Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 113

• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 100
• 108
• 109
• 110
• 111
• 112
• Archive 113
• 114
• 115
• 116
• 117
• 118
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

Commander Coookson of HMS Peterel

Around 1877 Commander Coookson brought some turtles from the Galápagos Islands to London on the Royal Navy ship HMS Peterel(dab page). I'd be interested in finding out Commander Cookson's full name and wikilinking an article on him if possible. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer my own question. It's William Edgar De Crackenthorpe Cookson R.N.(http://www.pdavis.nl/ShowBiog.php?id=1491). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Page naming conventions: Nuclear Weapons

I found it very strange that we have the following naming convention for pages relating to states and their (actual or alleged) nuclear weapons programmes:

• Nuclear weapons and the United States

• Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom

• Force de Frappe - (Redirected from Nuclear weapons of France)

• Nuclear weapons and Israel

• Russia and weapons of mass destruction

• People's Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction

• North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

• Iran and weapons of mass destruction

• Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

• India and weapons of mass destruction

• South Africa and weapons of mass destruction

So when we feel allied towards the state, they are called "Nuclear Weapons" and when not, they are referred to as "Weapons of mass destruction" based on Wiki Search "Nuclear weapons [country name]" - rather odd. Farawayman (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That is vexing. However, the language we use should reflect what sources say, and we suffer from FUTON bias with added anglocentrism - the sources in these articles will use different terms to describe (say) American nuclear development versus Iranian nuclear development. Also, "weapons of mass destruction" covers more than just nuclear stuff - it's a bigger umbrella. With some of those countries it may be impractical to split up the content into viable separate articles on CBRN, but where there's more content it's practical (ie. we have Soviet biological weapons program). bobrayner (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Though... NBC weapons are "weapons of mass destruction", so it shouldn't solely be nukes... what of chemical and biological agents? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is splitting of subject in some case - the UK has Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom and Chemical weapons and the United Kingdom with a covering United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction to summarize both and include biological weapons. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Military results

I have a question about the results in the infoboxes. For many battles, campaigns or offensives there probably are no reliable sources that directly state the result. So can sources be used indirectly for this? Like if a source states the strategic goals of an offensive for one side and then says that they were accomplished, is that enough to set the result to strategic victory for that side? -YMB29 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds to me like it would pass. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've done that in my own articles, see Battle of Osan. Oftentimes strategic and tactical goals and outcomes are different for two sides in a battle. —Ed!^(talk) 22:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both for the answers. -YMB29 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to make sure. Do these passages[1] from reliable sources support that the offensive was a strategic victory? -YMB29 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You are making slight omissions by forgetting to mention that Soviet forces were unable to accomplish the predefined goals of operation. As stated in several sources and also verified by original STAVKA orders. And also again you are mixing the result of the offensive with that of the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you are the one mixing things up. You are talking about tactical or operational goals, not strategic ones. This was pointed out to you many times, but you ignore it.

Anyway, I asked a specific question, and it was not addressed to you since I am looking for a third opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want a non-biased answer that others can accept without complaints from the said third person you need to actually present the question in a non-biased way. Also once again for clarification, the article in question is about the operation, not about the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Like I told you before, the sources speak for themselves. Let others comment here. -YMB29 (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you are representing sources you selected even with your knowledge of the several of opposing sources. It is called bias. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources more reliable that contradict these ones. The question is about these sources. If you have sources that contradict them, you can bring them up later and we can compare which ones are more reliable. -YMB29 (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ribbon bars identification | General William Slim

Dear all,

I'm currently identifying the ribbon badges on then General William Slim's uniform: Commons:File:TNA INF3-5 General William Slim 1939-1946.jpg. Unfortunately the article does not feature an exhaustive list of his awards and honours. Thanks a lot in advance for any helpful suggestions.

Please apply changes directly via the "Add note" on the Commons or answer on my talk page.

Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond here otherwise you'll have people going all over the place and duplicating the work. It's a bit of a difficult to be sure what the ribbons are because the artist has blurred some of them and the colours are a bit faded.

Top row: Order of the Bath, Order of the British Empire, Distinguished Service Order

Middle row: Military Cross, 1914-15 Star, British War Medal, Victory Medal

Bottom row: 1939-45 Star, Africa Star, (Cannot identify), (Cannot identify, but ought to be a Mention in Despatches)

The image shows him sometime before Jan 46 (going on the order of the first two ribbons and the lack of higher orders which he picked up later) and presumably some time just after the war had finished since he is shown wearing the 39-45 star. Without knowing the date it is not possible to say exactly what level of each order he held at the time. I've cheated slightly in that I have a book with a clear picture of his uniform ribbons on the cover, albeit at an earlier date hence difficulty identifying the later WWII medals. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Wiki-Ed. I failed to identify the British War Medal and those blurry two at the bottom right. Maybe something like Honours of Winston Churchill#List of honours should be added to William Slim's article - yet without proper sources about the date of presentation this might be quite some work. Do you know how his appointment as Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE) in January 1946 would have effected the manner of representation on his uniform? Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a look at his article you'll see a list of titles and post nominals near the bottom. The order of the post nominals shown there indicates the order of wear. So, for example, a GBE is higher than a KCB, so it would come first in 1946. But then in 1950 the KCB was made up to a GCB, and the Order of the Bath is senior to the Order of the British Empire, so the position would change again. Ignore the "KstJ" - that's irrelevant - but all the other letters correspond to the placement of the ribbons. The medals are trickier because they are not recorded in the title - you have to work out the pattern and the order and compare it with a chart. Fortunately Wikipedia has those charts so not too difficult. Obviously he would have got the Burma Star whenever it was issued, but I cannot tell from the image. A colour photo from later in his career should clarify what the fuzzy ones are.Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. As I've mentioned on the talk page of the image, its source seems to be this photography from the National Army Museum. As for colour images/paintings: see #1, #2 or #3. Although they are from different ages, they might feature a hint on the yet unidentified ribbon bars. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bottom row 3rd from left is definitely the Burma Star, fourth from left is indistinct and cannot reliably be identified from the painting. However, based on painting from 1952 and 1961 painting set in WW2, it is most likely the ribbon of the War Medal 1939-45, although it may be that of Chief Commander of the Legion of Merit which appears not to have been conferred until 1948. Notwithstanding, he still has not been awarded the Defence Medal which in theory should have been issued at the same time as the War Medal 1939-45 but as the 1961 painting shows, he clearly had both of these before he had received the Defence Medal - so the question becomes when did he get the War Medal 1939-45? AusTerrapin (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Having just checked Peter's suggestions, it all becomes clear - B&W Photo and #2 quite clearly show Slim wearing the MiD insignia on cloth of same colour of the uniform (at that point there was no campaign medal approved for it to be attached to, so it goes either directly on the uniform (if no other ribbons) or on a ribbon matched to the colour of the uniform (first time I have actually seen a photo/painting of this occurring but it is covered in various instructions relating to wear). This eliminates the Legion of Merit from the picture. The last ribbon is either the MiD worn on a ribbon the colour of the uniform (most likely given the absence of any red or blue in that section of the painting) or the MiD worn on the ribbon of the War Medal 1939-45. However given the painting appears to be based on B&W Photo and the last ribbon in that photo doesn't appear to contain any of the white that is present in the War Medal ribbon, it seems fairly certain that it would be the MiD worn on a khaki ribbon rather than on the War Medal 1939-45 ribbon. AusTerrapin (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very detailed information. As written in his article, Slim was mentioned in dispatches twice in 1941. I didn't manage to find out, when the War Medal 1939-45 was awarded. A database of awarded medals or his biography could help to identify the exact date of presentation. Be encouraged to add any of Slim's honours to this list. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bed-making

I've just rescued a rather feeble stub which referred to military personnel having to make beds to bounce-a-coin tightness (and I remember a friend saying that her RAF officer trainee son at one point slept on his floor before inspections so as not to disturb his precisely-made bed!). Not exactly "military history", but I thought someone round here might be able to contribute sourced info about standards, techniques, etc in military life. I found a youtube video on "bedmaking in basic training" but nothing WP:RS. PamD 16:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added a couple of references, one of the covers-off on coin-dropping as aa test for adequate tightness. Still needs details for preparation techniques. I've have also added the project Banner and stub-tags; I notice that we don't seem to have a task force for military culture and thus this one slips through the cracks of our task forces as it is too generic to pick up under one of the national task forces. AusTerrapin (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: Decapitalize the word "war" in non-proper noun titles

Concerning the following articles: Sino-Xiongnu War, Gojoseon–Han War, Goguryeo–Wei War, Goguryeo–Sui War, Goguryeo–Tang War, Silla–Tang War, Ming–Kotte War, Ming–Hồ War, Mongol–Jin War, Gaya–Silla War, Goguryeo–Yamato War, Goryeo–Khitan War.

The move request is at [2]. --Cold Season (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Article titles for military operations

Hi all, I'm repeating my question from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page where I got redirected here.

I've read WP:TITLE but could not find why military operations are titled [Operation Something] instead of [Something], e.g. [Operation Market Garden] instead of [Market Garden]. Is there a specific title rule in place or it's just a tradition? --Petar Petrov (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why that convention might exist, but I think the "Operation" looks like a helpful natural disambiguator. Otherwise we have the problem that there are thousands of operations named after completely different things which already have their own article and which already satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If we renamed "Operation Market Garden" to "Market Garden", we'd have to find somewhere else to put the horticultural article already at that title; if we renamed "Operation Sledgehammer" to "Sledgehammer" then the article about the tool would have to move to some other unnatural name; and so on.

Think of it this way: We don't normally use middle names in the titles of BLP articles. But if several people have the same common name (ie. John Smith), then including a middle name in the title could be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also what the sources call them. Not to mention, per the above, it provides context to what is being talked about. Outside the circle of those intrested, who would know Market Garden was a miltiary operation and not some kind of market or whatnot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.86.206 (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I also like the titles as they are now. But correct me if I'm wrong, according to WP:TITLE they should be "Barbarosa (operation)" instead of "Operation Barbarosa". The name is Barbarosa, otherwise it would be incorrect to call it "Plan Barbarosa". I'm asking why the military operation titles are exception from WP:TITLE. --Petar Petrov (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In that example, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Operation Barbarossa". All the reliable sources refer to it as such in English, therefore it is at that title at the English Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And none refer to it as "Plan Barbarossa"? What if some operation is referred to as "Operation X" and "Plan X"? --Petar Petrov (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The rider in Bushranger's comment is "in English." The proper translation might be Plan or Case, but normally it's rendered in this context as Operation. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In English indeed. Translation is irrelevant as there are enough sources in English. I assume for "Plan ..." and "Operation ..." the most popular has to be chosen. Thanks for the answers to all. --Petar Petrov (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we translate "Panzer"?

