Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assistance needed in Yugoslav-Kosovo related articles

It seems a sock of indef blocked User:VJ-Yugo is back as User:Tankman786, changing several articles related to 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia back to his own interpretion. Maybe unrelated but editing with a similar intention is User:John Gradwell. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_100#Nationalistiv_view_edits_by_User:VJ-Yugo_in_Yugoslav_military_articles for the previous report.. Someone with experience in these military actions should keep a close eye on these articles. --Denniss (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked Tankman786 (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock of VJ-Yugo. It's best to report suspected cases of sock puppetry at WP:SPI, not here. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Walter Bedell Smith now open

The A-Class review for Walter Bedell Smith is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Air raids on Japan now open

The peer review for Air raids on Japan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have some bits and pieces from Cargill's Case Studies in Strategic Bombardment I could add. It looks complete, was there anything in particular you needed to improve the article? Casualties and strategic effect stats maybe? Dapi89 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Whatever you think would help :) Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Titanicfan1999

Got a complaint on my talk page about vandalism to MILHIST (or SHIPS) articles that I don't have time to look at today. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This, this, & this are suspect (Gustloff for the change of port & starboard, which needs confirming), this is ill-advised, & this wants verification it's not wrong (for being uncited). This is a bit over the top. If it's vandalism, it's pretty subtle; could just be clumsy & ill-advised. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Class A article up for deletion

{{Class A article}} has been nominated for deletion. As this wikiproject uses A-class as a quality rating, I thought I'd let you know. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Economics: Inflation, Template: Inflation, change in economic worth over time, MILHIST-A

Dear fellow encyclopaedists of military history, It has come to my attention as a FAC reviewer that A-class reviews at MILHIST may have requested inappropriate inflations of prices or values over time. This is seriously counter productive. FAC has repeatedly knocked back inappropriate inflations, including uses of the Template:Inflation. Given that I occasionally conduct MILHIST reviews, and that as a FAC reviewer I generally trust the MILHIST-A system, I think we can improve things at this level. To help spell this out:

  1. It is only possible to inflate values in wage labour societies. This means that any attempt to inflate values prior to approximately 1815 in the United Kingdom, and later in the 19th century in other regions, is fraught with fundamental problems.
  2. Template:Inflation is only valid for Consumer Price Index inflations. These inflations are for a "consumption bundle" of working class rent, tobacco, beer, bread, bad meat and cheap entertainment. CPI is valid to inflate the price of milk, or bread, or working class rent, or small sums of money of a like kind (ticket prices for trains). Template:Inflation is no good for:
    1. Wages.
    2. Capital Expenses (like building a factory, buying plant)
    3. Expenses and incomes of the wealthy, stipended, petitsbourgeois, bourgeois, management, professionals
    4. Share of GDP type "megaprojects" like wars.
  3. Even when you're inflating a wage labour value to a wage labour value and have correctly identified the measure to use (a dam as a percent of GDP inflation), you need to correctly and fully cite the economic source of data and calculation.
  4. It is impossible to convert from one currency to another to inflate. GBP percentage of economy cannot inflate Reichsmarks spent on a battleship; USD Retail Price Indexes cannot inflate the price of 2 litres of Milk in Australia.
  5. Do not request inflated price values unless you are familiar with the economics of measuring price over time, and can clearly present your encyclopaedist colleagues with the correct tool to use, and the correct way to cite the tool.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As an economist, I agree with Fifelfoo here. A key point is that the price of military equipment generally increases much faster than the cost of most other classes of equipment, so general measures of inflation are irrelevant. As an example, you can't take the cost of, for example, a World War II-era aircraft carrier and then inflate it using CPI or similar to find out how much it would cost in 'current' dollars as its price is a function of the cost of steel, engines, simple electronics, etc, which were needed to build it, and not a function of the general cost of living. It should also be noted that there's often debate over historical statistics (due to the quality of data which was collected, including deliberate falsifications in many of the countries of interest to military history articles), so it's rarely acceptable to use only a single set of data per WP:NPOV. To cut a long story short, I don't think that conversions of prices should be developed by editors, and even conversions in published RS need to be used with care. Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, well as another economist I don't quite agree. It depends on what the question you're asking is. If you want to know how many "gdp baskets" a particular aircraft carrier cost in 1942 - or in other words, what's roughly the amount of consumption goods that had to be sacrificed to produce it - then using CPI is the appropriate measure. If you want to know how many 1942 aircraft carriers are "equivalent" to a 1995 aircraft carrier than the CPI will lead you astray. You use the right statistic for the right question.
And as an economic historian in particular I quite disagree with the statement that it is only possible to inflate values in wage labour societies. This means that any attempt to inflate values prior to approximately 1815 in the United Kingdom, and later in the 19th century in other regions, is fraught with fundamental problems. - for non wage (more precisely, non money) societies a different unit of measurement maybe better, like say caloric intake or such, and there's some issues associated with that. But it's not undoable.
Also some points:
  1. UKEngland had a wage system/labor market pretty much as early as the 12th century (the extent of it is debated). Obviously some other historical societies did too.
  2. Also, prior to the industrial revolution going back to antiquity, something like 60 to 80% of people's incomes went to obtaining food - this makes it actually easier to compare incomes across time in the pre industrial era than it is today, and of course much easier than comparing pre-IR to post-IR incomes. Basically it's easier to compare 1700AD to 500BC than it is to compare 1910AD to 1990AD than it is to compare 1700AD to 1990AD.
  3. Fifelfoo's right as far as capital expenses go up to a point - you should use a PPI for that though given data limitations those often are not available (I know there are some for pre-Civil War US though) (and there's always the problem of converting the STOCK of capital into a measure of the FLOW of capital services, which corresponds to the FLOW concept of income - but that's a general theoretical problem in economics not specific to anything to do with military or military history. Basically you got to know what interest rate to use to discount the flow and wave your hands around a bit to get around the Cambridge capital controversy - maybe that's what Fifelfoo's getting at).
  4. However the contention that you cannot use "Share of GDP type "megaprojects" like wars" is completely wrong (if I'm understanding the point correctly) - a share is a share, it's got a denominator and a numerator and as long as they're calculated in the same units the units cancel and it's a unit less measure so you can totally compare it across time and space, megaprojects or not.
  5. "It is impossible to convert from one currency to another to inflate. GBP percentage of economy cannot inflate Reichsmarks spent on a battleship; USD Retail Price Indexes cannot inflate the price of 2 litres of Milk in Australia." - it is possible, though very hard in practice. That's what a PPP adjustment is. True, it's difficult enough to do it in modern world, much less historically, but it is not impossible.
Of course I fully agree with: "you need to correctly and fully cite the economic source of data and calculation." and "can clearly present your encyclopaedist colleagues with the correct tool to use, and the correct way to cite the tool". If you do have the sources and data and the relevant question I can probably help you out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Your point about consumption bundles is a good one - I should have thought of that. As a comparison it also has its problems though, due to changes in consumption patterns, limitations of historical CPI data, breaks in data series, etc. Contextual factors also seem important - it was probably much cheaper to build an aircraft carrier in a World War II-era wartime shipyard than it could be in any other situation due to manufacturers at every step in the production chain being under moral pressure to hold costs down by limiting their profit margin for the sake of the war effort (and in some countries labour would have been cheaper as the workers faced the prospect of being conscripted or worse if they sought higher wages or even tried to move jobs - Nazi Germany and the USSR for instance). I guess my basic concern is that the type of conversions which editors make fairly casually in military history articles are often those which professional economic historians would approach with great care. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The limitations you list are present for any kind of historical comparisons of income and expenditure - they are not specific to military history. Still, one usually hopes that the numbers at the end of the day are a rough approximation of what really went on. In terms of the "moral pressure to hold cost down" - at least theoretically, if the national income accounts are done right this would be something already adjusted for in the analysis (it's worth remembering here that Simon Kuznets invented these measures in the context of the Great Depression and adjusted his approach during the war - taking into account precisely such questions.) The issue does in fact play a central role however for control economies such as the USSR and Nazi Germany and economic historians have spent a lot of effort of trying to figure out what the proper "wages" and "costs" to use in computing these statistics. Off the top of my head, Mark Harrison has done a lot in this area for both USSR and Nazi Germany.
If the general point is that on Wikipedia editors often mindlessly misuse inflation/price/income data in this context then I probably agree (though actually, they mindlessly misuse it on straight up "just economics" articles too). If the argument is that these kinds of comparisons can't be done then I disagree. They can, and people have, it's just hard - so we need all that stuff sourced carefully.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the economically trained people are pretty clearly in agreement that attempts to inflate values is a fraught exercise for encyclopaedists and should be conducted, if at all, by getting expert support from wikipedians who edit with economic interests and capacities. * To be economic for a moment, there are problems with the establishment of the concept of "price" in non-wage labour societies that make the use of value conversion tools inappropriate outside of expert articles—for the non-economist the nature of calorific intake and subsistence is unlikely to supply meaningful value conversions regarding the social use of different kinds of human labour. On this grounds I discourage using tools like "measuring worth" outside of industrial wage labour societies. On the long run wages of Southern English agricultural workers centred outside of Monestaries, I think we're both aware of the circumscribed limits of wage labour in these conditions, alternate consumption strategies for semi-waged labour, etc. In the _right_ article we could use MW's English long run data (Southern English Monestary wages and consumption patterns). There's difficulty again in discussing the skill, productivity, and expected standards of living of labourers—I think we covered this in productivity and the number of CPI bundles required to produce an aircraft carrier. To summarise again: fun debate for us; MILHIST-A reviewers ought to avoid requesting Inflation stats or Templates unless they've gotten support. Requests for the use of Template:Inflation at GA, A, or PR on MILHIST articles ought to be politely declined unless you've got access to an economically minded editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I just want to say I agree entirely - I hadn't realised how frequently we were using {{inflation}}, but it should certainly be deprecated unless we know exactly what we're doing in that particular context. (One of the things I've been most pleased to see on enwp, ever, was a footnote which basically said "it isn't possible to make a meaningful comparison for this value from a modern perspective, so I'm not trying.") Even when we do know exactly what we're doing (I admit I only know enough to know to stay away!), we have the problem of presenting that carefully curated value in such a way that a non-economist reader isn't confused.
The original problem is still there, that quoting things like 1913 Reichsmark values is a very nebulous number to most readers - they'll be vaguely aware that an "old dollar" is probably worth more than a "modern dollar", and feel comfortable interpreting "$10,000" as "a lot more than it sounds", but where there's no comparable currency or where there's been drastic upheaval, this isn't much to go on. Perhaps we could encourage doing things like direct contemporary comparisons - it avoids providing a misleading modern value whilst also giving some sense of context. ("The Statistician class ships, at an estimated 4.5 million marks., were more than twice the cost of the broadly comparable Economist class, built two years earlier, and many observers claimed that..."). Shimgray | talk | 11:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
♠IMO, even using the dollar value comparison is problematic. A ship costing $7 million in 1940 (a Gato) would cost 152 million today, if you want only the 1940 capability... I think Shimgray got it right: comparing to contemporary ships or systems gives a sense of cost that can be understood: Gato cost, what, 15 thousand times as much as a Chevy coupé? (By contrast, a Seawolf today costs about 40 thousand times as much as a typical Buick.) No actual inflated numbers, but the sense is still there, & IMO that's what's wanted & useful.
♠I also think comparisons to other countries' contemporaries is a good idea (Bismarck to Iowa, frex), tho that raises issues of accurate, reliable exchange rate info. (I presume these can be found.)
♠A bit OT, but while I'm thinking of it, can I suggest we also pay attention to cost of crewing & maintaining? IDK how often this information is available; when it is, IMO, we should mention it, because it's very often ignored in other places. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that these "present day equivalents" are not sustainable. As has been shown above, different criteria produce different results. The best we should be able to do is provide currency conversion at the time, thus ₣25,000 in April 1923 was worth £360 (Saint-Inglevert Airfield article). Such conversions only being provided where sourced. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A common approach used by historians is to compare the cost of military-stuff to other prices at the time (for instance, a soldier's pay to the average worker's income, the cost of a tank to that of a contemporary car, etc). This puts prices in the context of the day. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
@Mjroots
A ship costing $7 million in 1940 (a Gato) would cost 152 million today, if you want "only the 1940 capability" - I've addressed this above. If you want to compare a ship from 1940 to a ship from today that may be problematic. But if you want to know how much "butter" (as in "guns and butter") was given up to produce the "guns" then that kind of comparison can be done.
tho that raises issues of accurate, reliable exchange rate info - actually that can still be problematic as using market nominal exchange rates may not be adequate, due to different costs of living across countries. What you would want to use in some cases would be the real exchange rate (essentially a purchasing power adjustment) which is a lot harder to obtain as it requires info on price levels in countries. Nominal exchange rates, at least for later 19th century wouldn't be that much of the problem since most of the world was on the Gold Standard though. Anyway, again, here it's mostly a matter of using the right statistics for the right question.
My opinion is that these "present day equivalents" are not sustainable. - I'm not sure what you mean by "sustainable". Economists and economic historians do this all the time and indeed, a lot of research effort goes into precisely comparing different values and things across time in a meaningful way. If by "sustainable" you mean that Wikipedians shouldn't do it on their own, then I agree.
I mean they are not sustainable because there's so many different ways of calculating it, each producing a different result. For instance, HMS Speedy cost £4,200 7s 3d in 1782. That was x times the cost of a pint of beer, y times the cost of a loaf of bread and z times the average unskilled worker's annual wage. Each of these multipliers would produce a different result if compared to today's wages/prices. Those are just three comparisons, there are many others that could be used. IMHO, we should just state the fact that item x cost y (currency) in z year. Appropriate conversions to/from US dollars/Pound Sterling values at the time may be given if verifiably sourced. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
@Nick-D
Yes, such a comparison, when possible would be good. This also means that it is possible to speak of military expenditures as SHARES of national income, etc.
As I said above, I think that such comparisons are possible, and *if* a source makes them it would be good to include them. However, I do not think Wikipedia editors themselves should make these conversions (that applies even to Wikipedians with economics background like myself) since that would involve original research (what wage series to use? what price series to use? what base year to pick? which goods to include in a "consumption basket"? etc - that's why there's entire papers published on these seemingly narrow topics). Certainly we shouldn't require or force editors to make these kinds of conversions at FAR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
PS - I've looked at the measuringworth website, which was the one used to convert in the article that Fifelfoo was reviewing. It has some academic credentials, the guy is an Econ Prof at UIC and he carefully lies out his methodology (a link available at the site). However, this is only *one* of possible ways of making the conversion and unless for some reason it is really important to make these kinds of conversions there's no reason to rely on it.
PPS - Also I think that in articles which intersect military history and economics (for example, the Confederate war finance article i wrote, or the Economic costs of American Civil War that I plan to write when I have more time), the matter should be approached differently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Confederate war finance is a great read, and Volunteer Marek is right to outline that it needs a different approach. Finding the Magisterial work (Lerner) and relying on them sounds like the way to approach economic-military history to me. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hate to sound like the cynical buzzkill in this, but I think the whole point is moot on the basis of policy. I doubt very much that any single reliable source would be able to take into account all of the thousands of variables that come into comparing the "cost" of a military venture (be it technology or an event) between different eras, even so much as a decade or two apart, especially in the last century. There are so many factors to consider; such as materials/resources, technology, manpower, inflation, the differing and ever-changing economies of various nations, and the political will that mandated such expenses... no one source will be able to intelligently string them together in 99.9% of cases.

For example, Britain's abundance of tin in days long past made it a great place to get the raw material you need for bronze. Mining, processing, and smithing it was mostly manpower-intensive, so that was the majority of economic costs. Comparing the production of bronze swords in the Roman era to the production of WWII rifles would be an exercise in futility, due to the sheer number of factors involved (assuming for sake of argument that it was topically related enough to be encyclopedic). You get the same thing when you compare the costs of an American aircraft carrier to that of a Soviet carrier; the differences in economic methods and political realities doesn't make a price comparison very useful.

