohorts + alae)in ethnically-based batches. Otherwise you're left with having to do ca. 400 individual articles for each regiment, which is an awful lot (and for many regiments there is very little info - sometimes just a single inscription). A possible template you could use for the Delmatarum regiments is my article Alpine regiments of the Roman army, covering those auxiliary regiments from the Alpine regions of the Roman empire. EraNavigator (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now left a link to this discussion at all of the cohort pages Monstrelet (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

8-Ball (aircraft)

FYI, 8-Ball (aircraft) has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at an editor's contribs

Would someone from this project please take a look at the edits of User:80.212.228.243. I found two edits which removed most of the formatting from the articles and one case of obvious vandalism, but some of the rest of the edits are to articles about planes, and that is a subject I am not very familiar with. Many of the edits changed dates, which is the kind of sneaky vandalism that often gets passed over. Someone with expertise should take a look. (I've also asked on Wikiproject Firearms for someone to look at the bulk of the user's edits, which are to firearms articles.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, please check User:83.108.24.249, undoubtedly the same person. An editor from the Firearms Project is convinced it's vandalism. [14]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Help requested with Italian prisoners of war during World war One (1914-18)

Hi, I am reviewing Our Lady Star of the Sea and St Winefride, Amlwch for WP:Good article status. This church was designed by an Italian architect, Giuseppe Rinvolucri, in the 1930s. The article states that Rinvolucri was a prisoner of war in Wales during World War One. This statement is supported by references from Cadw,[15] the Welsh equivalent of English Heritage and Haslam, Richard; Orbach, Julian; Voelcker, Adam (2009). "Anglesey: Amlwch". The Buildings of Wales: Gwynedd. Yale.

However, Italy was an ally of Britain during that war so this would seem to be an incorrect statement. My understanding is that Italian POWs were held mostly by the Austro-Hungarians. Thus, although supported by apparently reliable sources, my inclination is to ask for this statement to be removed.

I would appreciate informed comment on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The article currently describes him as "from Piedmont", in the north-west, but that's not in CADW - I presume it's in Buildings of Wales. If we were to assume the geographical location is off, it becomes a bit more possible - Italy acquired a lot of land in the north-east of the country that had formerly been in Austria-Hungary, with significant "Italian" populations, and it's possible someone had been conscripted there, captured whilst in the AH army, sent to the UK, etc - and by the 1930s, they might well be calling themselves Italian. But this is only a surmise! I'd recommend removing it pending further details. Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not considered the captured territory angle. Does anyone know if there were any Prisoner of War camps in wales during WWI? I cannot find any trace of any, loads in WWII of course. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been one major camp, with a number of satellites - [16]. Shimgray | talk | 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, interesting, but that camp housed German and then Irish prisoners. Rinvolucri's son states that his father fought against Austia-Hungary,[17] and that his father was an immigrant.[18] I shall recommend removing the prisoner or war bit from the article, I think. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks sensible. Perhaps he came over during the war for some reason, and someone later assumed this meant he'd been a prisoner? It might explain the oddity. Shimgray | talk | 09:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If he had come to the UK before the outbreak of WW2, could he have been interned?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WWI, not WWII ;-). That said, he does actually turn up in one source which notes he was still living in Wales in 1940, and had to get special dispensation from the police to be allowed to continue living by the coast... Shimgray | talk | 18:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, see: Clark, Rhodri; Carey, Paul (13 April 2006). "How Italian cafe owners in Wales could have been shot as potential Nazi collaborators" (Subscription required). Western Mail, archived at LexisNexis. Cardiff: Western Mail and Echo Ltd. But many others were on the Suspect List because of hearsay or their ethnicity. Architect Giuseppe Rinvolucri had to surrender his wireless set and get police permission to continue living in Glan Conwy after the outbreak of war, when anyone considered an 'enemy alien' was banned from living near the sea. He was removed from the list in 1941 - but his British-born wife Mina remained on it until the end of the war.

I should add that the GAN nominator removed the prisoner of war bit from the article and it has now been passed. Perhaps CADW and the BBC picked up the mis-information from Wikipedia? Or perhaps not, the article was created in June this year. Thanks for the input here. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Need some bot or script to search for occurrences of "Republic of South Vietnam/Korea"

These are everywhere, common errors in books, even by academic historians, so its not surprising that hundreds are here, expecially on VN/Korean War related articles. The wiki search engine doesn't have a means of only picking out exact matches. If a bot could do it, it would be good; the only correct use of "Republic of South Vietnam" is the Vietcong jungle government YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you can do that with a Google search limited by site. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The wikisearch engine recognises phrases in inverted commas, a-la Google, so searching for ["Republic of South Vietnam" should pick up only the phrase, unlike [Republic of South Vietnam]. -- saberwyn 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried "Republic of South Vietnam" and it comes up with ROV, SV and the correct ones as well YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on some spot checks, while it doesn't show up in the search blurb, the phrase does appear in the article somewhere (although its sometimes part of the phrase Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam...which is going to be hard to filter out however you do it, or as a flag parameter...see Template:Country data Republic of South Vietnam). By my counts, there are less than 100 articles with the phrase (including correct usages)according to my Wiki search and 85 hits on Google en.wiki wide for ["Republic of South Vietnam" -"Provisional Revolutionary Government" site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki]. -- saberwyn 01:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for December 1964 South Vietnamese coup now open

The featured article candidacy for December 1964 South Vietnamese coup is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for 766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) now open

The A-Class review for 766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Kapyong now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Kapyong is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A-class review for Battle of Kalavrye now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Kalavrye is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Constantine ✍ 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Stalingrad and Kursk in 2011

I have visited many of the WW1 and WW2 battlefields in Europe and North Africa, but have always wanted to go and see where WW2 was really won! Tentative planning is for June 2011. My wife is clearly not interested - so any editors with an interest in that region and period who would be keen on putting together such a trip, please contact me on my talk page. If posting such a request this on this forum is considered improper, I sincerely apologise and would have no objection to it being deleted. Farawayman (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Japan now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Japan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island now open

The A-Class review for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

HEY!