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I was looking at the articles of {{German heavy tank battalions of World War II}}, and I noticed that while for the Army, the "Panzer" is translated as "Tank", for the SS, it remains "Panzer". The relevant category is also named German Heavy Panzer Detachments, which retains "Panzer" and also translates "Abteilung" as "Detachment", while the main articles use "battalion" instead. From what I can see about other German armoured units, "Panzer" is favoured, but there should be consistency. Constantine ✍ 13:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've overwhelmingly seen reliable sources refer to German armored units as Panzer divisions. They've got an article, Panzer division, which covers a little bit about what makes them different. It's the same concept as German Jäger units, which institutionally are considered light infantry in other militaries. —Ed!^(talk) 13:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, the literature I've come across does the same and the word is practically part of the English language by now, but what's the rule here (if there is one)? Should the "Heavy Tank Battalions" be moved to "Heavy Panzer Battalions"? Constantine ✍ 14:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, no: if it's been written in English it should stay written in English (per ENGVAR, if nothing else) but I also wouldn't be in a hurry to change Panzer to "Tank", or "Armoured", either (though if there is to be any movement, that's the direction it should go in). Xyl 54 (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: As far as Abteilung goes, if "Detachment" or "Battalion" are confusing, it would be reasonable to put an instance of the German term in somewhere to clarify it: eg. Tank Battalion (Panzer Abteilung); or Panzer Abteilung (Tank Battalion) and use "Tank Battalion" thereafter. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

All right. I'll move the SS Panzer battalions at least, since it is weird to use one term for the Army units and another for the Waffen-SS. Constantine ✍ 15:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think panzer is thoroughly anglicized as the word for a German tank, I'd prefer to use it, and other anglicized terms. It has some advantages when concisely differentiating between Allied and German units without distracting the flow of narrative. (Hohum ^@) 17:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is really an ENGVAR issue, to be honest (unless UK style uses one and US style uses another, which might be the case...); as the term is so commonly used in English, it would make sense to me to use Panzer throughout - articles at X Panzer Division, X Panzer Battalion, etc. (I agree with translating the administrative part as "Battalion") Andrew Gray (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to favor "panzer" as it is so thoroughly understood as German tank as to be common English usage. A quick check of Google ngrams shows "German [P|p]anzer" (upper or lower for Panzer) about on par with "German Tank" (caps), "German tank" brings up the rear, no pun intended. I don't see any impetus for immediate changes, any "standardization" is likely to generate as many anomalies as compared to how these units are referred to in military scholarship as issues that complete standardization may solve. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A Panzer is a German tank from WWII. A "German tank" would be a broader term, including modern German equipment. Atleast that's my interpretation of what I've seen the uses of panzer and German tanks. (ie. Cold War East German tanks, and not panzers) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Panzer means "armour" in German, in all the senses that we use "armour" in English. (A tank is a panzerkampfwagen.) There is no ENGVAR issue (although there is with "armour".). It is so commonly used in English language accounts of World War II that it should be used. I would use it for the present-day Bundeswehr units as well (and indeed we do). Remember, the idea is always to make it as easy as possible for the reader to find things in this haystack of an encyclopedia. And that is the form that the reader will find in books. It is also why the use of German terms is sometimes inconsistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what it means in German, since this is English Wikipedia, it only matters what it means in English. And in English, Panzer is generally only WWII German tanks, and not German tanks in general. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that 'Panzer', 'panzer grenadier', etc, should be used for the names of these German units given that they're almost universally used in other English-language works, there's nothing unique about German 'Panzer' units. The structure and missions assigned to the German Army's panzer units has been pretty much the same as that of other countries, though the Germans did get in first with applying the concept of massing amoured formations during large operations. Moreover, the term has something of a mystique to it which can obscure the reality - most late-WW2 German panzer units actually had very few tanks, and all of the western Allies infantry divisions tended to have the same kind of firepower as the vaunted German panzer grenadier divisions (for instance, US Army units normally had tank, tank destroyer and SP artillery battalions attached when they were in combat). Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

All right, "Panzer" it is. However, in the spirit of being pedantic, should it be "501st Heavy Panzer Battalion" or "Heavy Panzer Battalion 501" as with the SS articles? And BTW, now that I remember it, all the Italian Army WW2-era divisions are in the form "3 XXX Division" rather than "3rd XXX Division". Should they be renamed as well? Constantine ✍ 12:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to all: It was me that brought up ENGVAR.

I’ve no particular problem with finding the word Panzer used as a shorthand for "German tank", as it is common enough in sources, and common enough in English. What I would have a problem with is someone going through articles and substituting Panzer for German tank.

What I meant by mentioning ENGVAR was that it is there to stop us squabbling over what is "correct" in English; and the principle involved is that if it’s written in English, leave it as you find it. If someone has written “German tank” in perfectly good English I don’t see that it is OK for someone else to come along and change it to "Panzer" because that’s the term they prefer. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would disagree with Hawkeye; panzer when used in English doesn’t mean "armour" it means "German tank", specifically one from WWII: So using it for Bundeswehr tanks would be wrong. And as far as "our readers" are concerned, they are hardly going to be confused by the term "German tank", are they? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a line between educating and dumbing down. I don't think using Panzer will cause confusion. Regarding numbering - I'd suggest "501st Heavy Panzer Battalion" since putting the number first makes it easier to realise the identity while reading. (Hohum ^@) 17:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dumbing down?? So using the right words is “dumbing down”, but using the wrong word in the wrong way is “educating”?

If we’ve reached the stage of trading insults now, maybe I should put it to you that this penchant for using German words when English ones will do is an affectation that is more in keeping with some Third Reich fan site than here. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did those articles had to be translated at all? Why not using the original name? Is this "501st Heavy Panzer Battalion" even used in the english/american literature when it comes to those units? StoneProphet (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The World War II era German military seems to use "Panzer" exclusively, while the post-war military uses a combination of "Panzer" and "Armored" designation for units. —Ed!^(talk) 11:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because “This Wikipedia is written in English”; and “Foreign words should be used sparingly”? Just a thought...Xyl 54 (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Xyl 54. If any terms are to be moved, it should be from the German to the English. When I knew alot less about WWII, I found it pretty annoying to find German words in a context that assumed I knew the word, and I would have to go look it up somehow. Even now I have that problem sometimes, as there are articles that use German words for military ranks when the English term will do just as well.

My suggestion: If the German term (Panzer, etc) is preferred, every article should have a simple gloss in parentheses or a foot note, as in "Panzer (tank or armored vehicle)..."

Boneyard90 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Panzer is fully anglicized, so *is* an English word as has already been mentioned. It means "german tank" and is routinely used in English books about them. (Hohum ^@) 21:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Panzer is a loan word that means German tank of the Second World War. There are a number of German loan words - eg Blitzkrieg, flak - that are common enough to either not need explanation, or that sufficient explanation comes from context. Then there are words common in writings about the period - eg Pak - that need but a brief explanation. And there are other words that need explanation - and a lot of the time we can link to the explanation in some other article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also agree, panzer is a commonplace. If the issue is the formation (panzerdivsion, say), a link out would solve the issue. Other terms might need translating for non-specialists, but they'd also need explaining anyhow (so we may know PAK=AT gun, but many non-specialists won't).

Would it be out of line to not translate & see if it draws complaints or questions? Pick a very high-traffic page & test it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Noone's mentioned it, but surely WP:COMMONNAME is the rule to apply here? 82.31.13.50 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My statement was not about translating in general to which I am not opposed if its reasonable, I just wanted to say that it might be reasonable to look how english/american literature name those units (e.g. books which deal with topics in which those units have participated etc.). Because i dont think its very meaningful if we invent new unit names while books keep using other names. E.g. if they still use the German name it could be confusing for the reader. StoneProphet (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My experience has been that there is a singular lack of standardisation in unit names in sources. As long as we choose a reasonable one and have a sensible variety of redirects we should be good. (Hohum ^@) 11:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hyman G. Rickover

Does anyone have a list of his service assignments with exact dates? Through the very best of motives, a mention of the '19th Fleet' has been added to his wikipedia bio and I believe this is incorrect. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Through reference to official U.S. Navy documents via http://www.history.navy.mil, it appears that our article on DANFS is the misleading source; the 16th and 19th Fleets were apparently the preceeding designations of the Atlantic Reserve Fleet and the Pacific Reserve Fleet. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Highland and Lowland Brigade articles

Hi, since the Union has yet to be split up, surely the below two articles should be renamed in line with the rest of the articles on the British Army, i.e. have (United Kingdom) after the unit name.

• Highland Brigade (Scottish)
• Lowland Brigade (Scottish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.86.206 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorted this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hydrogen bomb

Greetings,

I don't know if this is a right place, but I and another editor was engaging in an edit war as to whether hydrogen bomb should be a redirect or not. We are in a deadlock and we can use more feedbacks. -- Taku (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a bad idea to have a second, separate article on a synonym; I think a redirect would be much more appropriate. It would be better to cover everything (neutrally) in a single article. bobrayner (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If "Teller–Ulam design" and "hydrogen bomb" are 100% synonyms (that is the design of the bomb is always a variation of the former), then a redirect is the appropriate solution. In that case, I would prefer the more visible term "hydrogen bomb" as the main title and "Teller–Ulam design" to be a redirect page.--Dipa1965 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for feedbacks. I started the requested move at Teller–Ulam design; feedbacks are very welcome. -- Taku (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Artist renderings of future USN ships

If anyone can be bothered to add them to articles (and if you don't think they're too "PR-y"), the USN now seem to be releasing "official" artist impressions of unbuilt ships, eg SSN-790. See here for what seems to be the full selection - at present many of the future ship articles either have no pic or just a generic class pic.82.31.13.50 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, these seem to be pretty generic themselves, the only difference between the photos I can see is the name on bottom. Still, the photos of future installations might be useful. —Ed!^(talk) 16:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation: WikiProject Globalization

Hello, WikiProject Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. We would like to make a special invitation to WikiProject Military history members to join this effort in strengthening articles related to global security, world war and other global military history topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Thank you, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Denys Rayner

I wasn't sure where to post this
There is a dispute brewing here, which turns on the use of an item in WP:IMOS. The other guy seems to be suggesting WP:DERRY is a blank cheque for changing spellings (principally “Londonderry” to “Derry”) wherever and whenever they occur, regardless of context, history or article subject.
I had thought (following the Gdansk/Danzig row) that we had come to a different conclusion. Are IMOS and PLACE contradicting each other? Can anyone enlighten me? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

USMC M16A2

The M16 rifle page says the Marines have retired the M16A2 for the A4 variant. The List of weapons of the United States Marine Corps page says it's still being phased out. Is the A2 retired in the Marines or still in limited service? (America789 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar
99.9% complete Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists Goal: 0 articles Current: 28 articles Initial: 24,689 articles

Incredible article you have to see for yourself!