In short, I think that our RS, OR, and SYNTH policies preclude us from peicing together all of the relevant data to make a well-informed comparison. But then, I'm a liberal arts major more than a math one, so economics isn't my cup of tea as much as is sociology; but those are my two cents. And of course, I grew up in a time when $2.00 for a gallon of gas was a rip-off, so these are sad days all around for me fiscally. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 03:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped the conversion from the New Ironsides article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
As yet another economics grad and military history editor, I concur with this sentiment (on reflection). The index number problem is problematic on scales of 20 years and more or less completely intractable over a period of 100 years, let alone 500. Share of GDP spent on a given activity is an interesting figure and one finds authoritative sources comparing the share of (say) British GDP spent on the navy in 1914 with that of other nations and making comparisons with other historical dates - but it I have never seen an individual ship accounted for in this way (and doing so can itself lead to misleading comparisons). I would suggest that inflation-adjusted prices should be the exception not the rule. The Land (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
As a non economist I'd just like to add that this thread is one of the most well explained, well expressed discussions I've seen, that has made a difficult topic understandable to the likes of me. NtheP (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I second Nthep. I now pray I will never have to teach an economics class. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Showcase/FSO

See how that looks. I tried to follow the suggestions given. I did use a bit of a trick - I've set up {{*sound}} so that if you feed it the same formatting as used by FSes everywhere else, it automatically strips the descriptions. This saves a lot of time you'd otherwise have to spend reformatting. A quick search and replace, and a regular function to strip the dates, and we get a nice, ordered list like that. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Are the entries in any particular order at the moment? (I suppose there are so few that we could get away with just adding new ones to the end of the list for the time being; but we'll probably want some manner of ordering eventually. FPs, for example, are sorted alphabetically by filename; I'm not sure if a similar approach would be workable here.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It's somewhat date-sorted, but not very well, and only within types. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I like it a lot. Thanks for putting in so much effort, Adam – we appreciate it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

War of 1812 buffs -- your attention is requested

Folks familiar with the far western front of the North American War of 1812 are invited to take a look at the article Peoria War. I've pointed out on the talk page that the article needs renaming and refocusing. This is easy stuff, really, but I have too much on my plate to fix this myself, so hopefully you might want to fix it, or at least comment. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 15:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell

An article that you have been involved in editing, Oliver Cromwell has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

More Credo Reference accounts available

Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller of the Wikimedia Foundation. There are some eligibility criteria to direct the accounts to content contributors this time round, and after that it's first-come, first-served. The list will is currently open Wikipedia:Credo accounts.

If anybody here thinks an account would be useful to them please feel free to add your name to the list. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this Woody :) EyeSerenetalk 08:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS New Ironsides now open

The featured article candidacy for USS New Ironsides 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) 02:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal for War art

More opinions sought here on a proposal to merge war art into the recently expanded military art. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

British Army Order of Battle - September 1939 - Request for help

Anyone feel inclined to pitch in and help out with this one? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review Request

I was wondering if someone here could do an A-Class review on the Frank Buckles article. If you all can't, that's cool, just please let me know either way. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 22:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's likely this article won't be able to get to FA on just news sources and an official website. Do you know when the biography is coming out? Carcharoth and Wehwalt give some good advice at the current peer review of this article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
What I have heard is "late 2011 or early 2012" and that is from a newspaper article. It is supposed to coincide with the release of the documentary and that is scheduled for "late 2011". So, I am kinda having A-Class as my "Plan B" if FA doesn't work until the biography comes out.
We do, though, have ALOT of information from those news sources though that build a pretty good history, plus some Census records that build the early life portion we were having trouble with. Alot of it, we have taken from those news sources, it just looks like it is the same article (about his passing), but it is different articles, from different sources, with different information, that we have pieced together into a pretty good history of his life.
But if the FAC doesn't work, until we get the official biography, then I would like to have A-Class as the closest we can get until then. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help with copyediting when it gets to A-class. Have a look at our A-class criteria before you get started. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dank. :) I have nom'd it for A-Class review here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Trafalgar: Two battles?

I've proposed a merger of the Action of 23 October 1805 into the Battle of Trafalgar as I have some concerns over coat rack and WP:NPOV issues. Interested editors may wish to add their thoughts and views to the debate. The discussion is here. Benea (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. As I said in the talk page, the so-called 'Action of 23 October 1805' is but a part of Trafalgar's aftermath which seems to include a potpourri of unconnected actions with the aim of mitigating the Franco-Spanish defeat. In addition to WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV, the article appears to contradict WP:NOR, as events that are supposed to constitute the action haven't been treated separately from the Battle of Trafalgar by any source. --Sir Ignel (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Contacting the US Naval Historical Center

Does anyone know an easier way to contact the United States Navy's Naval Historical Center than snail-mail? Its in regards to some potentially mis-identified/mis-captioned photographs in their "Online Library of Selected Images": the concerns are detailed at Talk:HMAS Australia (D84)#Misidentified photos? for anyone who's interested. From what I can determine at their website, the NHC prefers snail-mail for enquiries on research matters (which I think this falls under), and I'd rather avoid the lengthy wait for a letter to cross the pond from Australia to the US, then return with a response. -- saberwyn 08:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll send a message to my friend at the NHHC. They're pretty good with email, but I've only emailed them once. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I work next door, I will go over and talk to them to see what they say. --Kumioko (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Kumi, I'm already in contact with a photo curator there – they want additional information from (a) printed source(s). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Hannaford96

User:Hannaford96 has made two vandalism edits to the Battle of Milne Bay. Can a administrator please warn and if required block this user. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Start by adding user warnings. See WP:Template messages/User talk namespace#Vandalism for the templates. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Aviation Heritage Museum

I have started a new article about this military aviation museum in Perth, Western Australia. I have given it the stub tag and I invite you to take it under your wing and post your banner on the Talk page. Dolphin (t) 02:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Frank Buckles now open

The A-Class review for Frank Buckles is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Queen Mary now open

The A-Class review for HMS Queen Mary is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ernst Lindemann

A couple of questions for this A-class review. What are the BritEng hyphenation rules for "vice admiral" and "rear admiral", and if we want to let people click to see a map where the battle happened (with {{coord}} or perhaps another template), do we prefer that to go in the infobox or in one of the end sections? - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dank, I'm not sure about British English, but my Australian English dictionary (Macquarie) uses "rear admiral", but strangely "vice-admiral". I think the position of the map would depend on the type of article. In a biography, I'd probably suggest putting it in the section relating to the battle, rather than the main infobox. In a battle article, it might be appropriate for the main infobox, but then again also maybe in the first section (if it is a Background, or Geography section). Not sure if this helps at all, but anyway. For examples of different approaches, see Battle of Milne Bay, Battle of North Borneo, Battle of Sattelberg. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The first two of those articles have the {{coord missing}} template (which doesn't appear at all when you view the article) in External links, the last one has {{coord}} in the last end section with "display=title", which makes it display at the top of the page rather than inline. I don't see how we could put the {{coord}} template in the main text, per the paragraph just before WP:ICONDECORATION; icons in the text have been rejected at FAC, and the template has no option not to display the icon. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Historically, the ranks were hyphenated (in the Oxford English Dictionary they still are), but usage seems to have slipped somewhat. The London Gazette has dispensed with hyphens, and the Royal Navy's website uses a mix. Echoing AR's experience the Royal Navy's page on rank insignia has "Rear Admiral" and "Vice-Admiral". --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, the article makes only minor use of English-language sources, and that's not good enough (even for GAN IMO) per WP:NONENG; there are probably a lot of scholarly sources in English. I'd be happy with significant contributions with at least two more English sources. If someone wants to make a suggestion and can obtain the sources, that would be fantastic; the article would then be a good FAC candidate I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on the guideline mentioned here: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones" Does this mandate the use of English sources? If indeed this is a mandatory must requirement you might as well take all my contributions to WP back Start Class and I start playing golf instead. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It definitely doesn't mean that. I think it implies that if two sources are equally available, the English language one will be preferred, largely because of the diabolical problems presented by translation and the resultant difficulties in verifying material. I agree with Dank that a few English language sources would be good confirmation for the German sources, and might broaden things a bit. Rumiton (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Using only/mostly foreign language sources when English language ones exist could be seen as neglecting to survey the full body of literature on the subject. That said if the Enlgish language sources weren't any good then it would be unreasonable to include them. And I presume a published translation of a foreign language source would count as an Eng source.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Translations by very reputable sources (publishers) are generally fine, but with a contentious subject they can be POV minefields. I have just found quite a lot of mention of Capt Lindemann in the Time-Life series on WW2. The books themselves are probably not good sources, but the sources they draw on should be acceptable. I'll read through them tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't get out the golf clubs yet, MisterBee :) As you know, there's a huge market for anything about WWII among English-speaking readers, and many of us would prefer to see German sources for the stuff on Germans. We just have to meet the narrow requirement of WP:V to make some room for English sources where that's appropriate. English sources are usually insufficient to cover the details of a German bio; they are necessary when you're covering historically significant events. Even in my fussiest FAC-reviewer mode, if you wanted to work only with German sources, that would be fine with me, as long as you work together with someone else who can cover the main points from English sources. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It might be too late, MisterBee has announced his retirement. I suggest we all go to his talk page and plead. Actually, given the quality of his contributions, grovel might be the better word. Rumiton (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. I made a guess on my one outstanding issue and made the edit, and I'm now supporting. Someone let me know if you would have handled the review differently. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
As you were. God is in Heaven and all is right with the world. MisterBee apparently used the word "retire" in the military sense of a tactical withdrawal, rather than in the sense of leaving a workforce/project permanently. He was not offended by the to-ing and fro-ing of this article, and has gone on a long-planned hiking holiday in Spain. He will be back at Wikipedia refreshed in around May. Rumiton (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing dates to a consistent format in US military articles

I developed a set of rules for AWB to change month-day-year date formats to day-month-year, having been inspired by military articles where there a lot of dates in both formats. I let it loose on 35th Fighter Wing, which had over 120 dmy dates along with almost 100 mdy dates. Then I ran it over all the articles in category "Fighter wings of the United States Air Force". There were even more dates to convert in 49th Wing. These rules also do a little touch-up, such as inserting spaced en dashes in ranges of full dates, such as "15 May 1966-7 February 1967" and "20 June-30 September 1969". Please take a look at one or two of these articles and their differences, and comment. Did it do too much or too little; is this cleanup a good thing; where might it be put to good use; are there tricky articles or categories to watch out for? Chris the speller yack 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I though the convention was to use the appropriate format where it is clear which should be used - i.e. dmy for British, mdy for American - sort of part of ENGVAR. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, ditto. During FACs and ACRs I've been involved in reviewers have asked that dates in American-centric articles are in mdy format. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
That's the thing though, while standard US date format is mdy, US military appears to be dmy, like the Commonwealth. I think therefore either could be argued in a US military article in WP, so as long as it's consistently one thing or the other, I don't make it an issue when reviewing US-themed MilHist pages. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's make it clear that I only use this in military articles where the date format is mixed. In some of the articles I changed, in the list of commanders the date format switched back and forth 8 or 10 times. Ian is right: WP:DATE says "Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage." Though I prefer mdy for all American articles, dmy is what the guideline calls for. A consistent date format looks better than half-and-half. Chris the speller yack 14:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's one of my pet peeves, but I generally try to use dmy on military articles. That said, sometimes I forget or don't feel like changing every single instance (so for consistancy's sake, I don't bother), and my citation tools like to output ymd on occasion for no good reason. But it really irks me when people ignore {{use dmy dates}}. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Retention Excellence Award

I began the following page Retention Excellence Award and was hoping that it could be adopted by this Task force for revision and expansion. I am not too familiar with other WikiProjects of Task forces that may cover the page so please reach out to them and share the page. Thanks. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've tagged it for the US and Maritime task forces. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Second Ivorian Civil War

I've created Second Ivorian Civil War to cover the current fighting in Côte d'Ivoire. Feedback and a review would be appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis should be merged into the Second Ivorian Civil War article. The whole thing started on November 28, 2010. You can't forget that. Either merge the articles together or delete the Second Ivorian Civil War article. B-Machine (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review needs attention

Hi all. The peer review for Citadel of Damascus needs some attention if anyone is free. The review has been open since 21 March and has not received any comments as yet. Please take a look at the article and leave some suggestions if you have time. The review can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Citadel of Damascus. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD notice

The LST-766 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2011 (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! Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming wars: maintaining consistency for titles that include "Mexican~American War"

This new subsection at Talk:Mexican-American War presents ten summary points that aim at settling a protracted naming dispute, referred to above on this talkpage. Recommended reading: for editors concerned with standardised naming of wars, or interested in the ways style guidelines at WP:MOS and policy at WP:TITLE are received at talkpages of articles. Also for admins who might be looking to close the two relevant contested requests for move (RMs).

En dashes are used pretty consistently on Wikipedia for wars named liked this: X–Y War. This can be challenged; but a number of us think that any such review ought to be centralised. If it's handled in RMs for single articles, only chaos results (as we see on the talkpage I have linked to).

–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Noetica! I don't think we have a practical choice, guys; we're taking even more articles to FAC than we used to, so we have to follow WP:MOS, which says to use a dash if the sense is "and", "to" or "versus", with a few exceptions. There's not a lot of support for our rules in style guides, but our rules are not that bad as a simplification of Chicago's rules (which they admit they don't even take too seriously themselves). Simple is better; readers almost never notice, so it's not worth doing something complicated. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral changes from American English to British English

I've just had four different IP editors change some articles that I've watchlisted from American English to British English. I've rolled back every one of their edits as they're contrary to WP:Engvar, but I'd suggest that people watch carefully any edits from IP addresses. I don't know if they're the same guy on different computers or an organized group, but it's rather annoying.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you know which IP addresses they are, and if they have any commonality? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I could dig out the addresses if it matters, but they're all different and haven't made very many edits. The curious thing is that they're going into the spelling parameters of the conversion templates which is not something I'd expect from newbie.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If they're all from one ISP, an ISP block could be requested. If they're all from one city, and it seems to be persistent vandalism, a heuristic for the vandal could be determined, and placed into the vandal files, so that new IPs can be added whenever their pattern matches via WP:SPI. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
They all appear to be the same person; all 6 of the IPs making these edits all trace back to the same ISP (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Parsecboy (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Might it be easier to semi-protect the templates (assuming all the edits are to templates)? EyeSerenetalk 15:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the IP is editing the templates in articles, so that won't work. Just to note, he's still at it. I blocked this IP for 3 hours, but that's only going to slow him down. Parsecboy (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Vandal or good-intentions badly carried out? On a minor point in their favour, they did get the link to coastal defence ship right (the "s" spelling being a redirect). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Could the ISP behind "ECLIPSE DYNAMIC ADSL POOL" be blocked for a week then? Mr. template-converter seems to be from London, England. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose one thing needs to be asked: Is there a British (Canadian, Australian, etc) focus to the templates and files being switched? If So, Engvar says they SHOULD be in British (Canadian, Australian, etc), not American spellings. Otherwise, yeah. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No focus that I can tell, otherwise I'd not have bothered to mention it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Anent the variation of English in articles...I have an allied query.

First the circumstances. I am a Yank who often creates bios of British and Commonwealth flying aces. Naturally, I write in my native usage.

First, do those articles have to be marked as being in American usage?

Second, when I discover someone has mistakenly concluded I began the article in British usage, do I:

a. Inform them of their error on the article's talk page, and/or

b. Inform them that they must change usage throughout the entire article and convert it to British usage?

Obviously, I don't mind the switch in usage but want it applied consistently and thoroughly. Any suggestions, WP folks?

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR states that articles with a strong tie to one style of English should use it, but it's not a hard and fast requirement. I write articles on British and Commonwealth topics in British English, but then I'm partly fluent in it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the 'Strong national ties to a topic' clause in WP:ENGVAR, articles on British or Commonwealth people should be in the same form of English as their nationality, rather than American English. If someone does change spelling, date formatting, etc to the appropriate usage (British English for a British ace, Australian English for an Australian ace, etc) then they are correct to do so, but you could politely hint that there may be other usages they've missed and inviting them to change those as well, in keeping with keeping usage consistent within articles. Benea (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone else mind the falsity of mislabeling usage with these carelessly applied tags?

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any templates specifically mentioned above. {{dmy}} and {{mdy}} are main ones to add to articles, though I don't know how much good they do. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mexican-American War

The name of Mexican-American_War is under discussion, see Talk:Mexican-American_War

65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO a very pointy discussion has been going on for seven weeks between a very small number of editors on the subject of a recent page move concerning... (wait for it) ...whether the endash or hyphen is most appropriate for naming the conflict. It's tiring just reading the spread of argument. More eyes would always be a healthy thing. BusterD (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just when you thought things couldn't get any sillier. ;p :/ The Unknown Comic tickle me 12:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Whenever an endash is introduced to replace a hyphen, a move and/or edit war usually ensues. A battle was waged recently at WP:AVIATION, one is being bickered on at WP:SHIPS as we speak. Not to mention the emdash vs endash wars being fought at WP:CANADA over the imposition on endashes where in Canadian English emdashes are used, thus being an ENGVAR violation... MOSDASH is just a very big headache. There's even a group of users called Category: Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites, some of whom think the whole dash policy was enacted by a very small group of dash-fetishists while no one was looking. The entire MOS talk page is usually concerned with application or misapplication of dashes, (flamewars, arguments, etc) for all the years since the dash guideline was placed. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Y'know, just yesterday, I read a comment by somebody who hadn't read 99% of the guidelines. Neither have I. More & more, I'm glad I haven't... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Not being that stringent regarding the differences between dash and hyphen, I never understood the great difference between the two, and how people get worked up about it. That being said, I could use some additional opinions regarding hyphen and no hyphen here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, hold on ... I see that WT:TITLE has added the following: "... such characters should only be used when they are customarily used for the subject in reliable English secondary sources." TITLE is policy so it trumps MOS, and this would mean some dashes get changed into hyphens. I'll go add this to the (interminable) discussion over at WT:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Chief Petty Officer (United States)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chief Petty Officer#Spinout. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Peer review for Operation Deadstick now open

The peer review for Operation Deadstick is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Question on "List of Irish Republican Army chiefs of staff"

What is the situation with ranks like List of Irish Republican Army chiefs of staff, where the army was not the army of a recognized state? Most of them have been written about but usually as "chief of staff" by independent historians, and as Chief of Staff by propagandists / apologists. Also they had no staff to be chiefs of - it seems to have been an honorific most of the time. There is no Category:Military operations by country relating to Ireland. Ideas, comments?86.42.200.103 (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

When a force is not regularised like in this situation creating lists slightly distorts the nature of the post held etc. MAny of the organisations had little real connection with each other too. My advice would be to merge the article with Irish Republican Army#History, carefully winding the name of each 'CoS' into the text in the appropriate section. Then probably the article title needs to be salted. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Collapsible version of WPMILHIST Review alerts?