The Civil war in Chad 2005-present article has been vandalized! Someone removed vital information. Can it be brought back? Respond quickly! B-Machine (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Also, Nick-D did not vandalize the article, any editor can remove unsourced information. BTW, this is the "vandalism" to which he's referring. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

B-Machine, I'm becoming increasingly confused by your concerns about edits to articles to which you have made little or no contributions, along with your lack of understanding about vandalism, editing articles, reverting and general good manners. I have already pointed you to some basic pages about editing wikipedia. Might I again strongly recommend that you read them. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the material as it was full of copyvios. I posted a notification of the problems with the article at Talk:Civil war in Chad (2005–present) and only chopped out the material when there was no action fixing these problems after two weeks and posted another notification on the article's talk page after doing so. Due to the large scale of the copyright violations it wasn't feasible for me to go through the article edit by edit (as this would have taken hours), though editors interested in this topic are certainly welcome to. Please note that restoring material to the article without first verifying that it's not a copyright violation can lead to blocks for adding the copyvio to Wikipedia anew. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

On a related topic, any assistance with the major copyright clean up at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/De Administrando Imperio would be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a Grave - concerning mass removals

A discussion is being held at the Village pump (misc) concerning the merits/problems of using FindAGrave. Mass removals have been suggested. You are invited to join in the discussion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Chaplain-Medic massacre now open

The A-Class review for Chaplain-Medic massacre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

New special project

Could we start a project similar to WP:OMT for submarines instead of battleships? OMT is certainly improving the quality of battleship articles a great deal. The name could be Operation Hunley or Operation Nautilus, both of which helped usher in a new age of submarine warfare. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Would we have a large enough userbase for such an effort? If so, I think Nautilus would be a better name – Hunley wasn't nearly the harbinger of a new age as Nautilus was. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure that we really have enough interested people to sustain a special project. We should round up the major editors working in this area and get a sense of their support for the idea; if there isn't a strong showing of interest, it may be better to start this off as a working group initially, and then transform it into a special project once it gets to a critical mass. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I will check up the Submarines and Submarine classes categories using CatScan and WikiChecker and WikiDashboard to find major contributers to individual articles. So far I have White Shadows, MBK004 and Toddy1. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank#New special project

Form for CatScan for the categories mentioned above here. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't list me as someone gung-ho for this. I may make a large number of edits to the subject (but remember that I'm a WikiGnome. I also believe that we don't have enough to sustain this project as well as OMT at the same time. Also, I think there was prior consensus that after OMT we would be moving to either the aircraft carriers or cruisers. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on creating an project at WP:ONAU. It's still crude. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the existing special project pages is probably a better model than the main project page, I think. In any case, how are we doing on editor interest? There isn't much point to creating a lot of infrastructure if nobody actually wants to participate. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You could use User:MessageDeliveryBot to send messages to all the major editors of sub articles. I havent done it yet. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 16:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on one of your earlier comments, WP:ONAU now goes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Submarine. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can upgrade it to a full special project easily enough, once there's enough activity to make the added infrastructure useful. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. My mission for MessageDeliveryBot has already recruited Cloudaoc. I'll now work on adding pages to the table. Thanks for your comments and input. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we post a notice or story for the October Bugle? I know the September Bugle is already out, and I don't have a lot of experience with newsletters and newspapers. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we can mention it in the next issue. I don't think there's going to be enough material for a full story, given that the group has just started; but a brief notice would be quite easy to do. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck! WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm E.381, move me

In response to a suggestion (& realizing I should have done it before now... :( ), I'm proposing a move for Arado Ar E.381 and Arado Ar E.340 to Arado E.381 and Arado E.340 (now redirects), respectively. Since they never became operational, IMO the "Ar" is inappropriate. Comment is welcomed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And, done. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Sidney Mashbir now open

The peer review for Sidney Mashbir is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Douglas XP-48 now open

The peer review for Douglas XP-48 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bibliographies by the UK Joint Services Command and Staff College Library

I think that this will be of general interest:

The UK Joint Services Command and Staff College Library has what could be for us a very useful Bibliographies on "Campaign and Battle Studies" (half a dozen military operations/campaigns), "Command and Leadership Studies" (some prominent military figures) and "Research Guides"

-- PBS (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent find - nice one Philip. Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The JSCSC Library is reputed to be the largest military library in Western Europe, though I do not know how big the College Interamees de Defense library near Paris is. It is well worth a visit for anyone doing serious research. A large number of our general questions could be answered by reference to the books there. The catalogue however is behind a military internet wall. Anyone needing facilitation/introductions to visit the JSCSC library is invited to contact me. Please however try through the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom routine arrangements first. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Japan air base expert needed

At the new article 1945 Japan–Washington flight, there is a possibility that the air base discussed, Sapporo Air Base, is actually Chitose Air Base. I would appreciate an expert's advice on which is correct. The air base is called Mizutani by the Americans, or Mizutani Chitose, but they consider it to be in the suburbs of Sapporo, which is odd if it is Chitose Air Base. The air base under discussion was created by the Japanese for the purpose of launching one way bomber attacks on the USA, a service that did not eventuate. The most important references [19][20][21] all point back to James Ivan Potts Jr, a copilot on one of the three B-29s which made the record-breaking flight. If Potts is unclear which air base it is, then the historical record is muddied. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I have some sources (people) who might have information on the subject. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'll ask some of the WP:Japan editors for input. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:Japan discussion is here. I'm starting to think that Mizutani Air Base is Chitose Air Base, but I'm trying to verify that it wasn't a separate airfield in Chitose. Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to believe it was Chitose, as looking at imagery of the base, there is a very long runway there (now closed), which is longer than 18R/36L, just to the east. That and the other information written by Potts leads me to that conclusion. Bwmoll3 (talk)

The positioning of Chitose is closer to the flight path than Sapporo Air Base. The heavily laden planes could only fly low to the ground and water for the first very long minutes. It would be somewhat more difficult to take off from Sapporo and then overfly the land between the two airbases. It would be easier to take off from Chitose and head directly to the sea. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the discussion over at WP:JAPAN, Mizutani Air Base is now a Ground Self-Defense Force Base located near the current Chitose Air Base. Mizutani included a runway, now defunct, or used only by helicopters, called the "Renzan" runway, which was likely the runway used by the B-29s in the article. So, the correct phrasing in the article would probably be that Mizutani Air Base was near where the current Chitose Air Base is located." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Move request for our project banner

An editor has requested that {{WPMILHIST}} be moved to a new location; comments at Template talk:WPMILHIST#Requested move would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

United States related Tag and Assess proposal

There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.