The First Motion Picture Unit has more full length watchable film videos embedded than any other article in Wikipedia. It is really cool to be able to watch so many movies in one place! It is now at WP:PR (and T:TDYK). Check it out here: Wikipedia:Peer review/First Motion Picture Unit/archive1. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work with this article - it looks really interesting. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

New Infobox for Chief of the Defence Staff

General Richards has recently gained a different infobox.

Pros:

• It shows all his appointments at the top of the article
• It shows who, for instance, was CDS when he was CGS

Cons:

• It's huge
• It doesn't appear to have been discussed
• There's no indication of which officers should have this new infobox
• It refers to the Secretary of State as "Secretary" and CDS as "Chief", although C-in-C Land becomes "Supreme Commander of the Land Forces"!

Antrim Kate (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, I really don't see the point of another infobox for defence chiefs, especially one that appears to be based on the political infobox that, for some reason, is a good deal thinner than the military one and hence involves more wrapping of information onto new lines. Plus the predecessors/successor info is redundant since we include it at the end of the article, where I think it works far better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a new editor - commendably - being bold. I've just invited them to join this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would advocate reverting to the military infobox. We need consistency among military personnel. Dormskirk (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not swayed by arguments of inter-article consistency (something which occupies many editors but is scarcely noticed by readers) but I am concerned that the infobox is filling up much of the article. I think an infobox should summarise the most important points rather than present half the content. bobrayner (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division

Hi all, Over the last few days i have started editing this article. It appears most of it, which is not currently sourced, has been copied from various websites. I am currently working through the Second World War section of the article, rewording, expanding, and referencing where i can. However the rest of the article, lays in areas outside of my field of expertise and could really do with some work. So if anyone can help, it would be much appreicated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thermonuclear weapon

Greetings again,

I started a requested move of Teller–Ulam design to Thermonuclear weapon (instead of hydrogen bomb). Feedbacks are very welcome. -- Taku (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

One of our articles is on the Main Page!

This article, along with a watchable 20 minute full length military cartoon video, is on the main page right now!!! What is a military cartoon? Go check it out.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fantastic - congratulations. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

FAR nom of Iwo Jima flag raising

I have nominated Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar
99.9% complete Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists Goal: 0 articles Current: 28 articles Initial: 24,689 articles

The naming of Royal Air Force installations within infoboxes

I have come across multiple RAF articles with infoboxes with different variations of the name within such as "RAF name" or "Royal Air Force name" which is very inconsistent.

I normally call the installation using the prefix "RAF" within the infobox and start the lead with "Royal Air Force Station name or more simply RAF name".

What is the Military History Project view on naming of RAF article name in infoboxes? Gavbadger (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what we actually do but using the common name RAF Foo seems fine in the infobox with Royal Air Force Station Foo in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If in doubt, what do sources call it? bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well my books say "RAF name" or just the airfield name on it's own and most of the online references i used use "RAF name". But "Harrison49" is using "Royal Air Force name" as he is copying RAF Northolt and RAF Uxbridge naming styles as they are both featured articles. Gavbadger (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the style set in RAF Northolt and RAF Uxbridge for the reasons Gavbadger correctly states. There are several other articles which also already follow this style, such as RAF Bentley Priory, but I'll happily change it if there is a preferred style. Harrison49 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Milbourne One. However, an American Source (Fletcher, Harry R (1993). Air Force Bases , Vol. II, Air Bases Outside the United States of America (PDF). Washington, DC: Center for Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-53-6.) dealing with USAF stations seems to indicate "RAF Stn Foo" until the early '50s, "Foo RAF" until 18 December 1955, and "RAF Foo" since then, with the book's Glossary indicating that RAF and Stn should be read as if spelled out.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So what is the outcome of this? Do we use "Royal Air Force name" or "RAF name" within the infobox? Gavbadger (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the only two of us to comment both agree with your practice of RAF in the infobox and Royal Air Force in the lead.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to double check. 21:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Noisy subs" of the Soviet Union

"Noisy subs" of the Soviet Union, is being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meco#Article_about_a_weapons_manufacturerer_headquartered_in_Kongsberg in connection with improving an article about a weapons manufacturer that received negative sanctions from the US government in the 1980's. --Vistamesa (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Image identification

• 
• 

Hi, I took those two pictures yesterday but find it difficult to put them into the appropriate categories on commons or use them here. They show the shoulder patch and the badge of a member of the US Forces Europe Customs and Border Clearance Agency. Does anyone of you know in which article this unit might be mentioned and where one or both of the pictures might be used? And can you help improve the file description and/or categories on Commons? TIA --h-stt !? 13:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Should the article "Northern Ireland Security Guard Service" be part of this project? (The article is about a civilian armed guard service that provides security at Ministry of Defence establishments (including Army barracks) in Northern Ireland). --Thefrood ^talk 14:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As a civilian service, I'd tend to say not...but that raises questions about U.S. civilian ops on military bases. It also seems to raise questions of whether "security services" like Blackwater are "military". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:06 & 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar
99.9% complete Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists Goal: 0 articles Current: 28 articles Initial: 24,689 articles

Cameroon Air Force

I have semi-protected Cameroon Air Force due to continual vandalism over a long period by probably one IP editor. As I reverted the last two changes to the article just looking for a sanity check for protecting the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So the edits by 193.175 are good, but the ones by 41.202 are bad? Hmm... seems like Wikipedia needs a mechanism to block editing per article by IP range. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a case where pending changes would be perfect. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• twitch*twitch* PC is something I...well, seriously dislike. Unfortunatly Sign In To Edit is something WMF says "in a pig's eye" about... - — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs)

There's a strong case to semi-protect all articles on the militaries of developing countries: they're regular vandal-magnets which aren't watched by many editors, and adding lists of fictional equipment like this pretty common and often goes undetected for lengthy periods. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Could I second your statement Nick? Where would I make a formal proposal for semi-protection of a significant number of African, Asian, and some S. American countries' root armed forces articles, to start with? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You could put together an RfC here, and point to it from one of the VP pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon. While this does follow the trend in the way WP has been developing, it's still a bit of a departure from the existing guidelines. Does anyone have any other comments before I start compiling the RfC? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection of some sort like this makes sense to me. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A forewarning: for any chance of the RfC to succeed, you're going to need to come up with an argument against the many people who will simply say "we don't preemptively protect." My thought is examples of serious, uncaught vandalism from a bunch of these sorts of articles, but you may have (a) better idea(s). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A little while ago I tried sampling several African countries' articles and found that lists of military hardware were in a really bad state. Today I cleaned out Myanmar Army - it was a disgrace. Basically, most of these lists of military equipment have been sitting around for years since somebody copied a list off some other site, and in the intervening time there's a steady stream of edits which fall into two broad categories; established editors make superficial changes (typo fixes, linkifying &c), and IPs adding extra cool new tanks and planes to glorify their mother country, maybe add an extra zero to one of the numbers, &c. Forget about sources, of course. I've watchlisted several of these articles and it makes pretty depressing viewing. Semiprotection would prevent most of the crap and perhaps allow a little more breathing space for more competent/experienced editors to trim down the lists so they reflect what sources say... this is supposed to be an encyclopædia but we have a collection of several hundred articles where the content simply cannot be trusted. I would welcome semiprotection, or any other response which could stop these articles filling up with outright fiction. There just isn't enough adult supervision. bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ed and Bobrayner. Bob, double thank you: I've noticed your efforts clearing out a number of the different articles over the past couple of months. Can I please call for volunteers to amass some diffs, in accordance with Ed's statement, please for various articles? - I'll be working on Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and some West African countries, plus probably Indonesia, but would appreciate some help as well. Ed, would you please take this to the coordinators, tell them that I plan to create an RfC, and request their thoughts? I will not proceed unless the coordinators think this is justified. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also the problem may be greatest with air forces; there are continual disagreements over Russian Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I had "African countries" and "Asian countries" on my to-do list but that may be overly ambitious! Could probably scale that down to just "African countries".

If we want to put together a coherent case for action which the rest of the community might find drastic (ie. wideranging semiprotection) that's a separate task from simply fixing these articles. To put together that case it would be a good idea to sample a bunch of articles over a defined period (say, the whole of 2011?) and look at what changes were good/bad. No? bobrayner (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on our common existing interest and find African diffs. Yes, this is not about fixing the articles - that will come later, with some added interest and attention. This is the first step of trying to prevent the damage becoming any worse. I'll look at Sudan (already have had some criticism for trying to protect Sudanese Armed Forces), Ivory Coast (National_Armed_Forces_of_Côte_d'Ivoire), Liberia, Guinea (Conakry), Nigeria, S/Sudan, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, and potentially others (Kazakhstan : [3]). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should just get the developers to add range-blocking-per-page. But then, I am editing from an IP address. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Bob R's last few edits, add Myanmar/Burma, Vietnam, Djibouti... Buckshot06 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember, the "serious" has to be in the eye of the beholder, ie non-Milhist people looking at the RfC. That said, removing a flag of NATO in early 2010 isn't going to be perceived as a major error by them, imho. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not really a milhist person; I just get vexed by articles where the content can't be trusted because people add made-up stuff. Deliberate insertion of false data surely counts as "serious" in the eyes of the wider community; this is supposed to be an encyclopædia. I think 70.24.251.208's proposal would be very helpful, but I doubt the developers are going to build it soon... bobrayner (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I can provide evidence of an IP editor deliberately adding bollocks to articles on developing countries' militaries over much of last year and early this year - including in the articles Buckshot noted above. In several cases this material remained in the article for months, and it only ended when he tried the same thing to the article on the South African National Defence Force, which is actually watched by several editors. Bob's post is an excellent summary of these issues. Buckshot; have you started a draft of the RfC? Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Question from the peanut gallery. Given I am totally ignorant of the genuine TO&E, would simply watchlisting CamAF actually help? (I did, but I'm now thinking it may be a wash... :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisting would help. Lack of watchers enables this kind of damage. An editor who is not an SME might not recognise sneaky vandalism, but most of this damage is pretty blatant. If the article on the ArbitraryCountry Navy says they have 10 frigates (perhaps with some ref which may or may nor be readable right now), and then some transient editor changes the article to say 20 frigates (and there's no new source, of course) ... it doesn't take an expert to hit the revert button and remind the editor of WP:BURDEN. bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also: It might be a good idea to delay opening an RfC until there's a neat little pile of evidence. Starting an RfC and then introducing evidence in dribs & drabs, after other editors have been woken up and set up their defences, might not be an ideal military strategy. bobrayner (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Watchlisting would help." Thx, your reasoning makes it clear: any little bit helps. (Baby steps. ;p ) James Wilson, M.D. ^{sod off, Sherlock} 14:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2) A lot of the "more creative" additions to small African and Asian air forces are pretty obvious as they usually consist of adding completely unlikely aircraft (like 100s of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors being added to sub-Saharan African nations) and there are some decent souces readily available on the web, including Milaviapress.com and The Flightglobal World Air Forces directory. Ither items, such as smal arms and artillery may be more difficult to detect what is real and what is nonsense.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes things aren't so obvious though; "sneaky numbers vandalism" is one of the most insidious kinds of vandalism there is. Basically use a source, reference it, and then any change from the referenced data that isn't referenced itself should be nuked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that The ed17 may have misunderstood my first diff add from Kazakhstan. I do not intend to start an RfC until we have two hundred or so flagrant diffs lined up - and many of them will be able to come from Kazakhstan; that one is relatively minor. That was why I asked for people to help in amassing diffs here. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For example: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] etc, in Kazakhstan alone. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, [12] from Kenya, bogus number of 63,000 had gone uncorrected since at least Dec 2010 [13], Buckshot06 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I picked another African country at random; Botswana.