If one doesn't already exist, is anybody here competent enough with fiddly markup to make a version of {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} in which the list is collapsed? I'd like to stick it on my talk page for convenience, but it would take up quite a bit of room without the collapsing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Done; use {{WPMILHIST Review alerts|collapse=yes}} to produce a collapsing version. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That was quick, thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for York Castle now open

The A-Class review for York Castle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on Category:Wars involving communist states?

Hi, I created the category hoping to manage Category:anti-communism, but more I think about it, more I don't like it. There is a type of war (a country in transformation from/to communism) that I do believe deserves a separate category. However, describing it as "anti-communism" is POV from the "democracy" perspective. These wars are as much "anti-capitalism" and "anti-democracy" as "anti-capitalism". So I came up with less POV'ed "involving communist states", but then why single out communism? Why not have "involving democracies" or "monarchies"? Maybe better to remove "anti-communist" category from war articles altogether? What do you think? Renata (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a vague concept for a category, particularly as most wars between 1917 and the early 1990s involved something that could be called a Communist state (or a Communist independence or revolutionary movement that was seeking to overthrow a state). Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

M9 Armored Combat Earthmover

M9 Armored Combat Earthmover-This article could use a near-total rewrite by an expert. As noted on the talk page, there are a number of issues with the article:

1. No sources/citations (tagged since 2007)

2. Original research (speculations on hypothetical combat performance)

3. Out of date (references to upgrades due to be completed in 1996, etc.)

4. Style issues (breathless prose, un-encyclopedic tone)

5. Copyright issues (large sections of this article appear to be lifted verbatim from company literature)

6. Overly technical (extreme detail given to maintenance issues, with little information of interest to a general audience)

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to carry out a rewrite-the attention of an expert would be extremely helpful here.

Dpenn89 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Historian Help Needed

User:Anythingyouwant and I need you all's help with this section of the Frank Buckles article. It is running a little long and some of the information might be interesting, just not worth mentioning. There is a thread going on the article talk page and we have decided that a historian's help is needed, so we come to you guys. Please take a look at the section and tinker as needed. Just some FYI, the article is under an A-Class Review and a Peer Review. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Any good at recognising World War I artillery pieces...?

I've just finished expanding the article on Charles Jagger's Royal Artillery Memorial, the realist First World War sculpture. Now, the howitzer on top of the memorial is well known as an oversized BL 9.2 inch Howitzer. I've added a picture from the side of the momument to to the article, however, which contains a detailed relief of an artillery weapon described in the artistic literature as a "trench howitzer". It looks rather like the BL 9.2 as well, but I'm not entirely sure, as I think there are some differences. Jagger was well known for his attention to military detail on the monument, so it will have been a real weapon. Any thoughts are welcomed, as I'd like to be as specific as possible in the image caption. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The first thing to say is that the weapon depicted has just fired and had recoiled backwards. I can't pin down the type exactly, but the straight line to left of the gunner is reminiscent of the carriage of the BL 12 inch Howitzer, unlike the curved carriage of the 9.2 inch Howitzer. However, I can't find any pics of 12-inch that has just fired so I can't confirm. Other troublesome issues are the rod that connects the barrel and the recuperator underneath and the long screw gear shown in the lower left of the sculpture.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
My personal guess would be a 6 inch 26 cwt howitzer on a siege mounting of some description. Though to be honest I would probably try to avoid over-interpreting it - it could be a loose interpretation of any of a wide number of howitzers in use in WWI. The Land (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Cheers - much appreciated. I'll stick with the vaguer label at the moment unless I come across a better reference. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal -- Combat Medical Badge & Combat Medic Badge

I've tagged Combat Medic Badge for merger into Combat Medical Badge.--S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sanguinary battle, etc

The word sanguinary until recently redirected to a flowering plant (Achillea millefolium) but phrases like "sanguinary battle", "sanguinary contest", "sanguinary fight", "sanguinary war", "sanguinary feuds", "sanguinary events" are frequently used by articles related to military history, and have nothing to do with that flower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=sanguinary

AFAIK, in military articles "sanguinary" is just a flowery euphemism for "bloody" and nothing more than "sanguinary" as defined by wikt. To accommodate that assumption, I just turned the sanguinary redirect into a disambiguation with a wiktionary link. I am bringing this up here in case you use "sanguinary" as a term of art with specialized connotations, and might be interested in changing the disambig page I just created to reflect that. 72.244.206.170 (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

General of the Army Colin Powell?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:General of the Army (United States)#Fact Check (Colin Powell). RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Linking to the A-class review at FAC

Does anyone object if I start my comments with a link to the A-class review (if there was one) for a Milhist FAC? I can see people getting annoyed if they see this as pointing to problems in the article, but I'm pretty sure the link will help their chances of promotion (if reviewers follow it). Reviewers and delegates are more likely to be swayed when they see that we all did our homework, and I really think we can all be proud of the quality of A-class reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
For MILHIST, I think this can be only good. We are respected for our review processes, and I think that can only help with promotion. Anything that might seem a bit odd that is based on previous consensus will probably be explained at a previous review, so that could be good background information (for that matter, maybe linking to a GAR as well?).That could be a double-edged sword, though, in the possibility that it could make a reviewer complacent and support promotion without looking as closely as he or she ought, and missing on some potentially valuable feedback. More likely, it would get ignored, but that can't hurt anything. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. If an FAC isn't attracting much attention, a link to a MILHIST A-class review might sway the delegates if they can see the article has clearly been put through its paces. This thread might be better placed at WT:FAC, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense to me too. --Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I always link to any previous reviews (PRs or ACRs) in the FAC nominations I start - it demonstrates to FA reviewers that the article has been through a period of development and lets them see the kind of issues which have been previously raised and how these were responded to. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for William Brill now open

The A-Class review for William Brill is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

New Guinea: World War II

I was wondering if there was an article on New Guinea years leading upto World War II and a few years after World War II? I know there is an article on New Guinea itself. Was interested in trying to create an article based on World War II and the main island and smaller islands around it. Adamdaley (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a New Guinea campaign article, but I think you're thinking more of a New Guinea-themed version of Military history of Australia during World War II, which I don't think there is. -- saberwyn 02:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen anything like this either, though it would be an excellent topic for an article. The impact of the war on the native New Guineans would be worth an article in its own right as well. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I realise there would be articles concerning World War II during the time spent on New Guinea. Thought it would be good to have an article for example 1930 - 1950/1955? There are images of Muschu Island, Rabual Island and Kairiru Island at the Australian War Memorial and possibly National Archives of Australia. Not sure if this would be a biased article coming from the New Guinea island and people side. Adamdaley (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The Australia-Japan Research Project has lots of useful stuff about the war in New Guinea Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mike Jackson/archive1

Input at the above FAC would be greatly appreciated. Granted, it's only been a week, but things are a bit quiet there. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

bahamut0013's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, bahamut0013, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of bahamut0013's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Queen Mary needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Queen Mary; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients/archive1

To whom it may concern. Nergaal (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

United States Army Vessels

So there are numerous articles regarding USN ships, obviously there wouldn't be a navy without ships. However, the United States Army has a small number of commissioned "vessels" as well, yet my google-fu only shows wikipedia articles about Army ships during World War II. Would these vessels be large enough to be considered notable to warrant their own wikipedia page, or would they only warrant a list? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on the vessel. Something like Australian landing ship medium Harry Chauvel (AV 1353) or Australian Army ship Crusader (AV2767), would probably have enough sources to support itself, while smaller craft (or possibly larger craft, as Australian material may be biased by the relatively small number of ships operated by the military in general) would not.
It may be best to start off with articles based on class (like the Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank vessels, operated by the British Army's Royal Corps of Transport for a fair chunk of their career), or a list of US Army vessels of a particular force/era (like the Maritime Prepositioning ship article encompassing all ships operated by Military Sealift Command) or overall, then split indivdual ships out as content/sources make it possible.
The Continental Army operated several vessels... such as ones on Lake Champlain. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Reference books like Jane's Fighting Ships provide good coverage of individual seagoing Army vessels and classes of 'brown water'-type vessels of all nations. There are also a lot of specialist works on this topic. I've written a few articles on Australian Army ships, and seagoing vessels are clearly notable, but few other individual army vessels are notable in their own right. These types of ships are actually great topics for articles - many of them have interesting careers. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There is this article List of ships of the United States Army but it primarily covers world war II. There are other articles including General Frank S. Besson, Jr. class Logistics Support Vessel and Spearhead class Joint High Speed Vessel but no single lists, or set of lists, like for navy vessels. Perhaps the previous list could be renamed to only talk about a given era, as it already does, and a new list created for current vessels with a link to the aforementioned list in a history section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The US Army had its own vessels during the American Civil War.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, there is a rich history there that has gone largely undocumented here on Wikipedia. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Coverage of the other Libyan civil wars of 1711, 1795, 1835, and 1920?

Greetings, recently at the discussion page of 2011 Libyan civil war, some editors questioned the use of "2011" to disambiguate. I did a few minutes of digging, and found references to "civil war" in Libya in 1711, 1795, 1835, and 1920. Glancing at WP, I'm not sure these conflicts have their own pages, though some are referenced in, say, bios of the leader who seized/lost power in those events. My questions: is it worth having articles such as "1711 Libyan Civil War", etc? And what is MILHIST policy for conflicts which are referenced, but don't have clear names? Do we just drop caps down to "1711 Libyan civil war", as in "a civil war", not "The Civil War"? Given the timeliness of the topic, I think it'd be cool to have these "precedent" Libyan civil wars covered, but am not sure what the best way to go about it is. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it'd be good to cover them, even if only briefly. It'd provide a historical context that's hidden at the moment, and help counter a systemic bias. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
1711 was arguably more of a seizure of power, but 1791-1795 seems to be regularly described as "civil war". Anyone interested, the link here (and the couple pages preceding the target page) explain it pretty well: [1]. But what should the title of such an article be? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as naming conventions are concerned, there isn't a definitive one for conflicts that don't have proper names per se. Personally, I prefer to see the date at the end (e.g. "Libyan Civil War of 1791–1795" rather than "1791–1795 Libyan Civil War"), but both forms are fairly common. So long as the name is unambiguous, and redirects are created from other common forms, I doubt anyone will complain. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have redlinked Libyan Civil War of 1791–1795 in Libya, History of Libya, and Ottoman Tripolitania. Not much of a start, but better than nothing. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Lympne Airport now open

The peer review for Lympne Airport is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Liz Cosson retired??

Liz Cosson has disappeared from the Australian Defence Leaders pages, and her OzDoD bio page is a deadlink.
I found this: http://www.dva.gov.au/aboutDVA/publications/corporate/vetaffairs/2010/Documents/Vol26No4_2.pdf New General Manager - Executive Division, Vetaffairs, Vol 26, No.4, December 2010, pg.2, Depatment of Veterans Affairs.
I can't find anything stating she has retired. Has anyone got any information? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it. The DVA organisation chart lists her as simply 'Liz Cosson AM, CSC' and she's 'Ms Liz Cosson' here. It would be worth checking the various commercial Australian defence magazines from late last year to see if they reported that she's retired from the ADF. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Identifying origin of Yalta hoax picture

At Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_7#File:Yalta_Conference_.28The_Big_Three.29_.28B.26W.29.jpg. walk victor falk talk 07:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

WWI flying aces lists

(Original listing on this discussion page)

Three new WWI flying aces lists have shown up, of one entry each. See List of World War I aces from Greece , List of World War I flying aces from Estonia , List of World War I aces from Fiji . 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(End original listing)

Greetings, all,

During the process of discussing the advisability of single-item lists, I was informed that some fellow military historians are developing the concept of national lists for World War I flying aces. I have been interested in this for some years, but have lacked the technical skills to perform the sort on the 1856 names involved. However, I do have a grasp of the realities/obstacles involved. With some technical assistance, together we may be able to produce the lists involved.

Below, I have copied the relevant discussion from the talk page of List of World War I aces from Greece, lest it disappear, and as a means of presenting it in a larger forum. Copied text is indicated by double lines. I have (re)opened the discussion below the second doubled line.

(Copied from talk page of List of World War I aces from Greece

Okay, I checked my Webster's dictionary, and list is defined as a series of items, so you are indeed correct. I have created two other single-item "lists" recently; if you are going to delete one, you should get them all. They are (in addition to this "list"):

List of World War I flying aces from Estonia

List of World War I aces from Fiji

BTW, is there anything in the WP standards/MOSs/notices/general bumf regarding redundancy? Curious George wants to know....

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

These lists should all be merged into a List of World War I aces by country, and the countries with larger number of aces have sublists, and {{main}}s on their sections, while the short lists remain on the main list. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

List of World War I flying aces already exists as a list of lists; from there, one can go link to one of nine shorter lists. While these nine lists are based on the aces' tallied aerial victories, one of the columns in the lists gives nationality. I have no idea how these lists could be sorted out by nationality. However, I have been tinkering with short national lists, with an eye toward figuring a practical way to split out 393 German aces, 597 British (and Commonwealth) aces, and a mere 182 French aces into national lists. I can't say I am getting any kind of encouragement from the process. Looks like grunt work.

And there are other considerations. Do I split the Germans into their four national air forces?...but then what of the aces of German naval aviation? Do the Commonwealth countries get their separate (two or more item) lists broken out from the Brits? How about the Irish, Scots, and Welch? And thank heavens the French are simpler...except for the Lafayette Escadrille and/or the French Legionnaires who turned to aviation. And Austria-Hungary being extinct, should I now break out the Hungarian, Czech, Austrian, and Polish aces who served in A-H aviation? And, oh, some Poles flew for the Germans, too. And there was the Austro-Hungarian who flew for Italy. Good simple Italy...that has no reliable ace statistics to mention.

In other words, this is a dark and murky swamp. Someone else has already started the national breakout lists, with Canadians and Russians. I thought it might be time to carry through.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the reason why that list is not one list is because a single list caused a lot of problems (see the talk pages, and archives); loading times were insane, didn't load on some systems, the long load times caused timeout errors, and the size of the list caused load size errors. Otherwise, a sortable table could be used to sort by country instead of by kill. There could be transclusion limit errors with a single list as well. As for what to do... large aces countries can exist on single lists. British should be separated into component commonwealth countries. Unless you want to build lists as by service instead of by nationality. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware (or do not remember) any specific guideline to the effect of deleting one-item lists, but it is certainly a) common sense and b) it parallels the established practice with categories (which is why I mentioned it earlier). Now, to the issue at hand, in cases like Greece or Fiji, I don't really see a problem with keeping the handful of pilots in the main List of World War I flying aces. There could easily be a new "aces by country" section, the big nations (Germany, A-H, Britain etc) should link to their own lists via {{main}}, and the smaller ones have their aces listed right there. As for sorting, IMO perhaps the best solution would be to use nationality as the chief factor: the Poles for instance fought with A-H, but if they fought as part of a distinct Polish legion etc, then I'd add them in a list of Polish aces under a header "fought with A-H", and link this list from the main A-H page. Similarly for the Lafayette Escadrille, its members belong to the US aces of World War I. Constantine ✍ 10:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should move this discussion to the main WT:MILHIST page, since we're pretty well along with an idea to create a parallel set of lists to the aces by kill list that currently exists. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Having brought the discussion down to here, let me summarize the constraints imposed by the listings available so that we don't start "reinventing the wheel".

First of all, I am very aware of the loading time problems. I created 'em, and I solved 'em (having received no substantive help from the WP community) to the best of my ability with the present master list and nine dependent lists. Even so, the List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories with its 400 names must tax some folks' computers with loading problems, etc. (http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/by_score.php?pageNum_scores=27&totalRows_scores=409&q=5&Submit=Search) The German list of aces for WWI is about the same size, with 393 names (http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/germany/index.php?pageNum_names=26&totalRows_names=393). Most daunting of all is the British list, with 597 names (http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/england/index.php?pageNum_names=39&totalRows_names=597). However, if you peel away the Commonwealth aces, you end up with a list of approximately 270 names. Thus, I don't foresee the creation of any list bigger than the existing ones.