If you are interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

CFB Rivers

FYI, CFB Rivers has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

US service academy graduate categories

I'm not really sure where to post this, but here seems as good a place as any other: the alumni/graduate categories for the US service academies (with the exception of Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy alumni) all are categorized under the officer categories for their respective services -- Category:United States Military Academy alumni, for instance, is categorized under Category:United States Army officers. This is useful for most of the biographies in this category, as most graduates serve as Army officers, so their individual biography pages don't need the additional officer category, but it's incorrect for graduates that went on, for instance, to serve as Air Force officers (e.g. Frank Borman). --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Although the 2 categories are related I would leave them both because they serve 2 different purposes. --Kumioko (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 23:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Legation Siege of Peking

FYI, we have two articles, Siege of Beijing Legation Quarter and Siege of the Legations, Beijing 1900 ... they should be merged. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Siege of the Legations, Beijing 1900" is a bad name for the event. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree they need to be merged, Siege of Beijing Legation Quarter is probably an ok name although I'm no expert of this topic. Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge and redirect completed. Anotherclown (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

UK Joint Services Command and Staff College Library approval

PBS's discovery of the JSCSC Library bibliography raises some potentially interesting issues for future editing that I thought it might be interesting to chat about. The first bibliography to grab my attention was, oddly enough, the one for Market Garden, where I noticed many familiar texts and some new ones listed - some of the receive some fairly glowing reviews as well.

I'm not aware of the circumstances in which these bibliography's were written, but for Market Garden at least, the compiler knows his stuff. I also realise that this document refers to material held in the library, and not necessarily a shopping list. However I'm curious how far people feel we can take the compiler's recommendations or reviews when it comes to assessing the reliability of references for our own use (I'm thinking largely in terms of when sources are likely to be challenged at review of course). To me at least, these documents seem to provide a level of peer review for sources that it is often hard to asses the reliability of.

Any thoughts? Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Very much endorse your view Ranger Steve. I know these librarians, and they're a good bunch of people. They are pushed to provide good reading recommendations to hundreds of captains and majors coming through the Staff College. This is high quality material. The challenge is to also tie in resources from the U.S. Command and General Staff College, French Collège interarmées de défense, the General Staff Academy (Russia), and whatever the Chinese equivalent is as well. That's very much long term though; one doesn't just walk into the Russian General Staff offices. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd echo Buckshot06's opinion; the library team at the JSCSC are a very competent lot. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

When bibliographies like Market Garden include the Wikipedia article in their Internet Website sections, it will be an indication that our articles are getting up to scratch 8-) -- PBS (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish military diaspora merger

It has been suggested that the Irish regiment article be merged into the Irish military diaspora article. I believe this is a good idea. --MFIreland (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well as they are both unreferenced and barely more than lists, I can see no harm. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should there be a separate article called Targeted killing

• Ongoing Request for Comment, at Talk:Assassination#RFC:_Should_there_be_a_separate_article_called_Targeted_killing.
• New comments should go all the way to the bottom, below subsection, Discussion break.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Thomas C. Kinkaid now open

The featured article candidacy for Thomas C. Kinkaid is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of medal ribbon images in infoboxes

I didn't see any reference about this in WP:MILMOS but is adding images of medal ribbons e.g. Pat Tillman in the infobox preferred, not preferred or it doens't matter either way? NtheP (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Typically putting ribbons or the unit crests in the Infoboxes falls under Icon. The only exception is usually for the Flag of the Country or service. --Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also the rank insignia in the Tillman article. Edit the images out and preview your changes and ask yourself, what information has been lost? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to do it, although it's been a while since I have for various Air Force units. It's a worthwhile endeavor for someone to pick up on. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review for non-contributing editor

Can I request a peer review for articles where I did not contribute?

In particular, I would like reviews on Fort Mifflin and Thomas Mifflin, and an answer to the question, was Fort Mifflin named for Thomas Mifflin? Another editor and I have asked that on the talk page for Fort Mifflin. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one needs to have contributed to an article to request a peer review (certainly I wouldn't object). If you wish to have the above articles peer reviewed, you can go to WP:MHPR and follow the instructions there to list them for review. I trust this answers your question about the reviews, but as to the question about naming I'm afraid that I don't have the knowledge to provide you with an answer. Perhaps someone on the Fortifications task force might be able to help? You might consider adding your question there and seeing if you get a response. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the article's talk page, although it wasn't particularly illuminating and more input would be welcome. Or does anyone know of some Philadelphia history buffs? Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming issue solved, peer review request outstanding. Nev1 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Kachin Independence Army

We currently have two articles on this organisation, Kachin Independence Army and Kachin Independent Army. Both articles are in a fairly poor state and need to be cleaned up and merged. I am posting this here in the hope that someone with more expertise than I will take it upon themselves to fix this situation. Personnally I would just delete them both but that is probably a little over zealous (hence the removal of my PRODs). Cheers all. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise with Siege of Beijing Legation Quarter and Siege of the Legations, Beijing 1900. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree in both cases. I think the best way forward is in both cases to place a merge proposal on the talk page of one article (and a note on the other directing people to the discussion) and invite people to state whether they support or oppose a merge, and which version should be selected. After a period of time, say maybe a week, if there is no objection it shouldn't be too hard to cut from one to the other and make one a redirect to the other. Does anyone have a different take to this? Is this the best way to do it? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

From the basis of some Google searching, 'Kachin Independence Army' seems to be the correct name of this organisation - it gets lots more hits (10,700 to 299) and is grammatically correct. Notably, it gets vastly more hits in Google Scholar than 'Kachin Independent Army' does. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers guys. Agree with Nick on the name, 'Kachin Independence Army' seems more appropriate. I think we probably could be bold and just do it - as it seems fairly uncontroversial to me. That said I don't believe I know enough about the organisation to do the merge any justice so I guess I'm asking for a volunteer to do it. Any takers? Anotherclown (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this has been done now. Thanks Buckshot. Anotherclown (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

More eyes needed

Your comments are solicited to complete several reviews: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive1. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre now open

The featured article candidacy for Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Help Requested with Irish Military project

Can I ask for some help please at Ulster Defence Regiment. I have three (seemingly experienced) people kind of against some of what I'm trying to do. I'm having Wikipedia rules chucked at me and I feel it's a lot to take on board for a new editor. The article seems like a great one and I'd like to improve it but unfortunately it is involved with the Irish Troubles and there seems to have been a great deal of aggravation on it in the past, to the point where there is an Arbitration Committtee ruling on it and editing restrictions.