• Anonymous editor says Botswana "has sent its nuclear scientists abroad with possibility of producing nuclear weapons" and an army of over 100,000 (something of an upgrade over the 15000 which another anonymous editor hid further down in the article body)
• Janes says "Botswana does not have a nuclear weapons programme" and "current strength is approximately 8,700"

Which one would you believe? bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some IP addresses used by the editor I call the 'Israeli IP vandal' given that they always geolocate to somewhere in Israel and add nothing but nonsense: 79.182.170.8 (talk · contribs), 79.177.159.249 (talk · contribs), 79.182.211.102 (talk · contribs) and 109.66.199.199 (talk · contribs). The great majority of these many edits to the articles on developing militaries are vandalism, and these IPs are just the tip of the iceberg of this idiot's activities. As some tasters of the rubbish this guy has been adding, Papua New Guinea has a squadron-sized force of BDRM armoured cars [14], the Lebanese Ground Forces operates a large, and exotic, fleet of tanks and missiles: [15] [16], every soldier in the Royal Brunei Land Forces seem to have a different type of modern rifle [17], Botswana has an excellent air defence network [18] and an impressive, if exotic, range of equipment for its army [19], Suriname has a strong force of artillery [20], tanks [21] and other armoured fighting vehicles [22]. And so on. The stuff about Suriname is obviously in the outer reaches of fantasy, but was added to the article in May 2011 and remained there until I removed it in February this year. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Further examples from this guy (via 79.180.150.191 (talk · contribs)): Ethiopia has powerful fleets of tanks [23] and artillery [24] - this account added nonsense to the Ethiopian National Defense Force over several days in early February without anyone stopping them (the article gets about 140 page views per day). The same applies to rubbish this editor added to the Tunisian Armed Forces article from various IP addresses - obvious fiction added to this article in mid last year remained there until Bob and myself removed it in February (the article gets about 50 page views per day). The common thread is that the activities of this vandal illustrate that these important articles on national militaries aren't being effectively policed, and it's currently easy for people to add total fiction to them. Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the sisyphean task of systematically cleaning up every African list, line by line, using the SIPRI database as a baseline. I'm worried about the possibility of circular sourcing (ie. somebody adds made-up stuff to one of our articles, then another site copies our content, then somebody tries to cite that site, creating an unbreakable circle of fiction... anybody know if sites like [25] can be trusted? bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Trust nothing but SIPRI or the IISS, or specific sources from the country in question that you judge authentic. I happen to have an electronic copy of IISS 2009, which is perfectly adequate for WP citations - I'll send it to you. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help bobrayner (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up Military of Guinea, removing non-existent Mamba APCs, which conflict with the Military Balance 2012, and correcting a number of equipment figures. [26] Buckshot06 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I've filed a proposal for a per-page IP rangeblocking tool, see WP:Village_pump_(proposals)#Per_page_IP-rangeblocking -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideas for WWI-related events in the UK

Hi folks! As some of you might know, I spend many of my weekend doing things for Wikimedia UK. WMUK currently has a decent budget allocated to doing things in the run-up to the First World War centenary, and I am chatting to Chris Keating (User:The Land, who is a WMUK trustee, and is responsible for that budget). We held an editathon back on 16 June, which brought the UK government's JISC, the British Library, Wikipedians, and academics to work on articles related to WWI.

Chris is currently seeking ideas for the format and venue for future editathons, and I'd like to hear any ideas from MilHisters. I can only promise to liaise between MilHist and WMUK, and I'm not in a position to make firm commitments, but it would be great to hear ideas. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic. I have a lot of ideas but not a lot of time today, I'll do some brainstorming on your talk page this week. Thanks so much, Harry. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideas are great, and I'd love to hear them all—even the crazy ones! I'll do what I can to help turn them into reality. May I suggest we use this page, just so that others feel more able to take part and so that I can point other people to one link? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is in-scope or legally/logistically feasible, but the page for the initial editathon states that "We'll certainly have a digital copy of the British Official History of Operations in France and Belgium on a DVD". A project to place a verified copy of this source online in some form would be invaluable - while the official history is dated and flawed in many ways (see John Keegan's famous demolition job of its writing style in The Face of Battle), it remains a useful source, especially as the volumes contain good quality maps and reliable order of battles. Failing that, a project to upload the maps to Commons would be great. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses

Hi all

I have re-assessed the article against the B-class criteria due to a Start vs. C class issue (My notes and Objection to C class). The article was originally upgraded to C class by another editor (User:Tpbradbury).

It might be appropriate for others with more knowledge to check the article for accuracy. It does seem to be mostly summaries of other articles and I cannot see any real issues, though my personal knowledge of the time period is very limited.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on article improvement as now begun on the talk page. Any editor who can help out with strengthening of the military aspects of the article would be most welcome, as the main active editor has asked for support to provide referenced content in this aspect of the article. Monstrelet (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for extra eyes and fingers

On 7 July 2012 USS Iowa (BB-61) will officially open as a museum ship in LA. As of the last few weeks, we have seen increased editing for both the USS Iowa article and to a lesser extent the article Iowa-class battleship. As the articles in question currently rate as FA and GA class, respectively, I would like to ask if a few good editors could help out our quality content pages by making sure that the inevitable editing they see in the next week or two is A) information that we actually need in the article and B) added with all necessary citations and in accordance with all the current editing practices on the page (Ie: using "she" and "her" instead of it for the ship, not adding pop culture material, adding all necessary citation template info, etc). Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm stepping up to the line, ready as ever to keep the articles ship-shape. I got a chance to walk part of the Iowa during the little bit of prep work in Richmond, CA. Some day I'll return aboard to see the full museum ship. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone own 'The Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War Part 2'?

Hi all,

There are a couple of points that need to be claified on the Rhino tank article, that have been sourced from : Fletcher, David (1993). The Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War Part 2. Stationery Office Books. ISBN 978-0-11-290534-9.

If anyone owns this book, would they be able to take a look at the "Usage" section?

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got it; the book supports the article. I've rewritten things a little to clarify the points under question. The different types of Prongs were designed to fit different types of tanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much bud! Top stuff.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Defence Force photos on Flickr

The NZDF has recently uploaded a huge number of high-quality images onto its Flickr stream under a Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons-friendly license. These images cover most aspects of the NZDF's activities and most of its major equipment, though there doesn't appear to be any coverage of the NZ Special Air Service Regiment. Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

New peer review: Huon Peninsula campaign

G'day all, I've requested a peer review for the Huon Peninsula campaign article. I expanded the article considerably last week and would like to take it to GAN shortly (and possibly to ACR and FAC eventually). The peer review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Huon Peninsula campaign/archive1. Please stop by if you get a chance. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

GA reassessment for American Civil War

The Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/2 is still ongoing. Comments would be appreciated. 76.7.238.93 (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional Eyes

After a significant Hiatus I am working towards getting Military history of Asian Americans elevated to GA status, and possibly higher. Presently there is a PR that is active. If anyone has time, I am requesting additional eyes on the article, to suggest/enact improvements towards the goal of elevation to at least GA. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Have left some comments on the PR page. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

References for Tactical Missile Squadron

The portion of the article on the 24th Tactical Missile Squadron that covers its history under that name during the 1950s is essentially without citation or support. At the end of the article is a reference to Mindling, George; Bolton, Robert (2009). U.S. Air Force Tactical Missiles, 1949-1969 The Pioneers. George Mindling & Robert Bolton. ISBN 978-0-557-00029-6, and presumably the information was taken from that work. I don't have the book, so I can't do it. It would be an improvement to the article if someone with the book could add some cites. I believe the information is accurate, based on non-encyclopedic sources (although I deleted a statement that the squadron's personnel were transferred to a group that inactivated the same day as the squadron). Lineagegeek (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

National military clean-up campaign now underway

As a reminder, the campaign to clean up and improve articles on national militaries (broadly construed) is now underway. Information about this important project is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/2012 Cleanup Campaign. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lancia IZM

Hi, I'm in the item Lancia IZM but I have some difficulty with the flags of some of the templates were not contemporaries, someone can check the item and place the flags to "operators". thank you very much --Pava (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I also made available an image: File:Ruo ita LanciaIZ.jpg, since it was devoid commons. But I can not add it to the template, if someone can do me a favor. thanks--Pava (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Done & done. Hopefully, the flagicons are right... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think the correct flag for the German Empire is this: File:Flag of the German Empire.svg --Pava (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed --Thefrood ^talk 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Result of the Soviet Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive

There is a disagreement about what the result in the infobox should be.[27] Can users here give their opinions? [28] -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for third A-class review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanisław Koniecpolski is likely going to be failed for the second time, due to only getting two A-class support comments, again (no objection, just lack of interest). This is not the first article I've seen it happen to, and it makes me think that we need to rethink the A-class requirements. It's not fair for article to be failed because there's not enough reviewers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

On a volunteer project, we're always at the mercy of people's free time and level of interest. How would you suggest we alter the ACR requirements to cope with this? I wouldn't say the coordinators (me included) are coming down hard on the 28-day limit these days. In any case, let's see what comes of this notice -- and have you pinged reviewers of your other noms with neutrally worded requests? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the AFD model where not enough votes gets something relisted again, ad infinitum, till enough interested (votes) is generated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The AfD model has never worked for any level of article review, that I've noticed, probably because reviewing is harder. We do have enough reviewers, in general, at A-class. Have you tried reviewing other people's articles? It's not required, but it works. - Dank (push to talk) 11:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Pavle Đurišić A-Class review