Having noted the possibility of breaking present lists into national lists sorted by nationality and parent air service, let me point out that this will become an item-by-item hand sort exercise for the Germans, and cause massive duplicate listings among the British/Commonwealth aces because of the merger of the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps into the Royal Air Force. I don't see this as a realistic solution.

If nationality is the sort mechanism, it has to be the ONLY sort mechanism. As another illustrative instance, the proposed "Polish Legion" of 5 aces fought for four different air forces, and on both sides of the war. A Polish ace list obviously would have to have a column giving the air force(s) in which they served. However, if the Polish aces are sorted further by nationality plus air force, you end up with two single-item non-lists and two viable lists, per http://jpgleize.perso.neuf.fr/aces/ww1pol.htm.

If nationality is the sole sort mechanism, then in the interests of fairness and accuracy, duplicate listings should be allowed where relevant. This allows for changes in nationality, cases of dual citizenship, and the vagaries of international politics of the time to be reflected in the lists. The result will be a number of lists ranging in length from about 400 names down to lists of two. The singleton aces like Aristeidis Moraitinis will be listed only in the master list despite Moraitinis's pioneering aviation firsts and feats.

What is needed is consensus on the final result, and the tool(s) and help for the actual sorting process. I am willing to whip the resultant nationality lists into shape. So am I going to receive help this time, or am I on my own again?

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this my usual annual opportunity to become a one-man consensus in this niche? Or will I actually receive some useful feedback this time? Maybe some help?

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In the first case where possible I would merge short lists of flying aces by period into lists of Flying Aces by country. Assuming each period can then take up a section of the list it is relatively trivial to link directly to that part of the list. Eg in a master list of flying aces, "List of flying aces of Foo in World War I" would link to "List of flying aces of Foo#World War I". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A theoretically possible solution, but let's consider reality...

For example, if Germany's 400 World War I aces are added to the 1,000s of World War II German aces, you will have a database of many thousands of names. It will be too large to load, so you will have to break it down into sub-lists, as I have done with the List of World War I flying aces--many many many sub-lists. Maybe you have a year or two to spend manually compiling these lists, but I am not interested in heaping this insuperable task on top of my self-selected commitment to see all notable World War I aces covered in a bio. I am not even sure it can be done.

Then, of course, there are the comparable British lists, and the American ones, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Not to mock your response--Lord knows I have gotten few enough of them during the two years I have been begging for help--but this is probably the half dozenth time someone has presented a possible solution that begs for some means of manipulating data that is beyond my skill set or that buckles under the sheer mass of data. NO ONE has ever offered to help me with manipulating these lists. MANY have had great ideas of how I can spend the rest of my declining years kludging along doing duplicative repetitive drudging data entry to accomplish what should be done by a sort of existing data.

I do believe this will be the last time I seek aid on this subject. It is a waste of my time and energy, about as useful as yelling down a rain barrel to hold a conversation.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeating myself here - I said "where possible" referring to short lists. Short lists (or one item lists being the issue). As you pointed out there was little interest in other quarters so I went Bold and merged the (so-called) List of World War I aces from Greece together with List of World War II aces from Greece to form List of flying aces from Greece.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And the larger countries don't merit a broken-out list?

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your point about a "List of WWI aces by country", it makes sense to have lists in various arrangements, rather than trying to get everything on one page. We have a List of World War II aces by country (which isn't ideal, by any means); A "List of WWI aces" listed by country should, presumably, summarize that nation's achievement, and link to a main page elsewhere. If there is a lot of them, a further break-down is possible; if there's only a few (or one!) to a page with a wider remit (as Graeme just did). And, as you say, it's mostly spade-work; but I would guess national interests would fill in the gaps, in time, once the frame-work is in place.Xyl 54 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional Opinions Requested - Baron Munchhausen

Additional opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Baron Münchhausen#Unsourced Material. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

...Oh, come on. Baron Munchhausen, and you're surprised by unsourced material? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

King me?

User:BogdaNz has been adding Ernie King here. I've consistently maintained the very senior commanders, including Pound, Raeder, Nelles, & King, don't belong, while Horton & Dönitz do. He's offered no reason for inclusion beyond a high-level decision on convoys. The reversions are getting tiresome. Judging by his talk page, this isn't uncommon behaviour. Any comment would be welcome. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We could do with a guideline or two on this, if there isn’t one already (I can’t find one).
I’ve looked at some of the other campaign pages (here) and this seems to be a perennial issue. My own feeling is that infoboxes should be kept short and sweet, and list the major players only (so, Donitz but not Raeder, Noble and Horton, but not Pound).
And on principle I would regard persistent unexplained changes and a refusal to discuss as edit warring, pure and simple.Xyl 54 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Buckshot and I have both warned BogdaNz to discuss the issue instead of edit war over it. We'll both be keeping an eye on the situation for further disruptive behavior. Parsecboy (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed both revisios by both Buckshot & Xyl, plus comment on the page's talk, & I'm grateful. (My comment there has been a bit more inclusive; if there's good reason to add more senior officers, I don't oppose, but in general, no.) Also, knowing it's being watched by a couple of sensible people (you are, aren't you? ;p) means I can let it go if my frustration starts to get the better of me, which it was starting to. Thx to both of you.
On the issue of adding names, tho, for anybody interested, it occured to me the Coastal Command CO(s) should be added. If anybody has comment, do add at the article talk. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:06 & 04:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my (Dank's) talk page

Subject: SMS Konig, yet again

This conversation on this (here, 41) seems to have petered out a while ago; but I think the general opinion was that the translation thing was not a good idea, so I've taken the liberty of changing it.
Also, there wasn't much progress on what to do with the SMS, but the original format seemed the safest option, so I've gone back to that; I trust that’s OK with you.
However I’ve also done the SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand page,and tried a different treatment of the SMS thing there; what do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire thread here but I have reviewed a few SMS articles recently and the consensus that I believe best serves our readers is to present the English translation followed by a footnote that could look as follows: <ref group=Tr>"SMS" stands for "''[[Seiner Majestät Schiff]]''", or "His Majesty's Ship"</ref> MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of the [[Seiner Majestät Schiff|*]] format was simply to reduce text, and leave it a bit neater in the editing space (and, arguably,on the page). It's still one click, and goes to a fuller explanation. But it isn't a big deal; I was just floating it as an alternative option. Xyl 54 (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured sound showcase

You'll need to decide which, if any, of these should be added to the Featured sound showcase: Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/U.S._Air_Force_Marches

The first seems to have a very strong claim, not entirely sure on the others.

In related news, I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review with the large number of military-related FSCs currently going through. Only one I wasn't sure of was Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Four more U.S. Air Force Marches - I left it out in the end. You'll need to add it if you do think any of them are military-related enough; Regimental Pride or Veni, Vidi, Vici could be, though I have my doubts as to whether there's much more connection than the name. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The first one is definitely a military march, and should be listed. The other ones seem to have no real military connection, but I'll defer to anyone with more knowledge of the particular pieces in question. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Michael Shishman of Bulgaria now open

The peer review for Michael Shishman of Bulgaria is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for James Dutton (Royal Marines officer) now open

The peer review for James Dutton (Royal Marines officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

U-233

There is a discussion here on where U-233 should redirect to; comments are invited Xyl 54 (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Frederic N. Smalkin

This guy is an example of our very American systematic bias. I do not believe he is notable for his military activities (he may of course be notable for legal reasons). What do others think? If we keep the article, we very definitely need to source it. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a self-written vanity article. I can't help but notice that the major writer of it isn't registered. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. He may be well known on the basis of his legal judgements, but without sources, the article looks very shaky.Hchc2009 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
In accordance with these opinions, I have proposed-deletioned the article. Either a Prod-2 endorsement or a prod removal by someone would move the process on; we may have to go to AfD for this one. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not think your reasons for wanting the article deleted are valid.
--Toddy1 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Good article reviews

Hey MILHISTers. I'm in a tricky spot, and I was wondering if you could help me out of it. I've just massively expanded the article on Vidkun Quisling, which is currently tagged as a MILHIST article, and nominated it as a good article. In line with the timetable for the WikiCup, I need to have it reviewed by the end of April, and yet there are article unreviewed in its category from 11 March. Therefore, I seek a helpful reviewer who could dedicate some moments to the (quite long) article outside of the length GAN page process. In return, I am happy to offer my own skills as a reviewer to the good article nominations of others. Thanks! - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 16:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A-class reviews

I aksed Dank this a while ago and he suggested I ask here, so why are ACRs conducted on subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, when they're transcluded onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In some ways the current arrangement is a historical accident—originally, the plan was to conduct ACRs within the assessment department rather than the review one—but the chief practical reason for retaining the system is that it disambiguates between peer review subpages (".../Review/Article") and A-Class review ones (".../Assessment/Article") that could otherwise have name collisions. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

US Civil War to main page?

Will there be a feature article on the main page about the American Civil War for April 12? We are less than 12 hours from the beginning of the 150th year anniversary...Battle of Fort Sumter. Just curious.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

MilHist has nothing to do with TFA, whihc is scheduled well in advance. The articles scheduled so far this month are here and April 12's TFA is Pattern Recognition (novel), so it doesn't look like it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
As HJ Mitchell mentions, we're not directly responsible for TFA scheduling. Having said that, there is an ongoing effort (through the Operation Brothers at War special project) to bring relevant topics up to FA status in time for 150th-anniversary TFA scheduling for each. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. I see that Battle of Fort Sumter has a target date for today (Apr 12, 2011) but apparently is a missed date...my guess is for not being up to standards(?). I'll start trying to keep track of this list and see what I can do to help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition now open

The A-Class review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

New article

Hi folks, I just created the Honor Flight Network article. Any work is much appreciated. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

More eyes needed at an ACR

There is a disagreement over some of the finer points of the MoS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frank Buckles. More eyes from experienced reviewers would be greatly appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Image:Battle of Los Angeles LATimes.jpg

File:Battle of Los Angeles LATimes.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese naval ship image deletions

Image:Truong Sa Navy.jpg and Image:RVNS Ly Thuong Kiet.jpg have been nominated for deletion. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

d to nd designation moves

I notice a lot of units, example 352nd Special Operations Group, are being renamed from 352d Special Operations Group. Is this the result of a consensus decision, or an individual initiative? Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

All Unit designations ending in "nd" or "rd" (Second, Third) drop the "n" or "r" in the official abbreviation.. 2d Air Force, 3d Wing... I don't ever recall a 2nd Fighter Squadron or even in the army a 3rd Infantry Division. If this is going to be an issue, some years ago the Air Force simply dropped the "th" "st" "n" and "d" and simply use a number.. 354 Fighter Wing. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Bwmoll, the '2d' and '3d' appears to be widely accepted on wikipedia as regards the U.S. Air Force, but it is not in force regarding the U.S. Army. It is definitely not applicable to any other nationalities. Please try to be precise on this. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
In legal citations, "d" is a common substitute for "nd", and Chicago mentions this, but it's uncommon in other contexts. I checked the external links for several of our pages, and in every case, former members of the units referred to the units using "nd" or "rd". From what I've seen so far, I think we're going to get fewer reverts (and fewer confused readers) if we stick with "rd" and "nd". - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Women in the military‎

Could other editors please review the recent changes to this article? An editor has been adding what, in my view, seem to be very dated claims, and is edit warring (with me) to keep them in the article. I've started discussions of this at Talk:Women in the military. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Harold Miles

English cricketer who served in the British Army as an officer. Found some info on his military career, but still some gaps in it. If anyone can add to it that would be great. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Livens Large Gallery Flame Projectors

Can anyone help a bit with this? It is up for DYK but is not very good yet. Tonight there will be a proramme on UK TV about it - so it might be nice if it could be improved soonish. Best wishes (and hope it was OK to ask here for help), (Msrasnw (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Casualty Figure

I'm just in the process of rewriting the Juno Beach article to hopefully take it on a ratings-run in the next month or so. Does anyone on MilHist happen to have access to a source that mentions either estimations or exact figures for German casualties on Juno Beach? I know such figures exist for Omaha, does anyone know of similar figures for any of the other Normandy beaches? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FACs in general

There are a bunch of Milhist FACs that need reviews; see WP:MHR. Some of these, I tagged after they got to FAC, and I'm guessing that more variety in our FAC articles will help attract the more experienced FAC reviewers. For instance, Pigeon photographer is about an attempt in WWI to use pigeons for aerial reconnaissance, John_A._Macdonald was the first Canadian prime minister, and Charles Holden was an architect who designed WWI monuments and cemeteries.

Our project as a whole is getting a lot more FAC reviews than we're giving, and the deficit will be worse at the point when I can't keep up my current pace of reviewing. Suggestions would be welcome. If we can't carry our weight at FAC, then over the long term, either our articles will fail for lack of reviews, or we'll have to find a way to expand the pool of reviewers, possibly by collaborating in some way with wikiprojects that have active FAC reviewers. Reviewing is generally easier at FAC than at GAN, because you can pick what you want to do, and because there are a lot of piddly little things to do that are mechanical and easy to learn. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dank, its not FAC specific, but I've floated an idea about adding something to the instructions for Peer and A class reviews. See the conversation above at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Review problem fixing. If we could get more participants at PR and ACR, it would free up some of our regular reviewers for more work at FAC. Another suggestion might be writing an editorial for the Bugle about reviewing at FAC? (We are in need of an editorial for this month's edition). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll ask for help with this over at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

What has happened to the newsletter. It seems so out of date. IS there any progress being made on the March Bugle? Buggie111 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see the progress on this months edition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/News and editorials. It is a bit behind schedule but we should get it out soon. Woody (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, most months we have struggled to get editorials. If anyone is interested in writing one (it is probably too late for this month, but we will need one for April's edition) it would be greatly appreciated. Some previous topics are listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/News and editorials#Editorials. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Forking Fort Ticonderoga and Fort Carillon

An editor is attempting to fork Fort Carillon, which has previously redirected to Fort Ticonderoga. Interested parties are invited to comment at Talk:Fort Carillon. Magic♪piano 14:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Required references for "B-24 Liberator in Australian Service" stub

I am currently developing an exercise where some new editors can create a short article during a forthcoming workshop where participants will be taught Wikipedia editing. The short article I am developing to be used in the exercise for adding as a new article is titled "B-24 Liberator in Australian service".

I made this choice when I saw that the University of Queensland donated many images to Wikimedia Commons among which there were some B-24 images.

The article under development is here.

I took my material from :

Please check it out for correctness. I'd be grateful if anyone gave me better and more accurate references than the ones above.

AshLin (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Great topic for an article! I actually started drafting an article on this exact same topic at User:Nick-D/Drafts3 but haven't taken it very far (to put things mildly). The definitive reference on this topic is Michael Nelmes' excellent book Tocumwal to Tarakan. Australians and the Consolidated B-24 Liberator. I don't think that the 'Doug & dusty' is a reliable source, so it shouldn't be used as a reference. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, good topic and agree with all Nick said. As a quick start there's also the existing B-Class article on No. 82 Wing RAAF, which points to official history and records sources and has a B-24 image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your responses. I have looked up some refs from the 82 Wing article and used some sentences from Nick-D's draft. You will have to wait till my next Wiki-editing workshop to see the addition of article in main article-space. Noted the image for further use too, though I already had one of OCTU Liberators earmarked. AshLin (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

please help in naming issues on FOB Ramrod 'kill team'

I think FOB Ramrod 'kill team' could use some help, specifically Talk:FOB Ramrod 'kill team'#RFC on appropriateness of "FOB Ramrod kill team" as title. Is there a precedent for titling these articles? Jnast1 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Brazilian battleship São Paulo needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Brazilian battleship São Paulo; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Review problem fixing

I've forgotten the layout of WP:MILHIST during my brunout, so I'll post this right here. There have been many discussions, threads, etc. about how MilHist A and Peer Review are overflowing. Why not implement the same style that DYK uses, make it mandantory for a nominator for A class or peer review to review one (or two, the number is arbitrary based upon the amount of requests) requests. This should help lower the backlog, freeing time up for more in-depth reviews. Any thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Review problem fixing. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

PR Partnership

Since it appears that no other page transcludes your reviews, would it be alright to wrap your PRs in <onlyinclude> tags to make it easier for WP:VG/P to include your reviews? Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#PR Partnership. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Article name

Hi all some thoughts on Gustav Wagner (Nazi) the article name was changed from Gustav Wagner (SS officer). Nazi seem POV and the article does claim he was an SS Oberscharführer. He very likely was a nazi but is it a suitable disambiguation for an encyclopaedia? Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There's very few comparable figures disambiguated, it seems - skimming the categories, we seem to have one (politician) and one (National Socialist), and two (Nazi)s. (The depwp articles for those two use (KZ-Arzt) - which I think is "concentration camp officer" or the like - and (Politiker) - politician.) Whilst "Nazi" is accurate, it doesn't feel quite right for our purpose - we usually use "occupational" disambiguators rather than "affiliation" ones. Shimgray | talk | 20:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Gustav Franz Wagner is a redirect - we could us that name then it gets rid of Nazi/SS officer. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd use Gustav Wagner (SS officer). I'm no fan of WP's continual use of middle names for people not particularly known by them. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, avoiding "surplus" middle names is good. That said, my understanding is that we've been gradually phasing it out - it used to be more common to have full names, but we're now encouraging more use of parenthetical disambiguation. Shimgray | talk | 00:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. SS Officer rather than Nazi. Not that changes the negative connotation however, but it does separate him from the non-military German members of the Nazi party. Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have pasted the above into Talk:Gustav_Wagner_(Nazi)#Requested_move--Toddy1 (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Zurf citing his own website