All help greatly received. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The UDR is British Military not Irish. --MFIreland (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-editable Campaignbox

I just created a new article, Siege of Belgrade (1789), and wanted to add it to the Austro-Turkish War (1787-1791) campaignbox, but there is no edit link. I looked farther and there is an entire group of campaignboxes with no apparent way to edit them. (See the Crimean War.) Is there a way for mere mortals to do this, or does one have to be born to the purple? Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When you edit a page, a list of links to all templates used in the article will appear at the bottom (below the editing window). Find the link for the campaignbox in question, follow it, and edit away. To make the helpful v-d-e links appear on the template, you just have to add "|raw_name=templatename". I did it for the Austro-Turkish campaignbox here.— jwillbur 05:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for restructuring task forces

Following an extensive discussion about the usefulness of the task force model, the strategy think tank has arrived at a proposal for restructuring task forces that will reduce maintenance and cross-posting overhead and increase our responsiveness to editors who post questions and requests for assistance while maintaining the useful organizational features of each task force. The proposed approach consists of two key steps:

1. All task force pages will be restructured to a new simplified format
2. All task force talk pages will be redirected to the main project talk page

The special projects, which are currently located under individual task forces, will be brought up to sit under the main project page, but will otherwise be unaffected; the existing working groups will not be affected at all.

The new format proposed for the task force pages can be seen at the fortifications task force; it reduces each task force page to the following elements:

• Scope
• Participants
• Article statistics and showcased content
• Open tasks
• Resources

The format also includes a number of stylistic changes meant to provide a common look and feel to our task forces that matches the appearance of the main project pages.

Any comments on this proposal would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support all of the above EyeSerene^talk 08:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Dana boomer (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Farawayman (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 04:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Yoenit (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The main project is a very wide subject. Many will not be interested in all the different talk topics and like myself do not have the project talk page in their watchlist, only the task force talk page. This could be why only support was see in this list until the task force page was edited.--Traveler100 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of objections, we're going to be implementing this over the next few days; please bear with us, as the task force pages are likely to be a little chaotic as the new structure is rolled out. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Five years of military history

Five years ago today, WikiProject Battles and WikiProject Wars merged to create the combined Military history WikiProject.

I had no idea, at the time, that the project we were forming would someday be one of Wikipedia's largest and most successful. When I had first joined WikiProject Battles in September 2005, I became its fourteenth member; when the projects merged, our combined membership numbered only thirty. And yet the succeeding years saw us persevere, and grow, and help make Wikipedia a premier resource on military history.

Some of those who began this grand effort are sadly no longer with us—many of the names on the old membership lists are of editors long forgotten by most here—but to everyone who has been a part of this project over the course of the past five, whether you are still with us, or pursuing other interests, or gone from Wikipedia entirely, I say: it has been a pleasure and a privilege to work alongside each of you.

I look forward to the next five years! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hear, Hear! Good work, everybody! This has truly become one of the largest (if not the largest) and most active projects onboard Wikipedia. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Bravo Zulu: Farawayman (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Happy birthday! --Kumioko (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• We've come so far since those days! Kirill, you deserve a massive thanks for your leadership and guidance during these last five years, and everyone needs a pat on the back for their efforts to make Wikipedia one of the best resources on military history ever assembled. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• I thoroughly second Ed's comment on Kirill's contributions. Kirill, you've repeatedly been the dispassionate voice of reason in innumerable issues, and this project would simply not be where it is without you. We, and all the people across the world who benefit from wider knowledge of an area that is sometimes sensitive, benefit from your consistent efforts. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Happy birthday guys and keep up the good work! Even if I can't be active anymore I couldn't not to pop in and salute you! --Eurocopter (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• A grand effort indeed, thanks to all -- and great to hear from you again Eurocopter, one of the first people on the project with whom I came into contact... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Happy Birthday to the project! ( ;) ) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Well there's a glum outlook on life. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Happy Birthday to the Project! I second/third/fourth the huge amount of praise for Kirill! His inspirational leadership took us from a scattered and small project to a resource that Simon Fowler called "the best military history site on the internet" (we used to have a Project History that detailed that, but I can't find it anymore). Here's to another five - nay, several more sets of five - years of MilHist! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 17:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not really part of the project, I just hang out here to review really excellently developed articles and help make them better. So to all the content, template, list, box, image, and other non-review editors here (and the other review editors): Happy Birthday! Fifelfoo (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Congratulations to everyone who's a part of this very successful project. Unfortunately though I now realise that the project and I share a birthday week... I'm only a few years older though - honest! Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Congratulations !!!! I watch this page, although I'm not really active in the project. Best wishes to all your endeavors in the next five years :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Wow, five years already. To think that when I joined Wikipedia low these many years ago this project did not exist. Its been wild, its been fun, its been a little a frustrating at times, but I wouldn't have it any other way! Even though we have done so much in just five years I can say with confidence that The Best Is Yet to Come... TomStar81 (Talk) 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lindsay Hassett needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Lindsay Hassett; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed/supported earlier tonight so by my count there are now 3 supports and no opposes -- can probably be closed/promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been closed now. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Kalavrye needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Kalavrye; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt now open

The featured article candidacy for September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lynn G. Gref

Could anyone please look at, and help to improve, the new article Lynn G. Gref? Cheers,  Chzz  ► 

Naming standards revisited

Today, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) was moved to 506th Infantry Regiment. Since the discussion that determined the inclusion of the country name in the disambiguation location (now identified in the manual of style as 'pre-emptive disambiguation), I noticed and commented to the editors involved (AirplaneMan and RepublicanJacobite. It may be prudent for the coordinators of the project to be involved in this discussion (or to pronounce that we need to rename all such articles). --Habap (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like some input from the project leadership on this, as the issue could involve a lot of work. --Habap (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, busy week! I'd say that given the length of dialogue that went into it, it wouldn't make sense to leave it without the disambiguation. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. After I re-pinged RepublicanJacobite, I got a "I've been too busy to look at this, do what you want", so I changed it back. I don't think the 'pre-emptive disambiguation' wording in the Manual of Style is clear enough, but don't know if there is any impetus to re-word it. --Habap (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Good move. Are you thinking about the general wiki manual of style or the milhist one? Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Book request