Could someone please do another comprehensive review of the Pavle Đurišić article for the A-Class nomination? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried reviewing other people's articles? It's not required, but if you're lacking reviews, that's one way to fix the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification regarding Talk:Sino-Xiongnu War and whether "war" should be capitalized

You are invited to participate in the discussion happening over at Talk:Sino-Xiongnu War#Requested move. This discussion could have far-reaching effects with any article with "War" in the title. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kaylea Brunk article

Hi all. I stumbled across this wikipedia article (while doing some wikifying) which appears to be an orphan WW2 article - and at first reading makes little sense. Does anyone want to tackle it and put it in context? Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Page link- Kaylea Brunk. Is it an operational name? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That appears to be a work page or equivalent. I've just moved it to user space of the editor who created it (User:Docmur/Operation Totalize). Thanks for raising this! Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Death daggers"

Someone has been adding what look like crosses after names in battle infoboxes. I am told they are "death daggers" and indicate a commander who died in the battle, but I have never seen this usage in an English-language context and to me it seems unnecessary and easily interpreted as religious. Is there a consensus in this project or on a broader basis supporting this usage? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

IIRC we've discussed this before and, although most contributors didn't use this convention, there wasn't a consensus to purge them.Monstrelet (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well if there is no consensus to add them, I'll continue zapping them when I see them getting added. Because so far as I know it's not an English-language convention at all, and I can't see any reason to adopt it. I wondered if you people endorsed it as a tradition in battle summaries. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The most recent conversation is (I think) here, but the bulk of discussion has taken place at Template talk:KIA. If you remove them, don't be surprised if they just get re-added. A lot of editors are quite happy to use them and as Monstrelet says there was no consensus to purge them (this does not equate to "no consensus to add them" btw). The dagger as a symbol is quite common in heraldry (think of family trees) and I see them frequently in my line of work. Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So this issue is coming to a head at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest article. Yngvadottir removed the dagger from the article, without consensus, despite the fact the dagger has been on the article for nearly seven years. I would like to reach a consensus here, and whatever the result is should be binding on all battle articles. I think that is fair. Yngvadottir has been using the lack of consensus here to act unilaterally elsewhere.--Tataryn77 (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This sounds almost like the "ships as she" issue we had some years back, and there the solution was to allow editors the leeway to use she or it as they saw fit so long as the article was internally consistent. Drawing off that, might I suggest that if they are going to be used that they be used across all applicable pages for consistency? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen the daggers in offline sources, but if they're explained, I'd have no problem with them. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom, by all applicable pages, do you mean all articles with a military conflict infobox, or all the pages from a particular war or campaign? Just checking. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I would define this as a being applied to a given war or campaign, so as to allow the latitude among editors to discuss and reach consensus for the inclusion or exclusion of the dagger as it relates to the specific pages. I have seen this as a common practice in certain western military history publications, but as it does not appear to be a universal thing allowing autonomy for the inclusion or exclusion of the daggers would give some leeway to both parties as to whether or not they should be included in our conflict boxes. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The cross/dagger was apparently placed in the Teutoburger Wald article when its infobox was changed to the current version (in late 2005). I noticed it, had no idea what it was - at that small resolution and in the typeface I view Wikipedia in, it looks like a cross, and I have never seen thuis usage outside foreign-language designations of birth and death dates - in March 2011. I removed it and no one reinstated it until an editor added it to several infoboxes on battle pages a couple of days ago. Insofar as this is an incomprehensible symbol in an English-language context and likely to be misinterpreted as religious advocacy, I don't think there's any compelling reason to force its use across all articles. I had to have its meaning explained; I still don't see it as particularly useful to have "the commander died" indicated in the infobox, and nor apparently did anyone during the more than a year it was absent from the article. i.e., there is demonstrably no longer consensus to have the symbol in that particular article (which has 110 watchers). Since others apparently disagree on the usefulness of the data point in the infobox, I've inserted the word "died" in parentheses. Unlike the cross, that's unambiguous. If it's the inclusion of the info that matters, that should suffice. I think explaining it would be ludicrous - the whole point of a symbol is it's clear and short. If we linked to some statement somewhere, the link would be hard to see on something so small; and symbols that require explanation are not very useful as symbols. Judging by what I've been told here and at the article, in some fields it's current. And together with the asterisk for birthdate, I'm familiar with it in other languages. But it's just not used in English-language prose, especially isolated like that. It's just clutter to the vast majority of readers. (I had no idea what it meant in this context, and I'm pretty well educated.) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but all you've cited here is your own opinion, whilst the information at the article on these icons is sourced to reliable references. If you can source your statement that these are not used in English language prose or your repeated comments that they are in fact foreign, I might be more interested. But at the moment it's just your viewpoint (which is at odds with sources). Additionally, whilst you might be of the opinion that there is "demonstrably no longer consensus to have the symbol in that particular article", you're basing that on events of over a year ago, but here and today there is demonstrably consensus to include it in the article, based on the ever growing number of editors who are reverting you. It would also appear that only you are against the dagger's inclusion. Why are the events of a year ago valid and current events are not?

The situation on that article is now edit warring on your part (3RR) and I'd advise you to self revert and discuss before you continue. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I see someone here saying they've never seen the daggers in offline sources (I addressed their suggestion of an explanation in the infobox); an initial statement that no consensus was reached on the issue here at the project; and our article rightly says this is an occasional use and the primary use (in English) is to indicate a footnote. I also pointed out that its use in isolation here, and typographically appearing so like a cross, makes it hard to associate with the use with death dates. I'm not basing my claim of consensus against it in that article on the events of over a year ago but on the long gap before it was reintroduced, which to me shows a change in consensus there. However, I was indeed wrong about the 3RR rule; I believed changing from simply reverting to introducing an alternative option to satisfy the point raised by teh other editor(s) was an exception. Also, you are now discussing reaching a new consensus here at this project, which I am not a member of. So I've unwatched the article. I still think the symbol is unclear and misleading; in fact an example of entrenched bias, since the "cross" reading is the only obvious one; but the project is now deciding on a consistent policy, and that makes it no longer my business, so I'll leave the article to its other watchers. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that there are two issues here. First, whether it is important to show the deaths of commanders in the infobox, second, whether the dagger is the appropriate way to do that.

On the first issue, I believe it is important to show deaths in the infobox. Not only does it instantly inform the reader, but it is often a very important result in itself. A number of battles are more famous for the death of their commander (or someone else within the infobox) than the battle itself, and in many other instances, the death of the commander was important to the outcome. Quite often victorious sides lose heavily through the loss of a commander and many battles are so synonymous with the death of a commander that they are rarely mentioned without also mentioning that loss. In that sense, the infobox wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't also summarise the loss. Some battles to hint at what I'm getting at are here - this is just off the top of my head and I'm sure there are plenty of others; Battle of Goose Green, Battle of Trafalgar, Battle of Hastings, Battle of Bosworth Field, Incident at Honnō-ji, Battle of Thermopylae, Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, Battle of the Little Bighorn, Battle of the Alamo.

The second issue is whether the dagger is suitable to make this summary. I personally see no problem with it. The usual argument against it is that it looks like a cross; quite frankly its similarity to a religous symbol doesn't strike me as a reason to change it. So what if they're similar? This is a typograhic font with its own history and should be respected as such. In the past, KIA has been suggested as an alternative, but I don't believe that this is an appropriate term for anything pre-20th century.

I think Tom's idea above is an excellent one. Consistency across eras/wars/campaigns would be excellent and will enable like minded and better informed editors to make the decision. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of initialisation/abbreviation for "divisional reconnaissance battalion"

Hi all,

I am currently working on 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), and a copy editor has suggested that I abbreviate 'divisional reconnaissance battalion' (Aufklärungsabteilung), which appears numerous times in the article. I wanted to get a view on whether a made-up initialisation such as 'DRB' or a more military NATO-like abbreviation such as ' div recce bn' or 'div recon bn' would be considered appropriate, or whether I should just keep the full title. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered the first use being "Aufklärungsabteilung (Reconnaissance battalion)" and just having all further uses as "Reconnaissance battalion." People are often much happier reading jargon if the jargon is in their own language. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. What I have at the moment is the term 'divisional reconnaissance battalion' (in English), quite a few times in the article. I could just reduce it to 'the reconnaissance battalion', or further abbreviate it via an initialisation or abbreviation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Initialisms or novel contractions for a translated jargon term aren't the best in terms of readability. But neither are very long phrase names. Is "Recon" a commonly enough understood synonym or "Reconnaissance" here? Recon battalion is much shorter. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, coming from a military background, I consider recce or recon pretty accessible, but I'm interested in the wider non-military community view. I think 'recon battalion' is good, but maybe it is too much to abbreviate it at all, given this is an encyclopedia. We military-types like to abbreviate everything... Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If the first use of Aufklärungsabteilung is bracketed with (recon battalion) with a link on recon battalion to the concept of operational military reconnaissance (or the nearest equivalent) that ought to work for most readers. It associates the funny German word with a short English phrase, and they can look the phrase up if they're confused? I'm not military background, but I'm a historian and have read too much military history to be a garden variety reader :\ . Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a plan. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Peacemaker, after you've established it's a recon bn, I'd say just "the batallion" would be plenty; if you've mentioned another, then the bn ID# til you're clearly taiking about it, & back to "the bn". (Can you tell I've read too much milhist? ;p ) Unless I've completely misunderstood your question... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Special project proposal

I was browsing through the page and saw that you have special projects for certain Eras or countries. Do we have one for India as well? And if not can we have one for India? Because many Indian military related articles are not sourced, and most don't exist at all. Anurag2k12 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We do have a task force that covers India: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/South Asian military history task force. Kirill ^[talk] 00:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling. Anurag2k12 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

May Revolution

There's a FAC open for the article May Revolution at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive5. All comments are welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone coming to Wikimania?

Out of curiosity, are any MILHISTers coming to Wikimania next week? (And, assuming that some are, would there be any interest in holding a MILHIST meetup sometime during the conference?) Kirill ^[talk] 22:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't be going to the conference, but I'm in DC for the summer, and could come to a MILHIST meetup. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes and yes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't afford to take that much time off summer school.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be there, and yes, I'd love to attend a MILHIST meetup. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm out, I'm too poor to afford a trip right now. Another time, perhaps. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have too much going on to attend the whole thing but I might stop by at some point. Kumioko (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the current event schedule, I would suggest a group dinner on Thursday night as the least likely to conflict with other major events. Anyone up for that?