User:AircraftZurf has been citing his own opinions as published on his website aircraft.zurf.info. There is a discussion under way at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Zurf_Military_Aircraft. Please weigh in. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Action of 28 January 1945 now open

The A-Class review for Action of 28 January 1945 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Reviewer needed

User:HJ Mitchell, the reviewer for the Frank Buckles article, is having computer problems and is "unlikely to be able to get back to the ACR before the 28-day window is up". If another A-Class reviewer with military experience could give the article a look-see and then re-review the article here, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick-D is going to be the substitute reviewer. If anyone still wishes to give the article a quick once-over and let me know of anything that needs fixed, please feel free. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Vorbunker

There is a new article called Vorbunker. Is it a content fork? Do enough sources make the distinction between the Vorbunker and the Führerbunker as a second floor below the Vorbunker? Please see the discussion at Talk:Vorbunker#Content fork?. -- PBS (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag Sounds

Does your project tag sounds. I am going to be nominating a lot of Marches and cadences at WP:FSC. For example, one current nomination is Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Sousa Marches‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly feel free to tag them; the {{WPMILHIST}} template should respond appropriately. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack Wong Sue

Hello all. There are some interesting questions being raised about the POV and neutrality of the article on Jack Wong Sue. The article is also largely unreferenced and could do with some expert attention. Sue was a fairly famous figure in the history of Z Special Force during the Second World War and some of our Australian editors may well find this discussion particularly interesting. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Showcase

Please add File:State of the Union Address (January 27, 2010) Barack Obama (WhiteHouse.gov-reedit).ogv, a video now listed at WP:FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite recall the topics covered in the 2010 SotU; is there actually military-related material in the speech? Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologize. During the nomination there were three different versions of the speech under consideration and I only put the transcript on the first one. Now you can see. Search for "Now, throughout our history, no is". Starting there you will see a lot of talk about security and military issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Note in the video this discourse starts at 52:22.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured sound recognition

Now that the project has over 40 WP:FS files, should you add something like * For original and rare audio files: {{tlsp|Audio Barnstar|message ~~~~}} to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

request for feedback

Hello, I am part of a team involved with the WikiProject United States Public Policy. My team and I would appreciate your comments and suggestions on our article Benefits for United States veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrandfield (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Post-Cold War era

Does anyone want to take a whack at it? Post-Cold War era was moved to the Article incubator two years ago for being OR and SYNTH. It currently sits at User:Fences and windows/Post-Cold War era since November 2010. The Military history of the U.S has a good list of post-Cold War actions than it has taken, which isn't all-inclusive. I figure we can start by copying that structure and adding a list of other military actions since 1989? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

German official history of the Second World War

I seem to remember flicking through a military history magazine a few years back that had a review of one of the last volumes of the official German history of the Second World War. I realize that it's a specialized series of books, but does anyone know the series title and how I would get a hold of it, either by library or purchase? I'm specifically looking for a volume covering German forces in Scandinavia during the conflict. Skinny87 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The German Reich and the Second World War; the English version is Germany and the Second World War. (They should probably be merged...). Vol II will cover the invasion of Norway and Denmark, but not sure where the material on the occupation would be. Shimgray | talk | 17:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
See Oxford University Press catalogue. You can order them from the publisher, or Amazon. Ten years ago a few bookshops used to stock them in cities like London, but policies have changed and they do not like to keep such expensive books on the shelves for people to browse.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
They are very good by the way - it is well worth buying the lot.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Digging a little (using Vol. II as the specific example) they seem to be pretty widespread - COPAC shows a copy in most of the main academic libraries. There's a copy in my county library, which suggests the other main library services are likely to own one - they're probably your quickest bet. (Alternately, if you just need a quick lookup let me know...) Shimgray | talk | 18:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Cheers all. I'll try Vol II, but I have a sinking feeling that stuff on German occupation forces in Norway and Denmark will be in one of the last two volumes, published (tentatively) 2014-16! Still, no harm in checking Volume II. Skinny87 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
What sort of information are you looking for here? There's lots of order of battle information available in published books and the internet (for instance, the Nafziger Collection website provides pretty extensive coverage of this topic). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Action of 7 and 8 August 1937

One for those interested in the Spanish Civil War. The British SS British Corporal and Italian SS Mongioia were attacked by Nationalist aircraft on 7 August 1937. The captain of the Italian ship later died from his wounds. That ship was carrying a Dutch observer. On 8 August, the French SS Djebel Amour and Greek SS K Ktsitakis were also attacked. As a result of this, various governments pledged to defend ships operating under their flags, including hostile action against attackers. Anyone interested in writing an article? Access to The Times digital archives would be an advantage. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Eastern European map

I've created Commons:File:Polish-Lithuania_map_(1450-1600).svg over at Commons; however, most of the place names - other than the ones I recognise - are in Lithuanian. If there's someone who knows Lithuanian, or is au fait with Eastern European towns, who could translate it, this would be much appreciated. Since it's a vector image, it's case of opening it in a program like Inkscape, clicking on the current town name and retyping; don't bother with rearranging it (for name length), I'll do that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, there's a small can of worms that's sitting there. What do you want it translated into?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you give full bibliographical info for the atlas you used? I'd suggest asking a member of WP:LITHUANIA for help, perhaps User:Renata3? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Renata sent me over the map files, as it happens; I can't rely on some people too much. I don't have the full details, but hopefully Renata will fill them in soon now the image's up. I'm well aware of the variety of names, but it shouldn't be difficult if you know the area to put down a name that would be suitable for an English reader, for example, the name we use on Wikipedia for the town. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Redirects should exist on en Wiki, so you could just put all the names into the search box and see which need to be changed...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
No redirects for titles like Borisovas do not exist, presumably because these are places in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine not titled in their native language but a third one. It's a laborius process using the Lithuanian Wikipedia to "translate" them, not least because I don't have many of the keys required to type them easily. It would take a small fraction of this time if you knew what they are, as I did with some of them.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Borisovas is Barysaw (I'll create the redirect). Some of the other ones are pretty tricky though. Yet another argument for inclusion of alternative names in Eastern European articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Brusilov Offensive

Hello guys! Hope someone could help sorting things out with this article. There are two main problems:

  • According to definition from Russian sources, Brusilov Offensive took place from 4 June to 13 August 1916, which was a planned operation. However, according to German/Austrian point of view it continued until 20 September or even later.
  • Russian sources place combined German-Austrian losses to 1.5 million (including 400,000-500,000 thousand POW, about 300,000 killed, the rest missing) and give a figure of about 500,000 Russian losses, and this seems to correspond to the June-August period. But German/Austrian sources, likely according to their extended definition of operation, give just about 750,000 German-Austrian losses and 1,000,000 or more Russian ones.

As far as I understand, the German definition includes a period of less successful Russian operations subsequent to the main planned offensive; also, by that later period Austrian-Hungarian army, disorganized by the main offensive, got into a better shape, possibly with some missing soldiers returning to the regular army.

I'm not particularly interested in WWI, so hope other editors help clarifying those issues and fixing the article. GreyHood Talk 12:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Air Force - attention needed

Can people keep an eye on the Egyptian Air Force article. There appears to be a spate of persistant dubious unreferenced additions to the article (or additions that do not seem to be supported by the sometimes questionable sources that are used) in the last few days. More eyes would be helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A commons administrator is necessary to deal with the rather blatant copyright violations taking place there. Some of the images are 30 years old, others bear the logos of the sites they were taken from. I've just rolled back the last 50 or more edits to the page, I may have even undone a few good ones, but that place really requires some drastic action. Poliocretes (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hemingway photo

Does File:Ernest Hemingway in Milan 1918 retouched 3.jpg this belong in your showcase?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What about File:EdwardTeller1958 fewer smudges.jpg?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Both of these should probably be listed. As Adam pointed out a few weeks ago, the FP listing is somewhat incomplete at the moment; please feel free to add any missing images as you find them. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

More showcase candidates

I am getting on a roll File:Four ruffles and flourishes, hail to the chief (long version).ogg and File:Attention.ogg should probably be in the showcase. Also, still waiting for feedback on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Showcase#Showcase and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Showcase#Hemingway photo.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I will move Attention in myself. This one is obvious.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Livonian War needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Livonian War; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Siege of Vyborg (1710) now open

The A-Class review for Siege of Vyborg (1710) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Need a second opinion on images for article

So, I decided to replace the template image for Operation K, and User:Trekphiler said the image wasn't helpful. So, I chose another image, backed up with reference marks. User:Trekphiler again reverted it and then nicked me with a vandalism tag. I need a second opinion; should real life images succeed a crappy image (which I did BTW, I admit it) and help the article? I did suggest to User:Trekphiler that if he likes the image, that he could go to the Graphics Lab and request a better image to replace my piss-poor attempt, among other vitrol (which I took a day to "cool off" given the circumstances). --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove the diagram from the article to add another image. There's room for more than 1 image. The TR high school image does not help illustrate/show anything with the operation itself and should be placed later in the article or omitted. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the high school photo for the main image. Can the map be used lower in the article, and perhaps larger? I think the smaller size is hurtful to it. I agree the side of the road photo isn't that great, and the high school image is more illustrative and dramatic to this important article. My 2.5 cents. --K72ndst (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have provided a new map, hopefully it is acceptable. (Hohum @) 20:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion on M1 Abrams

I invite anyone interested to give their opinion at Talk:M1 Abrams#Plant shutdown section regarding the relevance and sourcing of M1 Abrams#Plant shutdown in the M1 Abrams article. (Hohum @) 19:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Added my thoughts on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley Harrier now open

The A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley Harrier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Hood (51) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Hood (51) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Vietnamese Army-published works on the Vietnam War

I'm currently conducting the GA review of East Sea Campaign and am seeking a second opinion from an editor (or editors) who can comment on whether books published by the Vietnamese Army constitute reliable sources. Comments at Talk:East Sea Campaign/GA1 would be great. Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidacy for William Brill now open

The FAC for William Brill is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

invitation

Is there an invitation template for this wikiproject, and its associated task forces? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we do though I do remember a discussion about it some time ago now. We do have the welcome template but no invitation template. I think the idea behind not having one is to individually tailor the welcome to each editor and in that try and personalise it more than a template. Woody (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be handy for when one is in a hurry though! AshLin (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Creating something to use in cases like that has been on the to-do list for some time (cf. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Ideas), but nobody has had both the time and the inclination to put something together at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I threw together Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Invite, and since that's rather long, created WP:MILHIST/I as a shortcut. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you once again for the gumption to create this. Will the "Hello, X" change depending on walk talk page it is placed on automatically? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it will. There's also User:The ed17/MILHISTif you want a slightly different template . :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
How does one use Bahamut's? It doesn't have instructions like Ed's does. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, bahamut, I hope you don't mind, I've added some instructions now (using the format on Ed's template). Please feel free to revert or tweak if its not what you had in mind. Good work, by the way. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I don;t know why I forgot the documentation. Every template needs documentations! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for 1st Airlanding Brigade (United Kingdom) now open

The peer review for 1st Airlanding Brigade (United Kingdom) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about C-Class assessments

A discussion about C-Class assessments has begun at the strategy department. Input from all interested editors is welcome, and would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1971 Scottish soldiers' killings needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 1971 Scottish soldiers' killings; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

The problem with all of the moves from '2d' and '3d' to '2nd' and '3rd' is is that the United States military doesn't use this abbreviation for the numbered units. It uses the 'd', so the title now is factually incorrect. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.afhra.af.mil/organizationalrecords/wingsandgroups.asp All suffixes of numerical unit have been removed. I suggest if we are going to make these changes, we should use the correct one. Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
But how does that affect historical units? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=17565 It appears that when historical units are reactivated as provisional ones, the suffixes are eliminated as well. In this case, the 363 was re-established as an AFCON unit in 2007 and no "d" or "rd" was used. Also the lineage has no suffix attached for any of the previous designations. It would appear that all AF numerical units, current and historical, are correctly identified without them. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Was doing some additional research in this area. The Air Force Historical Research Agency documents ( http://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/21/2001330256/-1/-1/0/AFD-100921-044.pdf , http://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/21/2001330257/-1/-1/0/AFD-100921-047.pdf ), along with the Army Handbook ( http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/cbtchron/infdiv.html ) all use the "d" abbreviation for numerical units. None use the "nd". Personally, I don't care for the non-suffix of the current era, but that is the current Air Force designation of numerical units. The numerous page moves of Air Force numerical units to the "nd" abbreviation is simply incorrect and all of the page moves need to be either reverted back to their previous "d" designation, or, a project be started to eliminate all of the suffixes. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Removing all the suffixes is a bad idea IMO. The ahistoric use for disbanded units creates a misleading impression, for just one thing. It's bad enough when amalgamated or renamed units don't mention the change in the lead. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move of Corvette

An editor has requested a move of the Corvette article. Discussion is on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Katyn massacre at Featured Article review

Katyn massacre is undergoing a featured article review process here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katyn_massacre/archive1 Fifelfoo (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

file:AircraftCarrierOperators.png

shouldn't image:AircraftCarrierOperators.png have future aircraft carrier operators? (in a third color) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:SPECULATION. However, I can see it as appropriate to indicate nations that have carriers under construction, but presently, and in the past, not operating carriers. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Listing China on that image as a future carrier operator would be OK, as they're preparing the former Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag for service. The UK also fits the bill as they currently don't operate any aircraft carriers (HMS Illustrious (R06) is operating as a helicopter carrier until she's retired in 2014) but have two under construction. I can't think of any other countries which are planning to operate carriers in the future. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Eight-Nation Alliance reliable source deletion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eight-Nation Alliance#Dispute over deletion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Peer review for Colombian National Armada now open

The peer review for Colombian National Armada is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Alister Murdoch now open

The A-Class review for Alister Murdoch is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Valston Hancock now open

The A-Class review for Valston Hancock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for John McCauley (RAAF officer) now open

The A-Class review for John McCauley (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Crowsnest

I haven't come across this as a ref anywhere yet, so IDK if anybody knows about it. I found an RCN magazine, Crowsnest, available on the DND website. It covers 1948-65, apparently, with current events, officer & enlisted promotions, & suchlike. For bios of sailors, it occurs to me it might be of use; not sure if it would be anywhere else. (It's a bit thin on detail from the issues I've looked at.) Just FYI. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Air Battle of El Mansoura needs attention

The article is currently at AfD under hoax suspicions. Enough new sources have been found that I don't think it is one, and will probably close as "keep", but the article still has significant accuracy concerns. Anyone familiar with the Yom Kippur War (coughcough ME Task Force) should probably take a gander and see if the concerns can be resolved. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lockheed D-21/M-21

The A-Class review for Lockheed D-21/M-21 has begun; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft Recognition - The Inter-Servces Journal

Does anyone know when this publication last appeared? The wartime run was from September 1942 - September 1945. It was relaunched in July 1946 and ran until at least September 1955 (having been renamed the Joint Services Recognition Journal in 1951) but I've been unable to find a definative end date. NtheP (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked the national library of the relevant country? (eg, the British Library if this is a British publication of Library of Congress if it's from the US). They should hold all copies of the publication, and the end date in their records should be a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Proxy error

Is anyone else getting a Proxy Error when trying to load World War II? If I am logged (secure or not, Firefox or Chrome) I get a long wait, then a Proxy Error. If I'm not logged in, it's fine. Other pages work properly. (Hohum @) 19:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem here. Could be your ISP? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have tried two ISPs, and two PCs. Only happens on that page when I'm logged in, whether I use Chrome, FF3.6, FF4 or IE. (Hohum @) 21:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Strange. I was out of ideas at ISP. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Combat engineering

Combat engineering has been requested to be renamed. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Chesapeake (1799) now open

The featured article candidacy for USS Chesapeake (1799) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Ismailia now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Ismailia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jerauld Wright

Not an expert on US Navy officers but Jerauld Wright appears to include a complete history of related United States Navy operations in what is a biographical article. I think it should be tagged with something like "over the top" but thought I would just give it a mention here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few issues with the article as it stands. Hchc2009 (talk)
Well I just trimmed out most of the section on "Fleet Modernization" as it had no referencing to Wright's contribution/interaction with the programs. I don't know if the rest of the padding will be so easy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I've given it a basic scrub, but it could be a lot more compact still if it were more focused on Wright as an individual. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernst Lindemann/archive1