Does anyone have access to Janusz Skulski's The Battleship Fuso: Anatomy of a Ship? I'm in the process of rewriting the class article, and any material from that book would be incredible useful. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Interlibrary loans are the greatest invention in the history of humankind...Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Coverage

A two-pronged sort of question here. First, do aircraft designers who weren't military themselves, but who designed military aircraft, fall under the project? What about a civilian who received a "Friend of the Air Force" award? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes. R. J. Mitchell was employed by a private enterprise (on an Air Ministry contract a lot of the time), but I should think he'd fall under our remit. This might not be a hard and fast rule though - I think Mitchell qualifies because the plane he designed is so notable. Can I ask who you're thinking of? Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I mused about this in the past with Hans Multhopp (notable military designs), and decided to ask after creating a page for Augusto Cicaré yesterday (designs to Argentinean AF direct orders/Friend of the Argentinean Air Force award). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Leslie Groves now open

The A-Class review for Leslie Groves is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipage for Maund

Dear Community, Please can someone help me? I'd like to make a page concerning Admiral LEH Maund, CBE, (1892-1957), who was an important character in amphibious warfare just prior to and during WW2. He was also the last Captain of Ark Royal. A photo of him would be useful to the article. The only ones I know of are on this page: http://www.unithistories.com/officers/RN_officersM2.html (you'll need to scroll down). Is there anyone who can provide me with a public domain photo of the Admiral? Thanks in advance for any help you might offer.AmesJussellR (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Best RN expert, though concentrating on 1880s-1930s, is User:Simon Harley. He may be able to give you some points on where to find a photo to upload. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Remembrance Day 2010

Do we have a Featured Article lined up for Remembrance Day on 11 Nov? Farawayman (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hirohito, rename, again

FYI, Hirohito has again been nominated for renaming, see Talk:Hirohito. As Hirohito was a wartime leader for one of the major powers at war during WWII, I thought I'd let you know. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria now open

The peer review for Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stratioti

I'm afraid edit warring has broken out at Stratioti again. More ethnic-based disputes. This article is really blighted by this dispute which is preventing the quality of the article being improved. Is there an administrative solution to the problem?Monstrelet (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Take it to the Administrator's noticeboard, identify the principal edit-warrers, and ask for assistance. If you wish, you might also consider raising it with coordinators who are also admins. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, can't raise much interest with the admins. I have been advised to raise it direct on the article talk page and see where it goes from there. I've done this. Be interested to see what happens. I've it goes pear-shaped I can always bail :) Monstrelet (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin but not a coordinator. Please feel free to stay in touch via my talkpage should you want further assistance. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Iowa class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Iowa class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming of missile pages

Over at WP:AIR, we recently undertook a revision and standardisation of our page naming. Previously, some aircraft (especially U.S. military types) were titled using a designation-name format, i.e. P-75 Eagle. The new format agreed upon though, is a manufacturer-designation-name format, i.e. Fisher P-75 Eagle, which standardised with non-US-designation system types and was agreed as being more informative and encyclopediatic.

My point in this rambling, is that I have a question: should missile pages include the manufacturer or not? For instance, SSM-N-8 Regulus vs Chance Vought SSM-N-9 Regulus II. Which one is the preferred version? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

From my readings, it's quite rare for missiles' names in books to include who their manufacturer was, so I'd go with SSM-N-8 Regulus, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Note, there was a WP:ROCKETRY renaming of some of these articles earlier... 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Though Bristol Bloodhound, Sea Slug missile, Blue Streak (missile). Variety of schemes, but all seem to work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for the link to WP:ROCKETRY. Their naming standard makes sense to me. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mohamud Hashi Abdi Hoosh notability question

The article on Somali Colonel Mohamud Hashi Abdi Hoosh has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since December 2008, the current focus month for the UBLP Project. I have tried, and failed, to find any sources for the very short text in this article (no surprise given the service dates) but I have a further doubt about the subject's notability. This is not my area of expertise. Could someone here have a look and determine whether he meets WP:MILPEOPLE or not? If not, please PROD. If he does, can you help with sourcing?--Plad2 (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 3rd Division (Australia) now open

The peer review for 3rd Division (Australia) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Editorial needed for upcoming newsletter

Interested in writing a piece that will be viewed by all of the Military history WikiProject's 1100+ members? Leave a note at WT:MHNEWS#Editorial? and start writing – we'll need one in the next few days and one about a month from now. A short description of what normal editorials are can be found at WP:MHEDITORIALS, but don't be shy if your idea falls slightly outside that parameter. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Skirth FAC

The featured article candidacy for Ronald Skirth is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Dwab3 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Amended to reflect FAC, not FAR, Woody (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Woody! I saw this earlier and was just coming back to do the move, but saw that you had gotten there before me :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States

Hello, WikiProject Military history/Archive 97! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of discussions about the World War II article

There are quite a few discussions currently underway about changes to this article at Talk:World War II which members of this project may wish to participate in (or add further discussions to!). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Counterintelligence Corps (United States Army)

I was in the process of translating Counterintelligence Corps (United States Army) into French when I found out some neutrality issues. I checked the history of the article and I found out [http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/index.htm this edit. Shall I just remove these paragraphs?

Actually, my short investigations on the subject lead me to Frank J Rafalko (2004). Counterintelligence reader : American Revolution to World War II. Washington, D.C.: National Counterintelligence Center. OCLC 56634207.. Should it be considered as "self published" or could that be used as a reliable source ?

Thanks for your help. --Anneyh (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider the book a reliable source; it's not self-published.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, actually my question was can we consider this book published by "National Counterintelligence Center" as independant from the subject "Counterintelligence Corps (United States Army)" ? As far as I understand there is a time gap between the two organizations, but I'm far from being a specialist. Can you also have a look at the diff? --Anneyh (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd delete the bit about the veterans organization and I'm not sure about the claim that the wartime files on communists were so useful in combating Communism in the US later. It may be RS, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. It might be worth adding a controversial tag on that paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island now open

The featured list candidacy for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured lists; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Magic♪piano 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin or 3rd opinion needed at Iraq War Page

There has been debate at the Iraq War page about whether or not the war has ended due to the Obama administration declaring it over, despite the fact that the Iraqi government continues to combat the insurgency there. Though concensus has been reached that the war is still ongoing a disenting editor has continuously reverted any edits to the page and infobox that state that the war is ongoing. Some help or a third opinion in this matter would greatly be appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

More eyes needed

More eyes are needed to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive1. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Siege of Beijing Legation Quarter now open