(Dank has also mentioned that he's going to try and organize a MILHIST-related session during the un-conference on Sunday, so that might be an alternative time to meet, although it will be less of a social occasion.) Kirill ^[talk] 15:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thursday or Friday night works fine with me, and I'll be around for the unconference. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm available Friday or Saturday, and I'm attending the Unconference. If we don't get something set up before Wikimania, I'll have email access throughout. - Dank (push to talk) 10:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What Ed said. My schedule is pretty flexible. Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't thursday night but any other night is fine. Kumioko (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just going by what I see here, Friday night looks more likely than Thursday. Kirill, if you already have some people meeting up on Thursday, could you ride herd on those cats guys? For anyone who wants to meet up Friday, I'll be sitting outside the conference rooms with a very high-tech piece of paper on the wall that says "Military History Meetup" when the last sessions are over, around 4:30. If anyone wants to meet us somewhere else, email me and tell me where you'll be. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is actually confirmed for Thursday exclusively (except for me—I have another event Friday evening), so I guess you can handle the Friday dinner, and we'll try to have a session at the unconference on Sunday. I expect that I'll see some/all of you at the conference in any case. Kirill ^[talk] 00:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Friday night sounds good, but sorry Kirill. :/ Someone should remind me to add that to the main WM2012 schedule tomorrow. Hopefully the unconference session will be early-ish, as my flight leaves at 3! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoever gets to the Sunday un-conference board first, grab a morning slot, please. - Dank (push to talk) 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thought, if we have a Milhist dinner Friday, why not a WikiProject-wide unconference to trade ideas on how to make these projects better? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me ... but which "projects", Ed? - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

First, thank to everyone for attending. I had a fun time, and I hope you all did too! Dank- I mean, let's get WikiProjects together to discuss what they've done right (and wrong) so we all learn from it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar
99.9% complete Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists Goal: 0 articles Current: 28 articles Initial: 24,689 articles

Trying to help out in my area of interest, I have come across a couple of talk pages for list articles that are redirected to other lists. Apparently, inserting {{WPMILHIST|class=Redirect}} makes it appear as having an incomplete checklist. Is there any value in this template on a talk page? If there is, I will return and add {{WPMILHIST|class=Redirect|B1=n|B2=n|B3=n|B4=n|B5=n}}, but it seems to me there would be nothing lost by deleting the template.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide an example or two please? Gavbadger (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone else had decided to be bold. They no longer appear on the list.--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Important news from Wikimania, and some ideas for improving the project

This afternoon at Wikimania, Erik Möller, the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, gave a presentation on the state of WikiProjects and the Foundation's plans in relation to them. I believe the full presentation slides and video will be available shortly, but I'll briefly summarize the key points:

• The Foundation considers WikiProjects to be an important element in its overall strategy for engaging and retaining editors. (We were highlighted as one of the better-run projects, incidentally.)
• Over the past several years, WikiProject participation levels have been steadily decreasing, particularly among newer editors. Some of this can be attributed to the overall decline in editor numbers, but there are also contributing factors specific to the current WikiProject model. In particular, Erik pointed out that WikiProject pages are typically complex and text-heavy (which hampers engagement with newer editors, who are used to more streamlined interfaces), and that there is little attention paid to direct, immediate engagement mechanisms (e.g. allowing people to easily and intuitively join the project, highlighting new developments and activities, offering visitors specific suggestions of articles to work on, etc.).
• Over the next two to three years, the Foundation plans to implement a number of software features that will make WikiProject administration easier; these include automatic generation of suggested task and workflow lists, easy ways to send notifications to interested editors, and so forth.

(Dan and Ed were also at the presentation, incidentally, so I suspect they'll have some observations of their own to share as well.)

The promised new software features look very interesting, and will definitely revolutionize large portions of how WikiProjects work behind the scenes, as well as how they present themselves to visitors. At the same time, those features are several years away; personally, I don't think that it really makes sense for us to simply wait for them, stagnating all the while.

With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that we move forward with some form of interim approach to increasing editor engagement ourselves. Obviously, not all of what the Foundation plans to implement can be done without the software changes—in fact, large portions of it simply aren't possible with the features currently available in MediaWiki—but I think there's still a lot that can be done (albeit not quite as easily or neatly) to allow us to better engage new editors. In particular, I would suggest that we explore the following possibilities:

1. Work to radically simplify and streamline the core project and task force pages, with a focus on immediate engagement (news feeds, lists of suggestions, etc.). Most of the heavy text would be moved into some form of (well-indexed) "help" system; this could combine the explanatory text on various pages with the materials we've already collected as part of our academy initiative.
2. Create automated task selection mechanisms to allow random/rotating open task lists. There are limits to what we can do—there's no easy way to randomly select articles from categories, so we'd probably need to get some form of bot assistance eventually—but there's certainly potential in this area.
3. Explore ways to directly engage new editors in the area (e.g. by having bot-filtered lists of new editors making military history edits, using automation-assisted invitation mechanisms, etc.).

Any comments, suggestions, and so forth would be very appreciated! Kirill ^[talk] 21:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

On the matter of exploring ways to directly engage new editors, we will have to expand to the anon/isp group that edits on a limited basis to see if we can not woo these people into creating accounts. If we can do that then we can bolster our numbers in the long term, but that's going to require a very unorthodox approach to the issue, something like using a bot to compile long term editing patterns and cross them with pages that fall within the project scope. That's my two cents on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting - might try to make the birds wikiproject front page more userfriendly in the meantime...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Great ideas, Kirill, I'm totally behind this. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ach Kirill, you got to this before me! I'm on board with all of your proposed changes. I do wonder if your 'help' pages would be better placed at /About, though. Otherwise, I agree that we need to drastically reduce our reliance on textual main pages. His screenshots (which I can't find online yet, unfortunately) were enormously easy to read, and possibly the most drastic difference was the prominence of the 'join' button... which on our page is a relatively hidden wikilink. The cover image with large title also quickly defines where the user is and what the scope of the project is. Casliber, I wonder if your project has a coder person who could work with Kirill (and anyone else who jumps in here) to improve both our pages. No sense duplicating effort, after all. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are all great suggestions Kirill, and thanks for the report on the presentation. I particularly like the idea of having a prominent list of red links and/or articles which could be easily improved. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't at Wikimania, but I'm certainly open to any ideas like those above (when the specifics have been come up with). One thing I would say is that I don't think "burying" information is any good, it can just create more "middle management" pages and the appearance of more, not less, stuff. If there's too much then I think it ought to be deleted/abbreviated. I think it's possible to overestimate the usefulness of some of the information. I think the way we do taskforces needs to be looked at, as well – their role and how useful they actually are (they don't have discussion pages after many went inactive, for example). I think the contest and showcase need to be reviewed as well, particularly their prominence in the current horizontal navigation – e.g. the showcase is likely to be viewed ~8 times today. Is it worth showing off (there may be merit in a list for recording purposes that we don't show off, I don't know). Generally streamlining MILHIST's operation looks like the way forward. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Great job Kirill and I wished I could have made it to that. I looked for you at the reception but didn't see you in the 600+ people that were their.:-) For what its worth I would also like to do these things with WikiProject United States supported projects and have been trying to work some of these already. I think it would benefit all of us if multiple projects worked together on this concept. Here are a few of the things I have done if it helps.

1. Some work has already been done by cleaning up some of the WikiProject's template coding and how they display, standard naming conventions, cleaning up the unused ones and marking them as such or in some cases deleting them. Setting up bots to complete some tasks, etc.
2. I think it would be a rather easy task for someone to setup a bot that would scrape through a Projects pages and look for red links. This would help generate the red link lists more quickly and accurately. I had requested this a couple times before but no one adopted it. I think if it shows that multiple projects want it, particularly 2 rather large groups of them, it might garner more support.
3. I have worked to standardize the layout and mechanism and layout between the WPUS supported projects for identifying active and inactive participants. I think its important to identify the inactive ones as well as the active and I think using the word participant is a bit more neutral than member. Using the term member seems to have the conotation that its some exclusive club to some groups.
4. I worked to create a bot generated WikiProject Watchlist but that bot was run by one of Rich Farmbourough's bots and those were blocked from editing. Myself and a couple of others have been working to get someone to pick that task back up but so far no one has been interested. The current discussion is Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#Smackbot and Femtobot tasks if anyone is interested. There is also a project Watchlist tool on the toolserver here that's pretty good but it has its limitations. There is also Catscan and a few others that can help in this area.
5. As far as cleaning up the look and layout of project pages I had also thought a lot about this one. I think the tabbed look that our 2 projects has is a really good start, we could also look at doing some things like how the teahouse is layed out (I think its kinda confusing too though) or perhaps something like how my user page is layed out. I think if we make the project pages look professional, with some attractive but neutral and minimal colors with a strong and easy layout we would get a lot of bang for our buck. I was thinking about a layout that combined the tabbed look with the layout on my Userpage.
6. I also think that the portals are a good tool that is hugely underused but that's a different topic.

There's plenty more but I'm going to stop there so this doesn't get too long. Let me know if you would be interested in our projects working together on this. Kumioko (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of work, thanks for that Kumioko. I guess I need to see what Kirill's going to do. - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas S. Hinde

Currently, myself and others are in the process of polishing the Thomas S. Hinde article, but we have come across a gap in the information about his military service during the War of 1812. All known sources only state Mr. Hinde as being in charge of prisoners during the War of 1812 and serving during the Battle of Lake Erie. I was wondering if anyone in WP:MILHIST had access to any offline records that might shed some light on Mr. Hinde's involvement in the War of 1812. Particularly, we are interested in his rank, and military branch.

Thank you in advance for your time and hope to hear from someone soon.

Best, Lawman4312 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus merge proposals

Afternoon everyone, just to let you all know that I've got three merge proposals onging on Cyprus military history related subjects and I thought this project may be interested and wish to comment. The proposals are:

• RAF Nicosia into Nicosia International Airport (discussion)
• Operation Atilla into Turkish invasion of Cyprus (discussion) Merged
• Sovereign Base Areas with Akrotiri and Dhekelia (discussion)

Any comments would be very much appreciated. Regards, SalopianJames (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I again please urge folks to comment on these discussions, as there is little activity and consensus at the moment! Thanks, SalopianJames (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Another request, if I may, for folks to please take part in the two discussions remaining open as part of this set. At present, the SBA discussion appears to be approaching consensus whilst the Nicosia airport one has none, and so further input would be gratefully received. Thanks, SalopianJames (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How Wiki editors refought the war of 1812

My Wikimania presentation of July 13, 2012 is online at http://americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/1812b-Wk.ppt and I would appreciate some feedback. Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still angry that I missed your presentation! Sorry about that. Was it videotaped? It may be easier to give feedback when they upload those. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That looks interesting, but a video would be great. Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a shame that we are still using a map that puts Indiana north of Illinois. I complained about it before but no one at the Graphic workshop worked on it. Rmhermen (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks for posting that. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Videos of all the Wikimania presentations should be uploaded to Commons before too long. Kirill ^[talk] 12:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating! I think I ought to look at World War I in the same sort of way ;-) The Land (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I felt really good about how well our article had done, until you got to N=1400 neglected journal articles, the systematic neglect towards indigenous views, and the neglect of social and cultural history. Ouch! Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

JISC's writeup of the Wikimedia UK World War I Editathon

You might be interested in reading JISC's writeup of the recent World War I editathon they ran jointly with Wikimedia UK :-) Haven't got around to writing it up from a Wikimedian point of view yet, but we will. The Land (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the write up. Makes me sad I missed the presentation. —Ed!^(talk) 21:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this - it's really interesting. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fleet submarine templates

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Category:Fleet submarine templates

MilHist folks may be interested. It may involve a lot more than submarines. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

3rd Battle of Ypres (Passchendaele) 1917

A discussion is taking place about the structure of the Battle of Passchendaele and the associated articles. Any interested parties are invited to join in here. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD?