Generally, our project is getting 90% done of what needs to be done at FAC, which means that most of our articles are getting promoted, but it's taking a while, and a few don't get promoted. Sandy isn't getting much help these days, which means she doesn't have much time to spend on fixing things herself. Sometimes she promotes even when there is still work to do ... and if we want her to keep doing that, we'll need to make an effort to fix the things she mentions when she promotes, such as at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernst Lindemann/archive1. I'm stretched pretty thin with all the copyediting, but I'll be happy to help train anyone who wants to do any of these small but important FAC jobs. - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sand Creek Massacre image File:X-33805.jpg

File:X-33805.jpg has been nominated for deletion, because it's old license template was deleted. So can anyone determine if this is a free use image or fair use? 65.93.12.8 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper

I currently have email contact with former astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper and may be able to ask her specific questions to expand her article, and bring it up to B Class. Any suggestions? Gamweb (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask her what were the specific high points of the two space missions - right now we've only got the tool bag - and we can cover those from open sources - massive amounts around. Also details of the first part of her Navy career and duties now. IMHO, also comments if WP:V-able on the future place of humans in space. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
You could ask what some good published sources about her are (eg, if she collects newspaper clippings about herself, which ones are particularly accurate and useful as sources). Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestions, thank you. I am going to copy this to her Talk page. (Please add additional comments there) Gamweb (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"The" Battle of Jüterbog

I'm asking for help from members of this project with respect to an AFD that's been proposed on the Thirty Years War Battle of Jüterbog. Searching for this battle in Google Books of course brings up tons of references to a battle that took place near Jüterbog during the Napoleonic Wars, but also brings up vague references to the Thirty Years War battle. Both seem to also be called the "Battle of Dennewitz". I'm not an expert on military history but I'd hate to see an article on a battle deleted simply because the sources were confusing. Can anyone help at the AFD discussion or add sources to the article to settle the notability question, either way? Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone back with a couple of references to the 1644 battle on the AFD page. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added a dab hat, which should clear most of the confusion. The 1644 battle doesn't seem to have a lot of coverage though. See pointer for merger discussion further below. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Jüterbog and similar [perma]stubs

Since there's no shortage of active editors in this project, perhaps someone can take a look at the merger discussion on Talk:Thirty Years' War. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bay of Biscay UB v Coastal Command

I think the air offensives by RAF Coastal Command over the Bay of Biscay in 1942-44 could do with an article. However, I believe individual operations were too short and did not last long enough to warrant individual articles. The sources and content or also limited so I don't think it would justify that. So I propose to write one article inclusive of all operations. I think a name such as: Air offensives over the Bay of Biscay, RAF Coastal Command anti-submarine operations over the Bay of Biscay or just Bay of Biscay air offensive. Something like that. Suggestions welcome. Dapi89 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Expand upon RAF Coastal Command during World War II#Versus the U-Boats, 1942—1943 first and then spin off as necessary? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with expand, & with the idea. I'd say Bay of Biscay air offensive. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't have any real preference for a title, but be sure to reference Chris Goss's Bloody Biscay. It covers the air battles over the bay in some detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the idea of a comprehensive Biscay air offensive article; I would have said the individual operations could each have an article (we do that for land operations covering smaller forces over lesser time periods, after all) but an article covering the whole Biscay campaign (ops, forces, tactics, technological changes, politics, personalities etc) would be a welcome addition. Good thinking! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Expanding CC in WWII is on the agenda, Goss' books noted, and the article will follow. Dapi89 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

categories up for renaming

65.93.12.8 (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

For those interested, Nelson discussion, Napoleon discussion. Woody (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC question

Does anyone outside SHIPS know what this means? "USS Chesapeake was a nominally rated 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy." Is everyone on board with WP:Checklist#clarity? - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not from SHIPS, but I read Aubrey–Maturin. It reads poorly. "USS Chesapeake was a wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy, nominally rated as a 38 gun ship." Frigates are necessarily 3 masted in this era, but it helps to say it. Ship rating needs to be linked, probably to Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy#The_number_of_guns_and_the_rate this; it is a technical term and no other term is really suitable, it is a leading item for a age of sail ship. Rating is important enough to be in the lede sentence though. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a medievalist and I do pretty much understand it. Fifelfoos restructuring of the sentence is clearer though. My only query is about rating, which is often a number (1st - 6th, I think)but is used in frigates (IIRC) on the basis of nominal number of guns (i.e. Chesapeake didn't necessarily carry 38 guns) to distinguish between the various sizes of a similar class of vessels. Monstrelet (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
At a bare minimum, "rated" should be linked. I have no idea what the difference would be between a "nominal" rating and some other (unidentified) rating type; is the word even necessary (in the lead)? The ship's carrying capacity is sufficiently explained in the body of the article. Magic♪piano 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand it, too, but it would help for non-specialist users to link the ship class and the "rated" term. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I'm going to try "assigned a rating", and I'll link it. This is for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Chesapeake (1799)/archive1 btw. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Colin Hannah now open

The A-Class review for Colin Hannah is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

HMS Sainfoin (F183)

I'll shortly be expanding the HMS Sainfoin (F183) article as part of the Empire C series of ships. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if someone with access to Ships of the Royal Navy would provide inline refs for the info currently in the article, which will make expansion easier for me. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Western and Southern Bug

Hi

I have just found an editor changing Western Bug and Southern Bug -> Bug River

They are creating a load of redirs and other problems. I am not sure how many are on MilHist articles but I saw quite a few that probably are...

User history - [6] - I have asked them to stop but it may need some fixing :¬( Chaosdruid (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All of them need to be reverted. "Bug river" is a disambiguation page. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The editor has now tried to sort out the mess they created by nominating the Western Bug for a page move to Bug River, as well as nominating the Bug river db page for deletion. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The editor marked as a "minor edit" a complete change in the meaning of Bug River, removing the disambiguation. This seems highly disingenuous. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden

Which infobox {{operational plan}} or {{infobox military conflict}} should be used? I think some clarification in needed since editors disagree.—Chris!c/t 02:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The first one since it wasn't all that long of a process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Great article! When it becomes stable, I'd like to see it at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Subject ethnicity dispute

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:BLPN#Leroy A. Mendonca. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Featured article candidacy for The Red Badge of Courage now open

The featured article candidacy for The Red Badge of Courage is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Thomas the Slav now open

The A-Class review for Thomas the Slav is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of uniform

Can we get uniform treatment of military bios? I've seen pages started with final rank & with no rank. (I default to no rank, since they weren't born with it.) I'm raising the issue here, also, but suggest it be discussed here, because this would appear to be the "lead project". (Also, I don't anticipate adding anythng further. ;p ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about using the rank of the individual in the lead? Personally, I prefer to word it as "John Doe was a rank in the service..." rather than "Rank John Doe was a...". You are entirely correct, even our greatest military minds were not born with thier rank, despite the western habit of adding rank and title to every name (especially retired generals). Sure, it's respectful to note that, but I think it can be done in a more NPOV way, which would be to use it when describing his or her notability (not to mention that some people's notability doesn't have anything to do with the rank or service; politicians love to do this).
We could probably suggest this in the MOS, but I'm cynical enough to thing that getting consensus for a guideline, and standardizing it across the thousands of military bios is going to be possible. I like consistancy, though. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I am. I'd go farther & remove mention of rank in the lead, saying only "officer" in the top line. Mention of "final rank was foo" might deserve mention, but I lean toward leaving that for the "career" section.
Is an MOS guideline impossible? Maybe. I just favor consistency, too. In this circumstance, I'm looking more to adopting the existing standard for non-military bio. Unlikely? Again, maybe... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC) (OK, I can't ignore a comment. :p )

Abbreviations of USAF units

A lot of the USAF unit articles were created with the old 2d and 3d abbreviations. I know that a lot of service personnel did their service and are used to this. However, the USAF has been using the standard 2nd and 3rd abbreviations (ie. http://www.jber.af.mil/units/3rdwing/index.asp) for some time, and switching over patches and emblems where possible. I think that WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and for consistency I would like to use the 2nd and 3rd abbreviations. Not to mention that titles like [3d Wing] sound like a video game when read by an international audience on Wikipedia. Ng.j (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that the 2nd and 3rd abbreviations are the most common. All of the USAF press releases I have seen use this standard, as do established military sites like Janes and Globalsecurity. Ng.j (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

These are the three documents which are generally referenced for Air Force Numbered Units:
None of these documents use the "rd" or "nd" reference. 2d and 3d numbered units are referenced as such. Those is the official unit designation and should be kept as such. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Current units have no suffix after the numerical designator. The USAF has removed ALL suffixes as the Canadian Forces do. If you want to change them, then remove them all for all units. Either way, the "nd" and "rd" are incorrect. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the above sources are historical, and do not necessarily apply to currently operational units. The Air Force Historical Research Agency is a good source for history, but I prefer to use current sources, like news articles, releases from the USAF, and websites like Global Security. Ng.j (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember a few years ago someone told me to move them to "nd" and "rd" because we aren't the United States Air Force. I would support moving them there but it would require administrator help as a lot of these pages will have something preventing the average user from doing it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The last link I provided to the AFHRA Wings Groups and Centers Page show the official names of the current active and reserve units. The above listed pdf's are the historical references. Unofficial websites should not be used for determining official Air Force Unit designations. Also, for historical units, the appropriate historical name should be used as referenced in the official document. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe 6 months ago, I researched the issue by following external links from our articles to pages maintained by members of the units; without exception, the members used "2nd", "3rd", etc. Also, US style guides support "2nd", "3rd", etc., except for occasional "legalese". - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, I am all for moving these pages, which probably number into at least a thousand. It will take a long time though to do it, but after next Thursday I can do it if no one has any major objection to it. I would need an administrator to follow me though to help move the pages that are essentially unmovable to the average user so that is the only complication that I can forsee at the moment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Although, we would have to put a policy in place to explain to people when they attempt to mass-revert me why I did what I did. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I am still unclear if these pages are to be renamed, as the official references use the "d" suffix for 2d and 3d, or just the number without the suffix for all numbered units. If we are going to do a mass renaming, then let's delete the suffix entirely as the current references have them so the units are designated correctly. If we want to use the incorrect "nd" or "rd" suffixes, a #redirect can suffice Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't just USAF pages. I see this sometimes on other American military units... In particular, the USMC isn't very good at being consistant. Official letterheads tend to use the 2d and 3d, but websites mix and mash with 2nd and 3rd, as well as spelling them out as words. News releases and other stuff meant to be publicly available tend to use the longer abbreviations, but internal messages tend to use the shorter ones. Civillian media coverage almost never uses the shorter abbreviations, probably because it doesn't make sense to them (honestly, it doesn't make sense to me either). We ought to be consistent with the style guide and other articles and not use the shorthand. For the people who insist on keeping it as "2d and 3d", we can just invite them here until there is consensus... consensus doesn't always have to be written in policy to be enforced, as I learned the hard way the other day. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't speak for the other services, as I served 24 years in the Air Force. Never wrote anything that went into the civil world so I can't comment on that. We always used the "d" in correspondence. At Shaw we used the 363d and at Spangdahlem it was the 52d, was at Korat when the 3d TFS was formed. And it was always used when writing numerics. The official documentation from the Air Force uses "d', and lastly, before all the changes that began to be made a few weeks ago, the "d" abbreviation was used here on Wikipedia. If this is an encyclopedia, we should strive for correctness and accuracy and maintain the standards, not go off on our own for no other reason due to a policy that doesn't apply as it creates designations that never existed. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move of Corvette (again)

If you haven't already commented either way at Talk:Corvette on a proposal to turn Corvette into a redirect to Chevrolet Corvette, or you have commented and you were not aware that the discussion drags on and on, then you may wish to do so. Shem (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A new alternative method for stacking campaignboxes

See this thread. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Zrínyi needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for SMS Zrínyi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lockheed D-21/M-21 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Lockheed D-21/M-21; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

New article: Military history of Buddhist Americans (aim for DYK?)

USAF Buddhist chaplain insignia

On a spur of the moment, I just started Military history of Buddhist Americans this evening. I'd also previously started Military history of Sikh Americans and Military history of Jewish Americans (which got a DYK). I belatedly realised this might be an interesting WP:DYK topic, so now I have 5 days to get this up to snuff. If anyone else finds this topic interesting, I'd appreciate any help in adding content and refs, formatting, and uploading pics (since there are several available from USmil free sources). I'm still trying to track down online if there's any mention of who was the first American Buddhist soldier, as we have such names for the first Jewish and Sikh servicemembers. Thanks for any help, and I'll look to apply for DYK early next week if all goes well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Background articles

Whilst writing what is now "Background of the Spanish Civil War", I realised I wasn't sure whether "background of" or "background to" is more appropriate. I notice both Background to the Vietnam War and Background of the Winter War exist; the latter, "of", is used more widely. Is there a community-wide consistency thing on this? Since the "to the" article I've listed appear to be the only (main?) one, is it worth moving it/them? (Input to background of the Spanish Civil War is of course appreciated.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It feels to me like there ought to be a subtle semantic difference here, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is! In terms of what else we have, there's only one "to", as you note - Background to the Vietnam War - and six "of"s - Background of Tunisian history, Background of the 2008 South Ossetia war, Background of the Greek War of Independence, Background of the Spanish Civil War, Background of the Winter War, and Background of the occupation and annexation of the Baltic states. However, there's also four "events leading to" - Events leading to the Falklands War, Events leading to the First Anglo-Sikh War, Events leading to the Sino-Indian War, and Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor - and two "events preceding" - Events preceding World War II in Asia and Events preceding World War II in Europe. Finally, we have origins - Origins of the American Civil War, Origins of the Cold War, Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute, Origins of the Six-Day War, Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war, & Origins of the War of 1812.
A bit of a mixed bag, really... Shimgray | talk | 00:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Encouraging greater participation in PRs and ACRs

The discussion over on the strategy talk page seems to have gone a bit quiet, so I thought I'd post here in order that it can be carried on here or reignited over there.

Anyway, I'm proposing a slight change to the wording of step 6 in the instructions for ACRs and internal PRs and the addition of a link to some sort of beginners' guide to reviewing, of which a first draft is at User:HJ/Fool's guide. Input welcome. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing of rank images from rank pages