The peer review for Siege of Beijing Legation Quarter is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers needed

I am looking for people interested in reviewing two of my articles at FLC. The first is List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941 which has been sitting around for a month now. The second is List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942, a logical sequel to the first. Both lists are not drawing much attention so far. Thanks for your help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan

An IP editor is edit warring (with me) to add an unsourced estimate of fatalities in this article. Comments by other editors at Talk:List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan would be great. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Magdhaba now open

The peer review for Battle of Magdhaba is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Black Friday (1945) now open

The A-Class review for Black Friday (1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Italian Wars/French Wars of Religion expertise required

In attempt to improve the Stratioti article, I have done a restructure of content. This demonstrates the weakness of the article in that we have very little content on the use of stratioti in the Italian Wars or later in the French Wars of Religion. While this article has been blighted by POV editing, I'm hoping to break into new ground outside of the interests of these editors, so any help appreciated. Monstrelet (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Magersfontein now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Magersfontein is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONTRIB

Greetings MILHIST project! I'd like to inform you guys about WP:CONTRIB, the Wikipedia Contribution Team, a joint program being conducted between editors and foundation staff to improve contributions to English Wikipedia and help support the 2010 fundraiser. We'd really love to work more closely with this Wikiproject, and invite you all to join and participate. Not sure how you can help? We're open to ANY kind of contribution -- whether it's helping make our project page look better, helping with social media and outreach, communicating with various Wikiprojects, or coming up with a plan to attract new editors to your project, we're open to your suggestion. Come work with us, we'd love to have you. Any questions can be directed either to me, or to the talk page at WP:CONTRIB. Thanks! ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 19:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what, Keegan says it better than I do. See below: ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 19:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!

Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Move NATO phonetic alphabet?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet#Move?. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

A category question

Here's a question I just had cause to ponder: should weapons be categorised by countries that manufactured them, or countries that used them? For instance, I refer specifically, as to the inspiration of this question, to the disgusting mess at the bottom of AIM-120 AMRAAM. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, MANUFACTURED. In the case of many weapons, especially the AK-47 and your AMRAAM have been used by many countries, please, just the original designer slash manufacturer. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we have to do both or the country categories will be incorrect. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume that Category:Air-to-air missiles of the United States would be for manufacturing countries, but Category:Royal Air Force guided missiles for users (for instance), then? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to categorise weapons by the countries in which they're designed? Many kinds of weapons sold for export are manufactured in the purchasing country (though this seems to be becoming less common). Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That might be more workable. As you say, many exported weapons are manufactured under license by the purchasing country and still others are part-manufactured by different countries in joint ventures. EyeSerene^talk 12:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that does make sense, yeah. I assume that the "Fooian Air Force missiles" categories are still desired for operators, though? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@Nick That's what I meant.

@Bushranger I think we still want those. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

GAN contest

I forgot to say this, but THANKS for organizing the GAN contest last month. It was a huge success, and blasted away the greater portion of the backlog. I propose another one for next month, as the backlog is reappearing, although Sturm's elves have been retired. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a need for another so soon. I envisioned it as something we'd do if the backlog increased to 40+ articles. We reviewed 80-odd articles last month and I don't see the current backlog plus next month's submissions coming anywhere near that level, even if I throw in the last of my stockpile. That said, I'd encourage people to review at least one article to keep the backlog manageable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It was definitely a worthwhile exercise and massive kudos to all who participated. I agree with Sturm though that it's probably best run as a some-time thing; generally participation drops off dramatically if identical drives are repeated too close together. As an alternative for the coming months, there's a proposal here to run a drive to clear out the project's backlog of unreferenced BLPs. EyeSerene^talk 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is what I was (sort of) thinking. I sure am seeing a lot of drives around these days. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Forced labor in Germany during World War II

I could use an extra set of eyeballs at Talk:Forced_labor_in_Germany_during_World_War_II#Two_issues_2 - especially from someone who speaks German. Raul654 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

U-Boats in Norway, 1945

I'm working on Operation Doomsday, the air-transported portion of the Allied occupation of Norway by 1st Airborne Division, and I've come across a reference to resistance from several U-Boat captains during the occupation. However, my sources don't give anything more than a reference to 'resistance', and I was wondering if anyone had any sources that could elaborate. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for First and Second Battle of Wonju now open

The peer review for First and Second Battle of Wonju is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Doomsday now open

The A-Class review for Operation Doomsday is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fun new image

Hi, I'm helping with a Wikipedia collaboration project with The Children's Museum of Indianapolis. We just had a backstage pass day where Wikipedians came in and took photos in collections storage. This fun photo of a Giant atomic bomb toy came out of that day, and I thought you'd enjoy using it, perhaps in Nuclear weapons in popular culture or Atomic age. There will be many more images in the Children's Museum of Indianapolis Commons category soon. Thanks! HstryQT (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The things that were considered suitable material for toys... how times have changed! Thanks HstryQT, I look forward to seeing the rest of your work. EyeSerene^talk 21:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Can you say "politically incorrect"? :-) Thanks for the note, Hstry, and thanks for what you are doing for the encyclopedia. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but suspect that some of the current generation of first person shooter computer games will be looked upon in a similar light... Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough that did occur to me after I'd posted the above :) EyeSerene^talk 08:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Need help on Almoravid dynasty and Almohad Caliphate

Hi, we need more opinions on the Talk Pages ([22], [23]) of the articles Almoravid dynasty and Almohad Caliphate, thanx to those who come to participate. Regards--Morisco (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

One ship, two pages

I'd like to direct your attention to Yasoshima and Chinese cruiser Ping Hai. The same ship, but with two different pages. Merge discussion is here, input would be great. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Page name question

While browsing, I came across Dornier Viper. Now, according to the various standards, the manufacturer's name shouldn't be in the page name - Viper (missile) would be the more appropriate name. Except that's ambigious, since there's also AGM-80 Viper. Would Viper (German missile) be an appropriate name? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, upon further thought, Viper (air-to-air missile) seems most appropriate. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If Flight refers to it as Dornier Viper, I see no reason to change the article name. (COMMONNAME) GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlucky forward

I'm running into a potential problem. (Or maybe I'm overreacting...) In the last couple of months, it appears the same editor (from a couple of different IPs, as far as I can tell) has posted much the same commentary here 3 different times, evidently trying to make a point about first use. I did respond once (the first time), but got no reaction. I also removed a recent ramble with no evident effort to actually improve the page. Said IP has now chosen to chastise for that removal. I remain dubious this is a genuine effort, rather than trolling. I do, however, wonder if there is some other approach. I welcome other eyes on it, for I am now recusing myself, if only for approaching my limit in patience with nonsense. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I'm not even sure what he's actually complaining about; as far as I can tell, the lead already mentions the fact (or trivia item, really) that he's referring to.