I'm looking for some advice. I think Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece is a good candidate for deletion or merging. Any suggestions? Thanks! Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? I read your comment on the talk page, but it wasn't convincing. There appears to be a series of these articles of homosexuality in Greece, Rome, Peru and Egypt - why AfD Greece only? I think it would be better to tag the article with standard "lacks sources", "needs citing" templates, and give time for someone, perhaps a MilHist or LGBT member, to at least attempt to improve the content.. better that than to start a controversial AfD. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 10:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, four points in reply. First, the article has been tagged for lack of citations since January 2009. Second, despite 'Homosexuality' in the title, this article involves 'Pederasty'. Pederasty conflates homosexulaity with pedophilia. I'm not comfortable with any article that invokes associations with pedophilia under the title 'homosexuality' and which isn't backed by reputable modern scholarship. Thirdly, sometimes an AfD concentrates minds wonderfully. Otherwise you could ask nicely for reliable sources till you are blue in the face. Fourthly, controversy is unavoidable when there is so much ignorance about the underlying issues. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In terms of point 2 I think it's the Homosexuality in Ancient Greece, not this military one you gave which delves more into that territory more. I think you need to be careful, as does the article, in not applying modern standards against Ancient Greeks.. the practice of grown Greek men grooming and having sexual relations with boys was a social norm at the time. But then, beating children in schools was also a social norm once in most countries, and still is. Historical Wiki articles are supposed to present facts about a period, without imposing judgement, and definitely without an agenda that is anti- or pro- anything, whether that be homosexuality, paedophilia, or religion. Modern scholarship may very well be reputable, but it is not necessarily contemporary with the Greeks ideas and practices.. therefore there may be bias in some studies - a study by a Christian or Muslim, for example, may present more negative attitudes towards pederasty and attempt to associate it directly with homosexuality than say an atheist or gay scholar. In this territory any "reliable source" is always going to be tough to uphold, because such subjects will always have "reliable" studies on each side of the argument. This is why neutrality must remain the objective - no judgement of the Greeks from our 21st Century anti-paedophile society - we must simply state that Greek men slept with boys, period - we cannot claim they were gay, abusive, "sickos", mentally-ill or any other such judgement, even if a reliable source claims they were. Therefore, if the article is associating pederasty with homosexuality in a way that is perhaps discriminating and unsupported it should be edited and any unsourced material removed. The entire article does not need to be deleted unless the entire article is completely out of line. Given that the article is primarily about homosexuality, not paedophilia, it is fair to assume that there is going to be plenty of subject matter, given that plenty of gay people are known about from these ancient times. I would highly recommend that the matter be highlighted with the LGBT WikiProject, as well as this one - members of the LGBT community may also have views on the matter and sources worth considering. No one can deny these things happened in Greek society, and probably Rome, but a better way of presenting the facts without controversy might be found before an AfD - I don't agree that they "concentrate minds" - most AfDs about such subjects become battlefields, messy debates, and simply end up deadlocked. Given the predictability of such as AfD, I think it would be unfair to start one and lump such a hot subject on admins, when there are alternative solutions to try, long before that. Talk pages and RFC can just as easily gather ideas in a less hostile area, without the "deletion imminent" threat provoking remarks that don't help matters. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. If I can't get an AfD off the ground here I certainly won't get it flying at the LGBT. The fact remains, the article is all primary sources, which of course are pro-pederast, and it has been like that for over three years. I've edited many articles on ancient Greek subjects and I often link to pederasty or mention it in those articles. I have no objection to pederasty as an historical fact, any more than I object to slavery as an historical fact. History is history. It's dead and gone. But that article is not about reporting the past. It's about leaving the past to interpret itself i.e. it's an attempt to recreate the past. I'm going to delete all the unsourced material. That will leave a stub. And I'll feel better after that. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, seems your removal has been opposed per WP:BRD policy. Not unexpected given the huge block you wanted removing. Not sure I understand your "AfD or nothing" attitude, when WP:LGBT would still be the best project to approach for assistance, in my opinion. Mainly, also, because I don't see many MilHist members discussing ancient/classical history, so there might not be many around to help with that article. LGBT members would probably be more willing to help with your concerns, in terms of neutrality - just because they are LGBT doesn't make them pro-LGBT, just more aware of how to make an article less contentious for everyone. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 15:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked for advice re an AfD. You advised against it. I accepted that advice. I then did what I had a right and a duty to do, which is remove all the OR material that's been there since Jan 2009. Anyone who wants to cite recent scholarship can rewrite the article. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked for advice, which was given, along with an alternative that recommends involving others. Your rejection of LGBT involvement comes across as somewhat dismissive, in favour of your personal opinions and "rights" - as a result, I see the article starting to become a revert-war - your removal of material for "what makes you comfortable" is not going to hold water with many editors, nor does it matter that one of the contributors to that page has been banned - what matters is maintaining article quality. Ditching 95% of an article in one go is generally not good practice, even if the article has been tagged for 3 years. Wiki is a community project - so the advice was to take your concerns to members of the community and deal with the article's issues, not apply you own personal thoughts to the content. That would be your duty. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 04:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your suggestions, and I did follow the main point of your advice. The 95% that I removed was somebody's personal essay, using only primary sources. We are meant to summarise recent scholarship and then select primary sources to demonstrate the scholarly interpretation. The projects have ignored the OR for three years. When the police don't bother to fix a problem, let alone stop it from happening, it's time to take matters into your own hands. That's what community means. Why would anyone want to revert to the previous edit? Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not saying the article is not OR, just to be careful in your handling of disputing the content with other editors. The editor who reverted your initial content removal started why in his edit summary here. I would recommend no further reverts, especially from yourself even if he reverts again, as you will be getting into WP:3RR territory. Better to follow WP:BRD and discuss the concerns. If the article has been like that for 3 years, a little longer won't hurt, whilst you work things out between yourselves... Also, just a point of note - a community which takes policing into its own hands are called vigilantes - that is why we have policies, guidelines and laws, because taking matters into your own hands is often an aggressive act with a conflict of interest. Once a community starts down that route, it becomes a mess. But Wiki is neither policed nor moderated, in the sense you describe - you need to bring your concerns to the right members of the community, not expect them to find it amongst millions of articles. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 06:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Heads up......

There's gotta be some core/vital articles that are military history articles....why not buff them for Wikipedia:Core_contest over the month of August? WWII might be a tad tricky but surely there are some other big'uns.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of Flag of Ireland to represent the Provisional IRA

I note that a large number of articles, an example being the Warrenpoint ambush use the flag of Ireland in the infobox to represent the PIRA. Looking at WP:ICON#Avoiding_icon_problems the icon should not be used in this context. Specifically the usage here would appear to contravene the following:

• Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations
• Political issues
• Do not rewrite history

The argument from those adding the icon would appear to be that the PIRA use this flag as their symbol. However, given that Republic of Ireland have the tricolour as the national flag there is vast scope for confusion. Also in political terms it may be said that adding a national symbol to represent the PIRA is an overtly political stance Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

People and organisations often don't fit into neat national pigeonholes, so little flag pictures may often end up being a little misleading, and that's something we ought to avoid in an encyclopædia. Do we actually need them in that infobox? bobrayner (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:ICONS is clear on the issue of when it is acceptable to use them and indeed when not Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

With PIRA being the criminal violence wing of Sinn Feinn I wouldn't be too worried about the politicisaiton of the movement, however there might be an implication of more explicit support by Dublin than there was in practice.

I'd agree that it's inappropriate.

ALR (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The implication the state of Ireland was involved, or supportive, when it was actually the Provos is very troubling to me. Remove it & avoid in future. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd feel more comfortable with more comments before taking any action (with no prejudice to any bold editing) Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's one more: completely inappropriate to hijack the Ireland flag for PIRA. Remove all instances. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree (and not just with relation to the IRA) that inclusion of flags implies some kind of offical support or alliance.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that removing the flags would result in an edit war - it may be an idea for this to go to a formal RFQ - anyone feel like assisting? Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As predicted the removal of the flag has been immediately reverted Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd have thought the Starry Plough was the best one myself (it's what republicans - broadly construed - use at funerals and so on).  Roger Davies ^talk 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The removal is frustrating, considering the strong consensus against flags here; the old talkpage thread also seemed sympathetic to flag-removal so I can't fathom why that's a justification for reverting flags back into the article. To revert whilst also warning sternly about 1RR seems like a very effective way of ensuring that sanctions for an unrelated problem can be used to nail misleading little flag pictures in place... bobrayner (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep - It would appear that previous discussions on the matter have not got to grips with WP:ICON Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not really attached to Warrenpoint ambush or other PIRA-related articles so I'm not harbouring a burning urge to revert that one; but I do think that misleading or gratuitous flagicons should be removed from articles more generally... bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue was ample discussed some time ago here and here. The outcome? the tricolor should stand per WP:NOTCENSOR, an official Wikipedia policy; we're not in Wikipedia to make moral considerations, we're here just to show the facts. Nevertheless, In order to avoid the misleading suggestion that the RoI was involved with the PIRA, the file to which the current flag is linked explains, with the use of reliable sources, 1) why the republican flag predates the use of the tricolor as the symbol of the Irish state by almost a century and 2) that the flag was widely used by the provisionals as their own symbol.--Darius (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The assertion that the editors here are making a 'moral judgement' about the PIRA in seeking to remove the flag is out of order. You'll note assuming good faith is an also official wikipedia policy. I note your objections here but you haven't addressed the original point re: the specified parts of WP:ICON Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The assertion is not only mine, please see the previous discussions. On the other hand, I have no doubts about your GF regarding this issue, you can made a moral judgement in good faith, whether or not that judgement is in line with WP policies is another thing. WP:NOTCENSORED is a Wikipedia official policy, thus it prevails over a guideline like WP:ICON.--Darius (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not showing an icon is not censorship, a totally spurious argument as I don't find it offensive etc. My objection is on the lines I took the time to list above so please answer the following points from WP:ICON:* Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations* Political issues* Do not rewrite history. I would say once and for all I have not made a moral judgement in good faith or otherwise - I'm trying to ensure consistent use of WP:ICON. Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The only line which especifically deals with flags in military infoboxes as per WP:ICON is the following: "The use of country-related flagicons and signal flags in infoboxes for ship articles and military conflicts is appropriate." As the PIRA considers themselves Irish, there is no problem with their use of an Irish symbol (i.e.: the tricolour) since this is a fact according to a myriad of reliable sources. "Do not rewrite history"; history says that "the Tricolour is the flag of the IRA since ideologically they consider themselves to be the legitimate army of the Irish Republic." Queen’s University, Belfast. "Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations"; the page only mentions three cases, none of them regarding the use of the tricoulor. We are talking about infoboxes, hardly an "overbroad" use. "Political issues"; there is no disagreement that the PIRA adopted the tricolour as a symbol, controversially or not, per cited sources, so the suggestion of a misleading political significance is wrong. Remember that WP:SOURCES is also an official policy like WP:NOTCENSOR, not a mere guideline. And while I'am sure that you don't find the use of this flag offensive, it seems not to be the case of other editors in this thread who used phrases like "hijacking", "it troubles me" or "criminal violence wing of Sinn Feinn".--Darius (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