Hi to every one, I'm having a discussion here [7], the editor is refusing to find consensus even if military ranks fell on WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFLISTS I've tried to find a minimal consensus but he is avoiding to do the same, playing with rules, and making disruptive NON-sense editing making edit wars. I think that removing British Army ranks like the other ones on their respective page, even in presence of NFC for educational purpose is a non collaborative manner and dangerous to Wikipedia. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Some examples: than and now; than and now; than and now; than and now; than and now. --Nicola Romani (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
note: the user doing this rampant edit spree is User:Δ formerly known as User:Betacommand to which Community-imposed restrictions apply he is currently violating. noclador (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not violating any restrictions. Enforcing non-free content policy WP:NFCC is not optional. ΔT The only constant 09:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss the rationale for doing this before making these changes. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Simple WP:NFLISTS and WP:OVERUSE ΔT The only constant 10:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry i don't se OVERUSE. --Nicola Romani (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course there isn't any WP:OVERUSE. --Theirrulez (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:OVERUSE is just an essay so that doesn't really apply. As I understand the fair use rules though it would seem that using these images in the current manner is acceptable. --Kumioko (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Its a good essay explaining our policy, everything in it just goes into detail on our existing policy. WP:NFCC is the policy, and WP:NFC helps explain it some. ΔT The only constant 11:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Repetuta iuvant: Can you see OVERUSE here? than and now; than and now; than and now. NO! this were disruptive non consensual and non-motivated editing. --Nicola Romani (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:OVERUSE#Q:_How_can_one_image_be_excessive_fair_use.3F_That.27s_impossible.21 ΔT The only constant 11:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The example you did is not pertinent in this case! After your disruptive edits, an e.g. like this image, as well may other ones, are now completely orphans, even if on their respective file page is respected the WP:FURG! You are misleading the policy playing with rules. Use is permitted and they fell on WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS, and you are clearly violating. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:OVERUSE is only a essay, and in any case, it does not prohibit the fair use of military insignia as you seem to think Δ. It says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding".
Pictures of Military insignia do not serve a decorative purpose. They very clearly add value to the related articles that cannot be achieved through text alone. Including them in these articles is not a violation of WP:NFCC. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is. Just because we can include non-free content, even to complete a set of related items, doesn't mean we should. Wikipedia is not a catalog, and it's wholly unnecessary to have every element of a set of like elements to adequately convey encyclopedic meaning. Is a "List of Thingamajigs" useful for identifying Thingamajigs if not every Thingamajig has an image on it? No, but that's not Wikipedia is for. If you want a guide to military ranks around the world, start one at Wikia. This is Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a guide or catalog. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree with Snowolfd4, they fell under WP:NFCC#8, and WP:FURG were fully respected, if you think this is "a catalogue" you are wrong because: as stated on WP:NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" and military ranks of a country (even a comparisons chart among other countries) fell exactly in this case, and sorry an encyclopedia purpose is to explain exactly the matter of the subject, using your opinion I can also arguing that each image for every article about a Nation is not a catalogue or a (touristic) guide!!! Then I'm also strongly complaining about Δ's disruptive, non-consensuals edits and massive reverts of about a dozen of wiki users. --Nicola Romani (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Your stance with regards to such image use on rank articles would permit the use of as many images as anyone would want, within the bounds of fair use law. That would be nice, but unfortunately we have a mission of being a free license resource, and every use of a non-free image takes away from that mission. As such, there has to be a very strong reason for including it. Being a guide to military ranks isn't a sufficient reason, not by a long shot. If you think this is wrong, please feel free to raise the issue at WT:NFC. In the meantime, continuing to refer to Δ as disruptive is out of line. As Beetstra said, his edits are not disruptive and are inline with policy and guideline. You're certainly welcome to raise issue of the removals, but as WP:NFCC notes, those seeking to include non-free content have to prove it's needed. It's not incumbent on Δ to prove it's not needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A very similar issue came up a while back on Canadian Forces Land Force Command about non-free rank images. Take a look into it. You either need to see if you can get a freely licensed version, or use just a few samples to make your point. ΔT The only constant 19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Nobody conducting image removals from articles containing mass overuse of non-free images is making any sort of WP:POINT violation. The accusations about disruption towards anybody that does this work needs to stop. As to WP:NFCC #10c requirements; a rationale for a given use must exist, but the mere presence of a rationale doesn't make the use acceptable under 10c. A valid rationale must be provided. Sampling the rationales for the images that were on Military ranks and insignia of the Sri Lanka Army we find cut/paste rationales all saying "The image shows the insignia of Brigadier General in the Sri Lanka Army". That is not a valid rationale. Why must it be shown? This is a crucial point that is very often overlooked. Must it be shown in order to be a complete visual listing of all the rank insignia? If so, it falls afoul of WP:NOT policy in a number of ways. Do you really need File:SL-Army-OR4 Corporal.PNG AND File:SL-Army-OR5n6 Sergeant.PNG? Can't you simply use the former and indicate that the sergeant has an additional chevron? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not a guide. It is entirely inappropriate and wholly unnecessary to display every single rank (even if the rank images are free!) for every military service in the world, just as it is entirely inappropriate for en.Wikipedia to contain dictionary definitions for every word in the English language. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I really need to expand on the point very much for you guys to know that I disagree; but this situation is especially so. It's rather pointless to try to list ranks without being able to illustrate what the insignia look like. I don't think a sampling of a few really illustrates the spectrum, either.
But, I think there may be a compromise, though I need an expert in derivative works licensing to be sure. I think we can avoid the NFCC entirely if we can redraw the images, and teh artist releases into PD. I'm not sure if the representation of the rank insignia would be protected regardless of how it is represented or not, but I don't think so in this case (kind of like coats of arms, seals, and stuff like that). I'm sure the guys in the graphics lab would be happy to redraw from scratch and release. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree whit Bahamut0013. It is not a problem making a couple of chevrons and crowns and relese.
@Hammersoft: an encyclopedia can be also a guide and expecially this encyclopedia can be detailed (but I hope I don't need to be specific on this point...). --F l a n k e r (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Flanker hit the point. And anyways I don't need a military insigna article without any insigna image. Theirrulez (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This is just your point of view and IMHO seems too weak. Having rank articles matches our purpose: guides don't illustrate ranks. But let's stick to the topic: If they're not the originals, then they're not the rank insignia. what does it mean? A redrawing can perfectly illustrate original insignia. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I am sick to death of the rampant accusations of WP:POINT violations in this thread. For chrissake, providing a link to our POLICY...(Get it? POLICY)...that we are not a guide is not ()#!@*$()!$@#& disruptive or a WP:POINT violation. Either cease and desist with the rampant accusations or file a report at WP:AN/I. As to the redrawings, if you draw a rank insignia that is identical to the copyrighted original, it doesn't transfer rights to you. It's effectively a copy of the original. Copying it doesn't grant original copyrights to you. If you create a close copy, it's a derivative work, and still not free of copyright. If you create a version that is original enough to not be encumbered with rights of the original, then it is different enough to not be the actual rank insignia that is under copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The accusations of POINT are uncalled for. I don't think thos emaking them understand the meaning of the guideline. While I agree an article on ranks and rank insignia isn't much use without the isnignia, the use of them doesn't comply with the NFCC or with NFC. It's probnably within the bounds of fair use by law, but Wikipedia's policy is much stricter.

A workaround by redrawing the images could work. How complicated that would be in terms of copyright law depends whether the insignia are copyright or just the images of them, but I would think that redrawing them with slight differences should be acceptable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been lurking on this conversation for some time, and I'm only stepping out now to suggest that everybody step away for the weekend and relax a little bit. The world will not cease to turn if these images are not there, and it will not explode if they are. To answer Baha's question about derivitives: Yes, this is allowable. IF the argument is strictly FAIR-USE, then that will circumvent the problem. It was done on the masonic square and compass (see: File:Square compasses.svg) and as an original work was uploaded that it could be used on a userbox. However, if the argument is whether or not the images should be there at all, then this entire fair-use argument is spurious and should be dismissed as the red herring it would then be. Either way, people need to calm down and work the problem, rather than worry about being right or wrong. SeanNovack (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the history of the particular images in question, but creating derivative works only lets you create free works if they are derived from some free or public domain work. In the case of the Square and Compasses, the symbols are PD-old having been around in some similar form since at least ~1900 (see the original source of the png from which the svg was derived). If the insignia are copyrighted then any derivative work will still be subject to the copyright protection of the original and recreating won't help. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
*chuckle* Yep, I know. The keey phrase there is "If the insignia are copyrighted...", which I don't believe they are. Perhaps everyone should endeavor to discover this over the weekend and then come back at the problem fresh on Monday? Not trying to stir the pot, just trying to take down the heat. SeanNovack (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Since none of us seem to know for sure, I've asked for expert advice at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Rank image copyright question. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Access to academic journals (JSTOR, etc.)

  • If anyone has Access to academic journals (JSTOR, etc.) and is a kind soul willing to be pestered for articles, I will worship you as the demigod that you are... I plan to work on Civil War articles slowly, perhaps one at a time... I know we have WP:RX, but thought a person from this WP might be less bothered by my requests... Tks... • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:MHL#JSTOR might offer you some more help though I did just have to hide half of the names there as inactive. Woody (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Drop me an email and I'll see what I can turn up. Shimgray | talk | 10:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Content needed in 'Helmet camera' article

The article on helmet cameras contains no content on their military use. I would expand it myself, but I don't have time IRL right now, and I wouldn't know where to start. Perhaps it could be added to your project's tasks. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

ref link Helmet mounted display if this is associated. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

categorization of Byzantine/Ottoman fortifications

I haven't been able to find if it's been discussed before, but the current categorization of earlier-period fortifications in the Byzantine/Ottoman/Arab world seems in a slight bit of disarray. Is there a guideline somewhere about how we'd like to use the various terms? For example, Category:Castles in Italy is not a subcategory of Category:Forts in Italy, but at the same time, several of these structures are in Category:Byzantine forts. The Ottoman equivalent is at Category:Ottoman fortifications, and the Mamluk is at Category:Mameluk castles. I'd lean towards some sort of more generic categorization, since it's often fairly unclear how to distinguish a "castle" from other kinds of "fortifications" or "forts" or "fortified towns" in these periods, in contrast to Western Europe, where "castle" seems to be a more specific and well-defined term. But if there's already any sort of existing guideline, that's fine too. --Delirium (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to modify WP:MILMOS#SOURCES

I propose to modify WP:MILMOS#SOURCES with the addition of:

When structuring the article, and including or omitting content, editors should rely on the outline presentation of material available in the highest quality scholarly sources.

I propose this as:

  1. Many articles engage in synthesis by collation, providing reliable sources for individual sections, but unreliably generating higher order topic headlines and orders of presentation, amounting to original research.
  2. As an encyclopaedia we ought to structure our articles based on the highest quality reliable sources, rather than editorial inspiration. (Many editors have naturally internalised this structuring through reading, but some people need the reminder).
  3. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES is the well-spring for Reliable Sources in all history projects. Additions to policy ought to be made here, as, quite frankly, MILHIST is the leading historical project at the moment. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The substance of the addition looks reasonable, but "outline presentation of material" seems a bit convoluted; perhaps we could simply say something like "...should follow the presentation of the highest-quality scholarly sources."? (I'm almost tempted to use "...follow the narrative presented by..." here, but that may be confusing in cases where the article is not organized along narrative lines.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm very happy to get better language up there to represent the sentiment. I'm worried that without the double repetition of article structure == hqrs structure will result in editors fudging. But I'm very happy to get better language for the proposal. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem for me would be "what does it mean?". Scholarly books on history tend to follow whatever editorial scheme seems appropriate to the author, usually attempting to differentiate between their work and that which has gone before. To a degree therefore, to work from more than one such source will require synthesis. I suspect the suggestion comes from the more technical end of the MILHIST spectrum, where standard presentations of, say, ship or aircraft data are commonplace. If this is so, then an appropriate qualification should be made in the statement. If it is meant generally, I think it would require more thought as to how to determine the "outline presentation" to be followed, when there are different schemes in equally reliable works. Monstrelet (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm from the social history side of things. I was inspired because of Eastern and Central European history articles which are all over the place. While some level of synthesis is required comparing different magisterial histories, a number of articles regularly come forwards in other history project's areas that start with a tabula rasa and structure according to an editor's fancies. Given that MILMOS#SOURCES is the standard used by the WP:History project in general, this is the place to fix it. I think that reasonable comparison and editorial synthesis will be required in forming outlines; but, this proposal will help prevent the "deep google books" and "assembly of quotes" style article. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I suspect that the Eastern European article question runs deeper and there are a number of questions we would still need to address (such as the perennial question of whether an English language encyclopaedia should be derived from English speaking scholarship). I am in two minds on "google scholarship", because I have accessed sources this way myself and I'd rather have something with some sources than none. However, I do agree I find the lack of discernment in the choice of sources and the use of poor sources simply because they are online an issue. This is partly a reflection of the "popular" nature of Google as an encyclopaedia - not everyone who edits has the understanding of the sources and source use to begin with. How we tackle this meaningfully in a style guide I'm not sure. For assessment purposes, for B and above, I think it is part of the criteria. So, apologies for a lengthy post, but yes, I think we need something there but we may need to think more widely about we educate editors for the future Monstrelet (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time this has been proposed, so I naturally expect wide ranging debate and help in developing and amending the proposal; then a reproposal with a !vote or new discussion if the previous discussion was complex. (I've copied this process over from core policy change processes used at WP:V). Fifelfoo (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of articles with the kind of problems you want to avoid with those rules? I also find your wording rather opaque, so some examples would help. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in two minds, to be honest. On the one hand, following well established narrative models in an article would seem like a good thing. On the other hand, the presentation of the highest level scholarship in many fields isn't necessarily always very, um, "user-friendly", and said structures might not make for easy reading for a non-specialist reader. I'd agree with Tijfo098 that a specific example or two of articles that might be affected if this policy was adopted, might aid the debate. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking of Katyn massacre at this diff for the sections "5 Revelations 6 In art and literature 7 Recent developments 8 Memorials 9 Original documents" which are out of narrative order and in some cases not relevant to the main topic. (Katyn massacre is currently undergoing a WP:FAR and is rapidly improving, but that diff was from less than 6 weeks ago). Other examples which spring to mind are the perennially troubled Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes. I've especially seen this occur in relation to Bulgarian medieval history. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Hungarian Revolution of 1956 grossly overweights the armed bands and grossly underweights the workers councils by following a montage of sources rather than the scholarly hqrs (as can be seen in the references which are reliant on the arguably primary UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957), sourcebooks, and declarations like Bibo's). British Empire excludes critical magisterial hqrs in favour of a hagiography, an issue brought up at WP:FAR but resisted by editors who favoured a national hagiography. In contrast Byzantine Empire or Economy of England in the Middle Ages follow HQRS structuring (and you can see this too, in the references). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with the spirit of your idea, Fifelfoo. I see many articles where the author tried to be clever in the organization and section headers... and while there is artistic merit in being interesting, it's not especially encyclopedic. But that said, there are often problems with the way that sources do thier own organization, as well as the fact that sometimes, there simply isn't one that covers all or even most of the aspects that an article would need to be comprehensive. Balancing SYNTH and comprehensive coverage is something that would probably be better served on a case-by-case basis, because adding a requirement for this to the MILMOS would create hurdles for articles that are perfectly fine now... unless we could word it cleverly enough to allow for flexibility. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We can word it as a positive expectation to avoid stuffing up perfectly good articles that currently exist. I suspect that the positive expectation needs to be balanced against the need to push back against inappropriate SYNTH articles. I don't know how to further develop the text; but, I am inclined to implement this shortly as a BOLD action, trying to incorporate the material above. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I like pushing in the direction of HQRS, because more and more of our A-class articles are heading to FAC, which requires HQRS. I don't think it's a black-white thing; some high-quality sources do a good job of organizing the material and making it accessible, and we should attempt when possible to follow their lead. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we're all aware of the poorly organised HQRS; such as the sociological study trying to do history which has an explicit "Methods and Experimental Design" section. Or, for example, Jane fundamentally understands the structural issues for the general topic but published in 1986; but, Greg has a specialist interest in a minor feature and devotes his monograph to that, but doesn't get the higher order structure at all and published in 2005. (Don't mind me, I'm moaning because a whole monograph in a series claimed to be devoted to class consciousness and ended up being a psychological assessment of causes of status awareness; funding was loose in 1970s Britain obviously.) Strong intention and expectation to structure out of the most structurally apt HQRS appears to be the way to go? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm rather dubious about this, frankly. We are writing articles in an encyclopedia, but "the highest quality scholarly sources" are typically books or scholarly articles. For a straight biography the two forms may not differ much, but for example in an article on a battle that uses books on a war, a general, or a period in the history of a national army, the particular "outline presentation of material" (if we can agree what that means) may be substantially different, purely because the forms or overall subjects are different. In addition it is very often appropriate for us to set out basic and background information that a specialist academic source just assumes knowledge of. I see what Fiflefoo is worried about, but I think relying on WP:UNDUE may be best. In my own field, two very high-quality sources on the same subject may follow totally different "outlines" and explore totally different aspects, even if this is not indicated in their titles. What do you do then? Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

!vote requested on continuing developing this proposal

Thanks for the input above. I'm having a hard time drawing consensus from it, as I am easily swayed by the high quality of the variety of arguments being put. Instead of trying to develop a consensus directly, could people advise me on if I should continue this process with !votes? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Siege of Vyborg (1710) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Siege of Vyborg (1710); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden article

For those who haven't seen it, the most recent edition of the Wikipedia signpost quotes some very complementary media coverage of the Death of Osama bin Laden article. This article is within the scope of this project, and a lot of editors active on military history articles worked on it (along with lots of others), and I think this reflects really well on the project. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Kenneth Walker now open

The featured article candidacy for Kenneth Walker is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Livonian War ACR

The A class review of Livonian War as unsuccessful (without any support votes) but from my perspective there seems little, if any, to do on it – unfortunately Renata3's wikibreak seems to have coincided with a general lull in reviewing. Is there a way for it to be looked at again? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think the concerns from the previous ACR have been adequately addressed (or if you can explain, in detail if there's disagreement, why not), then you can renominate it whenever you like. I'm afraid this is probably about as involved as I'll get, though, because I usually stick to biographies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes, it can be renominated for an ACR at any time (there is no minimum wait period). Currently there are a lot of articles up for review and our pool of reviewers is a bit stretched, so unfortunately the article may not have received full attention. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Noemvriana now open

The featured article candidacy for Noemvriana is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move for "Duke of Wellington"

I have requested that Duke of Wellington be made a redirect to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Vote here. Kauffner (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean: "express your opinion with well-crafted arguments" GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Beryl_E._Escott

Hello. Not sure if this is the right place to take this. I have been working on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Unreferenced_BLPs for awhile now and several times I've tried to take on this article. I just cannot find any sources whatsoever about the author. She is quoted in several other books and referenced in many. All reviews of her books speak highly of the book. However, I cannot find anything on her. I feel she is notable, but cannot find anything. Any help?--v/r - TP 16:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Livonian War now open

The A-Class review for Livonian War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I just make a personal request that we get it wrapped up (if successful enough) by the end of the month? By that point, it will have been on ACR for seven weeks. Do get stuck in! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A-class review of Hawker Siddeley Harrier - comments sought

Hello there. Currently outstanding issues appear to be resolved on the review page, and I am hoping more commentry will appear. Declarations of support/outright hatred/insight into improvement are all welcome responses. Thank you in advance. Kyteto (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Kita now open

The A-Class review for Operation Kita is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New Article: Combined Maritime Forces