(The lead could be improved, of course—the naming discussion isn't really something that needs to be given such prominence, and there's little summary of the tank's design or operational career—but that's presumably a separate matter from whatever point he's trying to make.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

AFAI can tell, it's a problem with lack of explicit mention of 1st U.S. use, or lack of prominence of same. I don't see it's a genuine problem, but this appears to be a partisan complaining. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A question about infobox

Is there a specific sourcing guideline that governs the usage of the result field? I just found it annoying that people can stick interpretations such as tactical, strategic, Pyrrhic victory, decisive, etc without even leaving an edit summary, let alone a footnote. Aside from assigning an obvious "(x side) victory" or "inconclusive" results, are we even allowed to interpret an outcome of battle deeper without a footnote in the infobox? Jim101 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the template instructions currently suggest omitting those extended descriptions to begin with:

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".

Beyond that, I don't think the sourcing requirements for a statement in the infobox are any different from the ones for that same statement in the body of the article; if something is controversial or questioned, a source needs to be cited for it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]}

This was the source of a massive debate that I'm actually afraid to direct you to such was its length and intensity. I do recall, however, that the debate on infobox results wasn't completely concluded, and I do think it needs to reach a firm agreement. Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Bloodhound

Seems a bit of a daft idea to rename Bristol Bloodhound to Bloodhound (missile) when Bristol Bloodhound is a perfectly reasonable non-dabed common name. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I moved it back. Rocketry's notes don't actually specify application to missiles and it's been stable at Bristol Bloodhound without complaint. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of missiles have been moved recently, I have moved some of them back to their previously stable positions, where I believe Commonname can be adequately cited. Rocketry's naming convention is rather ambiguous. Actually as I look at it the second of the preferred options is "[Name] or [Official designation]" can be read as applying to these. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Eritrean–Ethiopian War

While working on reverting vandalism, I came across a strange strange edit in Eritrean–Ethiopian War, switching the winning side around. I reverted it as dubious. Now this change has been made again, presumably by the same person, but now on an account. It's not so clear to me which version is right, so I'm just leaving a note here so that hopefully someone else can look at it. Arthena^(talk) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the BBC references supplied in the article, the IP/new account is wrong. Unless they can provide new sources that contradict the BBC, their edits are incorrect. Also, they are attempting to change reference titles to reflect their POV - this can easily be seen by verifying the title on the references' websites. Dana boomer (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Most popular WikiProjects

We have two new reports on WikiProjects, and both show that MILHIST is one of the most popular and active WikiProjects in the encyclopedia. If you're interested, here's the links:

• Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes, which totals the number of edits to any page in the project's space (i.e., this page, not articles) during the last 30 days. About 1200 WikiProjects are listed, and MILHIST is #4.
• Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers, which counts the number of editors watching the WikiProject's page (the main page, if there are multiple pages). MILHIST is #3.

(Thanks to Svick for producing the reports.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's more like #2 (do WP:WPSPAM and WP:DELSORT really count?) for the edits. High fives all around, and thanks for the note WAID! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if we look only at topic area projects and ignore the general maintenance ones, we're #2/#1. As Ed says, high fives all around! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Good show everyone ! Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the change report has been updated to show changes over the last 365 days rather than the last 30, which seems to have moved us to 3rd place overall and 1st place if we ignore Spam and Deletion sorting. ;-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow, and when we ignore them, the new #2 (WP:FOOTBALL) has less then half the changes we do. Wow. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that a list of counts of project pages?? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a count of the number of edits that are made to any subpage of the project. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe (but may be wrong) that it includes all these pages, plus all of those pages' talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject FedFlix video

I am working with Carl Malamud and a group of volunteers in the Washington DC area on digitising video and uploading online from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and we are obtaining additional video from the Pentagon. We have over 4,000 video uploaded so far on the Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/FedFlix), a good portion of them dealing with various aspects of U.S. military history.

We very much would like more Wikipedians to join the WikiProject FedFlix or just help out with looking through the uploaded video, identify those that would be useful for Wikipedia (be it an entire video or a short clip). Then, we will work on getting the video transferred over to Wikimedia Commons and made available for use here. Let me know if you have questions. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Great work. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Did I forget to link to the WikiProject! Here's the link: Wikipedia:WikiProject FedFlix. Feel free to sign up, but more importantly help out and see if there are any particular videos available that would be useful and request them to be copied over to Wikimedia Commons. --Aude (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the 7 with the keyword "navy.mil", the best is This is Korea (Parts 1 and 2). Possibly, someone will find short clips from Deep Submergence Rescue System and Submarine Officer useful. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cold War expert needed to deal with diehard Kissinger apologist TheTimesAreAChanging

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) is just squashing the death tolls of anything related to Kissinger and Nixon into the ground and pumping up communist stats to very high levels everywhere, and editorialising everything and just blanking random stuff embarrassing to kissinger eg Cambodia YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with YellowMonkey. The editor needs development to help them understand that verifiability means including all significant verifiable narratives, not only the ones that "are true". Often the editor is removing mid-to-low quality verifiable sources, and replacing them with sources that are as low quality, or lower; but while doing so, changes between a limited half-narrative towards another limited half-narrative. There's no evidence the editor has a command of academic opinion in high quality reliable sources in the fields they're editing, rather, it looks like a cherry picking exercise. But the editor does understand the basic principle of verifiability; has access to sources; and could be developed from what amounts to pushing POV, into a masterful editor. They need care and attention, preferably from someone who shares their area of interest, to develop fully. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This project likes bragging all over the place about how great it is. Time to stand up then. Cambodian Civil War, an A-class article by RM Gillespie (talk · contribs) is being messed up by this guy who is blanking parts about the war's negative effects in the lead. I've used up my quota of reverts YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I happen to have Shawcross myself, and consider it a rather nice read. That aside, this editor is clearly...well, he says *you* are randomly blanking and should be banned, YM. 'Nuff said there, I think. I'm watching the page now. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Image selection for the Ahmed Yassin article

The discussion has settled on three options. If you are interested in having a say in the selection, please visit Talk:Ahmed Yassin#Image selection for the Ahmed Yassin article and make your opinion known there. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

6th Special Operations Squadron - are the streamers really necessary

I've just bumped into the article for the 6th Special Operations Squadron - it is littered with multicoloured streamers, apparently associated with unit awards and citations, both in the infobox and the main body of the text. Are these really necessary, or are they just clutter. Should the the streamers be removed and the awards and citations discussed (in words) in the body of the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with removal from the main body in the first instance. The article is rather short on content if you ignore the tables. I did wonder if there was an article on its earlier incarnation, but what I found 6th Night Fighter Squadron which has ribbons in the infobox. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say pull them because guidon and flag streamers, although used in the military, are not found on most individual unit pages (see the Army cavalry and infantry regiment pages for examples). The streamers represent campaigns and unit awards, but those can be summarized easily without the "bling".Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen these from time to time on various articles. Personally, if we're going to show the unit awards, then let's use ribbon images for them rather than the streamers. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Military Aircraft Insignia

A quite new, indeed - and, so far, single-purpose - user is attacing the Military aircraft insignia page, spamming it with citation-needed tags for the roundels and then starting to delete some. More eyes on the article might be a good idea. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre

Hey guys, if anyone could pop over to this FAC for a quick review, I'd greatly appreciate it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible POV editing on Irish related articles

I am concerned about possible POV editing at Royal Dublin Fusiliers and other Irish related articles. If other users could please have a look that would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and although I don't have the content knowledge to comment fully I think the following applies: such a topic needs careful consideration to wording. Given the political nature of this topic editors need to be very careful about how they phrase their additions. Thus I don't think that use of terms such as "murderers" is the best way to approach this (two sides to the story, etc. and there is a need to maintain a neutral tone). Additionally, the citations given need to be of very high quality. Has the user been made aware that their editing might be causing issues for some editors? If they could be engaged in open conversation, meaningful compromise might be achieved. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've left requests to join this conversation on the talk pages of recent contributors. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit POV hence my renaming the section and rewording it and finding a reference to the court martial that followed the incident. I do think that the editor who added the section originally is pushing the boundaries of POV e.g. this edit which implies that the good conduct medal was awarded as a result of this incident when it had been awarded in 1911. Where the term muder is used it is in the correct context i.e. of a criminal charge of same being brought NtheP (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The current usage of the term is fine, IMO, because it refers to the specific charge, however, I think it is too much to label the soldier a "murderer" when he was acquitted (whether the verdict is right or wrong, it is not up to us to decide, although it would be appropriate for a brief discussion of other views (i.e. criticism of the verdict) if reliable sources mention this and so long as they present the views in a neutral voice). I refer to this diff. I guess the point I'm trying to make here, is that the content is not so much the issue, but I'm asking whether or not it might be possible to be a little more careful in the words that are used to present the content. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - MFIreland is proving very disruptive on various British Army Irish articles and has had numerous warnings and advice which he has promptly deleted on his talk page. He also refuses to discuss his changes. IMHO the user also has COI issues as he also claims to be an Irish Army soldier Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be continuing... specifially the image of Fuisilers Gate is being labelled 'Traitors gate' in the image caption. This seems like POV to me, regardless of whether references to the fact that it is also known as that by some segments of Irish society are included. Anotherclown (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Does someone want to deal with that. loads of cites have been added but I'm willing to bet they mostly say the same thing, that it's Fusilier's Arch known to republicans as Traitor's Gate, but I don't have the sources to argue it. NtheP (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

By the look of things, MFIreland has been trawling Google Books for his citations regarding Fusiliers' Arch. And it would seem that indisputably the arch was called "Traitors' Gate" by some. I would have thought that a section on the arch as a memorial would be in order, with a sentence saying why some people gave it a different name. It may quell MFIreland's apparent insistence on having "Traitors' Gate" appear somewhere in the article. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 21:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is, briefly and uncited, in the article St Stephen's Green#Park layout. NtheP (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the name in the caption back to Fusiliers Arch, as I see it as pretty blatant POV. A simple search for 'fusilier arch' or 'fusiliers gate' on google images brings endless images of the arch, whilst a search for 'traitors gate' or even 'traitors gate Dublin' almost totally brings up images of Traitors Gate in London. I agree with Simon that there might be room for compromise, but not to the extent that the caption had become. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Systematic POV including removal of the Irish heritage of British Army regiments is continuing by this user and against consensus in a wide variety of articles with Zero discussion by User:MFIreland. User has removed the talk page comment to come on discuss on this page Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I was away for a few days and just found the message relating to these concerns of POV by User:MFIreland. I discovered these edits a couple of weeks ago, and the more I looked the more I found. As the previous editor has pointed out this editor is ignoring attempts at discussion and consensus, deletes or ignores citations, and appears to be attempting to force through his own point of view, demonizing Irish regiments of the British army and vilifying actions of British soldiers, despite the protestations of a number of well-experienced and in the main Irish and IMHO objective editors, who are really only concerned about maintaining the integrity and objectivity of these articles. It's quite frustrating! Hohenloh ⁺ 06:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone had any sort of positive response to attempts at discussing this with this user? I ask because this was an issue earlier in their Wiki-career, and if it's still happening (problematic edits plus no communication) I think we may need to think about the alternatives. EyeSerene^talk 10:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've left a note-cum-warning, but I think due to the level of concern expressed this is very much a last chance. I guess we'll see how things develop. EyeSerene^talk 10:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

MFIreland has resorted to using a sockpuppet User talk:Timberwolf Sniper. Created yesterday - editing perfect match for MFIreland Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed socking would make all other concerns moot, but there is a specific mechanism for addressing such issues, even if it does look quite 'ducky'. RashersTierney (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Timberwolf Sniper (talk · contribs) easily passes the WP:DUCK test in my view. I've indefblocked that account and blocked MFIreland for one week for using a second account in a manner not permitted by policy. It's a shame that it's come to this, but if anything I suppose it's strong evidence that at least part of their reason for being here is to push an agenda, and their desire to avoid scrutiny shows that they're aware those edits are not acceptable.

If anyone feels the need to file an WP:SPI please do, and I welcome comment on the suitability (or otherwise) of the blocks. EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Block looks fine. MFIreland is always free to contest. RashersTierney (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)