I have created a new web page for Combined Maritime Forces, to act as the main page for the Combined Task Forces 150, 151 and 152. There are pages for CTF-150 and CTF-151, but does someone want to take a crack at CTF-152? Also, all of these pages could use more information and expansion. --Petercorless (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Petercorless, thank you for collecting the info on the CMF. However it's my strong opinion that we would represent reality much more exactly if we merged the page into Naval Forces Central Command. The CMF is merely a 'concept' linking together a few non-Brit, non-US officers in the NAVCENT headquarters with some additional duties that the Brit Commodore and U.S. vice-admiral head of NAVCENT with a number of task forces all of which are controlled from the Bahrain headquarters. You'll note that the last line of the NAVCENT article specifically refers to CMF being established as a headquarters sub-cell in 2002 after 9/11 occurred. It's my strong opinion that Wikipedia has too many small disparate articles whose contents would have much greater context imparted to them if they were upmerged into other articles of wider scope (and extensively referenced, which, thanks to your efforts, is definitely not a problem in this case.) Additional data on CTF 152 can easily be added to the NAVCENT page until it's ready to split off. What do others think? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
All three task forces I believe meet notability for units, correct?
I can understand the want to have all start as one article then spin out the others are they grow in size; that being said, like how every regiment should have an article (even if stubs), I can't see why these task forces can't start out as stubs and be grown into better articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you're missing the point of what I wrote. All three TFs are notable, but the Combined Maritime Forces article, I believe, should be merged into the NAVCENT article. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
As a subordinate orginization under NAVCENT, I don't see why a summary and wikilink can't be included in the NAVCENT article. Of course an alternate, as you had suggested, is a full merger of the former article into the latter. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Priestley

Hi, I'm going through a list of cricketers and came across Hugh Priestley. His Wisden obituary says he won an MC, but that's as much as I can find out about his military career and why he won an MC. If anyone here is able to expand the article with his military career, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a citation about his MC and some info from his Times obituary, he was a Captain then Major with the Post Office Rifles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Result" in the military conflict infobox

Is it just me or does anybody else feel listing things like "victory" to this and that as a "Result" in the military conflict infobox is a bit awkward? I've always seen "Result" for a place to list the relevant (peace) treaty(ies) ending the war. I mean, there was a conflict- a war, the war ended and the result was a treaty of some kind. And the treaty should say who exactly lost and/or won anything. Is anybody else with me on this or am I getting it completely wrong?
Thanks! --Termer (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

TBH, I never thought about it before, but you're right. For battles, "victory" is sensible; for a war, the treaty. OTOH, not saying who won might be a bit odd, too... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on the particular war in question. For some wars, the treaties that ended them are more significant than who "won" (particularly if no side was the clear winner). For other wars, however, the treaty may have been of no real significance; or, indeed, there may have been no treaty at all (particularly for ancient and medieval wars). I don't think we can really take a one-size-fits-all approach to this. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This has come up before (maybe around March 09 on this talk page?). I agree with Kirill that we should take this on a case-by-case basis and follow what the sources say: sometimes the result needs to be qualified, sometimes it does not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense, it depends on the particular war in question and wars that didn't result a treaty, you obviously can't have a treaty as a result. I just wanted to make sure listing victory to this and that as the result was not considered the only right way to go about it.--Termer (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Kirill took the words right outta ma mouth. Things tend to be in shades of grey (gray ;P) at the conclusion of a messy war, so a base-by-case approach makes more sense than forcing a standardization. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Scope of German task-force

I have been wondering whether Switzerland and Austria are supposed to be within the scope of the German task-force. I have come across a significant number of Austria-related articles (Austria-Hungary to be precise) and was not sure where to put them. Switzerland is not much of a problem, though. --FJS15 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

2 Military Police Unit (Canada) & 3 Military Police Unit

2 Military Police Unit (Canada) and 3 Military Police Unit have been requested to be renamed. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Aufklärungsgruppe

Copied from User talk:Mjroots Hello, thank you for your edit at Saint-Inglevert Airfield. You may have noticed that I've been wikifying the links on this article for a while, would you mind having a look at Aufklärungsgruppe? I considered redirecting to Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)#Gruppe or Glossary of German military terms, however it also appears in the order of battle of Operation Albion and Order of battle at Jutland. In the end, most of what I found on the internet looked very much like this, which is filled up with so much military jargon that it ends up being unreadable, so I created the stub. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is outside my area of expertise. Any MILHIST members able to expand this one. Mjroots (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I would say its more or less identical to I Scouting Group. The other usages would be the German for Reconnaisance Wing in an Air Force context or reconnaisance squad in the Army. Both don't seem to be worth an article, I think. --92.225.136.71 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wolfpack

The usage of wolfpack and wolf pack is under discussion, see Talk:Wolfpack. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PROD FYI

The following articles have been PROD'd:

FYI. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

The peer review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Edinburgh Castle now open

The A-Class review for Edinburgh Castle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Juno Beach now open

The A-Class review for Juno Beach is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability of the Battle off Diamond Shoals

I've started a discussion at Talk:Battle off Diamond Shoals about whether this 'battle' (which comprised a submarine shooting up and sinking an almost unarmed patrol boat) is really notable. Comments from interested editors would be great. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Specific comment on this article made on its talk page. But on a wider topic, is every single engagement between two warships notable? I'm seeing a lot of articles like this one appear - mostly about the US Navy but I suspect that is the easier availability of records - and I do find myself wondering if they are all notable? The example quoted here could easily be included in a wider article about German submarine activity off the US coast and articles like Action of 24 July 1945 could be wrapped up in the article on kaitens or the article on the USS Underhill (DE-682). I really am not convinced that these types of articles stand on their own two feet. NtheP (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Single ship actions and the like can be quite notable, but the 'battles' these articles cover aren't very notable and the topic would be better covered in the article on the ship for which this was most important (Underhill in this case - the action is covered in books, but doesn't seem to warrant its own article). Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
There are more modern examples (Action of 30 March 2010 Action of 6 May 2010 November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia) and earlier (Action of 21 May 1918) Though a MoH was awarded to a participant of the latter it the action still does read as notable of itself. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Also came across Baralong Incidents while reveiwing the Campaignbox Atlantic 1914 - 1918 template which has a few "Action of" articles GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, it seems to me unless the action in question is worthy of a book in itself, it fails notability. Otherwise, we're going to see pages on I-boats shelling Los Angeles. (Oh, wait, there are already "battle" pages for I-boats shelling Midway... Part of the "Hawaiian Islands Campaign". :/) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Graeme: I'm pretty sure the Baralong Incident was notable; was that your concern there? Xyl 54 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
In regards to Action of 30 March 2010 (which i helped write) it is notable as it is the first naval battle fought by forces of the Seychelles. I generally only write such articles now a days only when a signifigant number of people die, when something unique happens, or when it gets signifigant media coverege. As for November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia, it is a B-class article, a DYK, and already passed notability tests. I think a good rule of thumb is that if there isnt enough material to at least write a B-class article on a subject than it should be combined into another article wherever possible.XavierGreen (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that these articles (along with many other articles on recent battles) don't pass WP:NOT#NEWS. Do any references highlight the 'Action of 30 March 2010' as being notable on these grounds? Have the battles had any lasting significance? The naming of these articles also seems problematic to me - while there often isn't a good name to pick for articles like these, I really doubt that anyone is going to search for a 'Action of 30 March 2010' (disclaimer: I gave Action of 28 January 1945 its name as most of the references called this an unnamed 'action', though one called it the 'Action off Bergen' but this wasn't repeated elsewhere). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If the actions are unamed then there really is nothing else to do but follow the precident of Action of (insert date here). Most naval battles throughout history dont have names, if you look at sources like O'Hare's The US Navy Against the Axis, he simply makes up his own names for many minor actions since they dont exist elsewhere. Usually he uses Action off (insert place) but for many battles these names arnt used in any other source. When there is an action in the open sea that naming convention is rather worthless, though it would make sense if the action is closer to land. As for references on recent actions, you wont find any book that talkes about events that happened a year ago. It takes time for things to get published.XavierGreen (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Is that "Action of..." in chapter/section titles or just in the text and in the case of the text is it capitalized mid-sentence? (as in "the effects of the Action of 20th May....") GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Artifical" navboxes

(Subsectioned to avoid thread confusion) Intrigued, I found the First Bombardment of Midway through a search for the "Hawaiian Islands Campaign" which turned up the navbox but there is no corresponding article for Hawaiian Islands Campaign which makes me wonder if the grouping of the articles is an artificial one. Anyone in the position to clarify? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of any such campaign. I've just notified the editor who created the navbox (and many, though not all) of the articles in question here of this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be part of Operation Z as it was part of the initial attack against the Hawaiian island chain and by the same forces that were withdrawing after the attack on pearl harbor.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The "campaign" appears to be purely notional on the part of the creator of the bombardment of Midway pages. I've never seen so much as a passing mention anywhere else. (I also think a bit of passing shelling & Operation K hardly qualify as a "campaign" anyhow.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Well The bombardment of Midway, nihau incident, and Attack on Pearl Harbor were all part of the same military operation, but your right that operation K has nothing to do with it. I think the campaign box should be renamed to Opeartion Z and the operation K article removed from it.XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"...bombardment of Midway, nihau incident, and Attack on Pearl Harbor were all part of the same military operation" No, they weren't. They were incidentally connected, not a campaign by any stretch of imagination. Campaign implies concerted effort, planning, & intent, none of which pertain. The shelling of Midway was a trivial event of opportunity in passing, no more part of a "campaign" than the shelling of Los Angeles was part of a "campaign" against the U.S. mainland. The Ni'ihau Incident was equally trivial. Anecdotes do not make a campaign. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:31 & 04:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Read the reasoning at Talk:First Bombardment of Midway as to why it's a US victory. The Niihau Incident does seem to be the subject of several books and in the wider context of treatment of Americans of Japanese descent I can see why it's significant. But the concept of a Hawaiian Islands Campaign does look to me like WP:SYNTHESIS. NtheP (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I never said they were part of a campaign, i said they were all part of Operation Z.XavierGreen (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just merged the article in question here into the article on the ship which was sunk. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Other brief actions

Action of 5 September 1918 - in which a U-boat torpedoed a US troopship but did not sink her, after which the escorts depth-charged the submarine but did not sink her. Opinions? GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If that's the standard, there should be over a dozen individual pages for every typical U-boat & U.S. sub in WW2 service. IDK about anybody else, but that sounds pretty crazy to me. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
As a 'no-score draw', an event like this would best be summarised in the involved vessels' articles: maybe a para for the troopship and u-boat, but a line or two max for the destroyers. -- saberwyn 01:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
What about Action of 10 March 1917 and Action of 16 January 1916 - these strike me as part of SMS Möwe rather than spin-offs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Individual attacks by raider ships on lightly armed merchant vessels generally aren't notable, and I don't see why these should be considered exceptions. Action of 10 March 1917 had some importance in that it forced the raider to return to port, but this would be better covered in the article on the raider. Action of 15 October 1917 seems about as non-notable as Action of 5 September 1918. These kind of engagements were the small change of a major naval war, and don't seem particularly important in isolation - thousands of ships were sunk by submarines and raiders during World War I, and we don't need separate articles on each of these engagements when we've got (or should have) an article on the warship(s) involved. Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll flag them up as "merge to"s initially. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the naming convention for cartridges

Is the generally accepted naming convention to use "x" or "×" when naming articles? For example- we have 9x18mm Makarov which was recently moved to 9×18mm Makarov , or 9x19mm Parabellum which redirects to 9×19mm Parabellum, even though the disambiguation page reflects the name of the former. I for one find it more coumbersome to deal with the "×" character, especially when a quick Google search begs the question "Did you mean 9x18mm?" -Deathsythe (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Short of copying and pasting, how do you even type a "×"? I totally agree with you by the way (if that wasn't obvious).Sabre ball (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I am unsure of the ASCII code for it, so I have been c&p'ing it each time. The point that drove me here though was the fact that I could not find it in any of the manual's of style regarding naming conventions. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, is this another hyphen/endash battlefield? NtheP (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering that pretty much every ballistics table I've seen uses "x" in this instance (including the Shooting Times tables found online), I can't see this being a real debate. If the literature of the field uses "x", who are we to overrule that?Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What you have there is a discription of the cartridge by it's width and length (in millimeters). "Parabellum" and "Luger" are simply different naming conventions for the same round (one being it's designation as a round used in war by NATO - "Parabellum" being Latin for "Prepare for war", the other after it's inventer Georg Luger). The 9x19 9mm is the standard western 9mm round, the 9x18 is used in Russian weapons, and the others are different measurements of the rounds that are used in seperate weapons. The "x" can simply be designated as an x, the same way you would do if you were talking about a wooden 2"x4" (two by four). SeanNovack (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of the potential redirects regarding the naming convention have been handled already. There is also a whole category devoted to the 9mm size iirc. What's in question here is the use of a non-standard character in the naming of the main article surrounding these varying calibers. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't even realised we could use a multiplication-sign character! This does seem to be one of those cases where sticking with plain ASCII is simple and helpful without causing a significant problem for the reader, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the multiplication sign, but didn't realize there was code for it. I also think it's really unnecessary. I've always seen the plain "x" used (perhaps because keyboards don't have the multiplication...?), so... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As SeanNovack indicated above, it has more to do with the fact that the 'x' in this case represents 'by' as in a dimension not a factor of multiplication. I've looked at some older ballistics tables and the like, and have never seen the multiplication symbol used in preference to 'x'.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps someone needs to have a talk with User:Chowbok - they're the editor making most of these moves. NtheP (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done I've left a message on his talk page. Hopefully he can come in here and participate in this discussion. -Deathsythe (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. The multiplication symbol should be used when referring to dimensions, as in the 2×4 example above. That's standard typographic practice, as it's much easier to read than the "x" character (particularly with serif fonts: 9×19 vs. 9x19). It's true that web pages generally don't do that, but that's just because web page creators generally aren't familiar with typographic practice. Web pages also don't use proper dashes or vulgar fractions, for the most part. In books and professional magazines, you'll see that the × symbol is indeed used.—Chowbok ☠ 17:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
For instance, see [8].—Chowbok ☠ 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
While I'll agree completely with the fact that standard typographic practice in printed material do use that kind of notation, Wikipedia is a web-based encyclopedia and must work within the accepted practices of that medium. Whether or not something is "easier to read" is completely subjective, and (as the OP and yourself both admit) the × is unfamiliar to many users and interferes with searches. I stand by the assertion that we should stay with the "x" notation, and if anything have the "×" redirect there. SeanNovack (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily talking about web pages. Most of the reloading and gunsmithing references I've looked at do not use the multiplication sign...they use 'x'.Example is hereon p 237 and again here in a different book.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The appropriate guideline on the use of characters in titles is Wikipedia:TITLEFORMAT#Special_characters. It specifically mentions what you shouldn't use but multiplication sign is not in the list. Personally speaking, I don't see the point as for most the multiplication sign is typographically little different from a lower case x, and it only needs to be "×" when x would appear obviously incorrect. As an example, in so far as I can tell, B&Q don't bother with it on their website ("Sawn Treated Timber (L)1800 x (W)38 x (T)19mm")GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for coming in to clarify the reasoning behind the changes Chowbok. After reading through the reasoning and relevant wikipedia style things, I'm still not fond of the multiplication symbol. I still didn't even know how to properly type it without copying it from an existing article, as it is not one of the widely used Alt+ASCII codes, until rereading the official MOS in full. (its × for those interested)
I think the important thing to note was brought up by Sean above; "× is unfamiliar to many users and interferes with searches". With respect to Wikipedia:TITLEFORMAT#Special_characters and Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles we should "Avoid special characters", and while it does not explicitly list the multiplication symbol, it does list several other mathematical symbols and in no way says that list is explicit. (The text should probably read "such as but not limited to" to be honest). With all of this in mind, I move to have the main articles for the cartridges to use the "x" notation, not the "×". -Deathsythe (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it interferes with searches, as in every case the "x" article redirects to the "×" article. The fact is that "x" is just wrong. It's like a misspelling of an uncommon word; most people won't notice, but for those who know the difference, it looks amateurish. We use accented characters and en dashes in article titles all the time; this is no different. —Chowbok ☠ 21:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So you're going to override convention in the field? Should this hit vote-type stuff I'd have to go with a "no" based on that alone. Not that my opinion matters much, though.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • An interesting analogy I spotted this afternoon is camera lenses; they're usually described as, for example, f/5.6. We use the stylised "f" in the article text, via a template which does text styling, but the titles invariably use plain "f" despite the existence of a usable Unicode ƒ character. Shimgray | talk | 15:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to move article titles to barely accessible versions for some typographic fetish. This is going to turn into a dash/hyphen war in short order. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

They're every bit as accessible as they ever were. In every case, the title with the x redirects to the current article.—Chowbok ☠ 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
While I agree, and since, generally speaking, the redirects are properly setup, it really isn't a huge issue, to conform with the MoS and standard naming conventions, technically the "×" should be the redirect, and the "x" should be where the actual article is. I think there is enough support and evidence to support this naming convention. -Deathsythe (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any compelling reason to override convention in the reloading and gunsmithing fields. They are the SMEs in this area, after all. I can't see it being Wikipedia's place to impose their own standards here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_101&oldid=1089923987"