By having the Irish tricolour in the infobox, the article is inadvertantly suggesting that the Irish state is involved - therefore use of flags in the infobox is misleading, as someone has to either read the caption or click on the flag to see what it means. This is a case where use of the flags in infoboxes does not make things clearer and therefore breaches MOS:ICON - WP:notcensored is not relevant here as there is nothing that says that an infobox has to have flags. If they aren't helping then leave them out.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Per previous discussions the tricoulor used in infoboxes is not the same file of the flag of the Republic of Ireland, so if someone click on the flag will find why the banner is also an IRA symbol (try here). Most military infoboxes use flags, and WP:ICON encourages it, thus WP:CENSOR is relevant IMO.Darius (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The two flags appear identical in the infobox, with obviuos potential for confusion. Just because they are called different things does not change that.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess readers are not five-year kids and they will "read the captions" (which clearly reads "Provisional IRA", not "Ireland") and "click on the flag" (where the reader will find the subsequent explanation). Following your standards, we should remove, at least in some context, either the flag of Ireland or the flag of Ivory coast, given that both symbols share the same colors. The use of the same flag by the RoI and the P(IRA) is neither a problem of the infobox nor of the articles; it's a problem of Irish recent history, and as such should be not only reflected but explained by Wikipedia--Darius (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

German reparations for World War II

Does anyone know any books about German reparations for World War II? I find it surprising that the article is completely unreferenced, and a stub. I'd like to find a book about it a try and expand that article. Please talkback. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yaakov Sharett (editor) (2011): The Reparations Controversy. The Jewish State and German Money in the Shadow of the Holocaust 1951-1952. Berlin: de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-025508-9.

I haven't read it yet, only had a review about it in an newsletter today. --Bomzibar (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's in-scope, but there are a few books about the reparations paid by German companies such as Krupp for using slave labourers and contributing to the Holocaust. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany was a case about payment for a particular (set of) atrocities in Greece. JSTOR doesn't reveal much, certainly not indicative of the systematic system of reparations suggested in our article. I would say Marshall Plan sources might be the best if the topic hasn't been studied much on its own. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to be nothing more than a page of pointers to other large articles on reparations. It's very possible that this page is unnecessary, or that references are unwarranted given that the linked pages have them. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Finnish Civil War

Just came across this articlee – I don't have much time for other things but I think it needs attention or Featured Article review (I've not notified anyone). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, heavily uncited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That was British for it definitely needs attention'... :) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. See also:

• (Discuss) – Ho Quy Ly→Hồ Quý Ly Kauffner (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Foreign language sources used by anon editor to MIS article

There is an anon editor that is insisting on entering material into the Military Intelligence Service (United States) article based upon Japanese language sources. Aside from dealing with the poor English skills of the anon editor, I could use some assistance in vetting the claims / sources used by the editor, and determining whether undue weight is being applied. These edits are simultaneously being transcribed to the Japanese-American service in World War II article. — Myasuda (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary, OR, copyvio, citing "opinion" on history against journalists, presses that produce "art" books being used to cite primary sources from? No. The IP editor needs instruction in WP:MILMOS#SOURCES and WP:HISTRS and the sourcing policies of the English wikipedia. Sources being in Japanese is no problem (of course), but the sources they're using are unacceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That whole "Japanese view" section is garbage. As such, I deleted it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. Unfortunately, the anon restoration of the same edits continues unabated (also at Japanese-American service in World War II#Negative evaluation) . . . — Myasuda (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That barely literate junk is gone, too. I've also watchlisted both pages in case it comes back... Clearly somebody pushing a POV. Do you say, Myasuda, it's the same IP? (I didn't look.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

♠Which has been re-added...& rv'd by me. (I'm now on the edge of 3RR, so if anybody can delete next time, I, at least, would appreciate it. :) )

♠Looking at the "sources", there's a single Japanese-language source (& I'm unable to judge the reliability, reading no Japanese :( ), with the rest apparently mere window dressing: supporting the existence of MIS or Nisei in the field, but not the actual allegations. If this is true, finding it in WP:RS shouldn't be hard, even in English. (IIRC, Dower mentions atrocities, but never these {I recall Guadalcanal}...tho it's been awhile since I read it.)

♠Also, despite the claim "I'm not Japanese", it's pretty clear this isn't somebody whose first language is English. Add the anti-U.S. POV... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted it again, and added a comment asking for the IP to wait for actual consensus before adding it back in. The sources (at least the lone English one) look dubious at best, and the writing is certainly not up to scratch. Intothatdarkness 20:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

After a massive 3RR violation, of which I am ashamed to say I have been apart of, I have revert the disputed text and protected the page for a month. All members here-to-for involved in the editing of the page are hence forth notified that as the page is now officially in a content dispute that any action must take place on the talk page first. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thx for that. I'd say both involved pages could use the protection. It appears to me this is one guy, from different IPs. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. Both pages are now on lock down until such time as the dispute works itself out. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've gone around & around & around with this guy. He's thrown out any number of allegations, including ones about 1995 cases. He's yet to offer reliable sourcing for the claims of torture & murder (tho he has, amazingly, sourced for thousands of rapes, which AFAICT isn't one of the claims made on the page...). He's relied on a forum as a source, & continues to offer the professor's name & Okinawa News as sufficient evidence of reliability. It's my view arguing this any further is a waste of effort, & I will have no more to do with it. IMO, it's likely this guy will need to be banned over this, because I see no sign he'll stop. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The anon editor has not, in my opinion, provided a suitable response to Trekphiler's comments or requests for reliable sources for the disputed edits. If such a response is not forthcoming before the article's page protection expiration and if the anon editor then persists in pushing for the disputed edits, is there general concurrence here that the page protection can be reinstated for an additional time period? — Myasuda (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I daresay it's needless for me, :) but, for the record, I agree with that proposal. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. If the disruptive editing resumes once the protection expires, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll re-apply. Parsecboy (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! — Myasuda (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the edits concerned, you shouldn't use your admin powers to protect an article when you are already involved in a dispute over its content. I suggest you leave further admin actions to someone not previously involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Machine shotguns , Category:Selective-fire shotguns , Automatic shotgun

"Category:Machine shotguns" has been proposed to be merged to "Category:Selective-fire shotguns", and that "automatic shotgun" should be renamed. Please note there is also Category:Semi-automatic shotguns -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

for what it's worth, I think that "Category:Selective-fire shotguns" covers fully automatic (ie machine) ahotguns unless "Category:Machine shotguns" covers those with automatic fire only with no selective function. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Legion of Merit of Chile

I've just moved an article I've been drafting on the Legion of Merit of Chile to the main space. I am reluctant to self-rate it beyond Start Class (WPMILHIST)/ C Class (WPODM/WPCHILE), but I think it meets B class requirements and might be approaching GA. Is there someone willing to do a B-class review? Spanish language skills or a willingness to use an online translator would be useful for source verification as there were precious few English language sources that I could find. Given my lack of experience in higher level reviews, any feedback on whether it is in the ballpark for a GA review would also be appreciated. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Image question - File:Map of Phuoc Tuy Province.jpg

Hello all. I recently uploaded this image [29] under a claim of fair use in the article Battle of Long Tan. Yet the more I think about it the more I question whether it really is usable. My understanding of our image policies is fairly limited so if someone with more knowledge can look at it I would be grateful. If it doesn't meet the mark I will mark it for deletion myself. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it probably can't be justified under a fair use claim as it could be replaced by something based on a PD map. However, I imagine that one of the editors who specialise in map making would find that to be an excellent basis to develop such a map. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Nick. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In case someone is interested in creating a map the file was located here: [30]. Anotherclown (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Request Huakai-->Guam

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:HSC Huakai. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun law topics discussion

A discussion at Talk:Gun politics#Duplication and article title concerns what to do with the overlapping articles: firearms law, gun politics, and gun control. Marcus Qwertyus 00:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

QRpedia

Those of you who have cordial relations with staff at military cemeteries might be interested in the deployment of QRpedia at the Congressional Cemetery in Washington DC. There are pictures on Commons.

QRpedia uses QR codes to link to Wikipedia articles, in this case about the notable people buried at the cemetery, and detects the language setting of the users' device, in order to serve the version of the article in that language, where available.

It is available for use, free to anyone. If you can interest a cemetery (or any other venue, such as a battlefield, historic house, or museum) in deploying it, I'm happy to offer advice and assistance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I did much of the work at the Congressional Cemetery and definitely support Andy's message above. QRpedia codes posted right next to graves are unobtrusive and I hope properly respectful. They can give a full article's worth of information with 2 clicks on a smartphone, whereas the usual type of printed information display can be very intrusive, and only has a few paragraphs of information. The most important point here is that the agreement of the proper authorities is required to post the codes in cemeteries (or almost anywhere else). For national cemeteries in the US this agreement might be quite difficult, but I'd ask the on-site care-takers first. Congressional is a private cemetery, and the non-profit that runs it is very dependent on donations from the general public, so they were happy to see the codes posted. Federal authorities might be somewhat different. One thing that surprised me at Congressional - I limited the number of codes to 60 (could have gone up to 300) because I thought that more might be intrusive in the 35 acre site. That wasn't the case at all, if anything they blend in too well, and you don't even notice them. The cost and effort in posting these is minimal, certainly less than $10 per code. The big expense is for a "garden marker" (see photos) at about $6 each (just search "Garden marker" on google to find suppliers). The code itself can just be printed out on card-stock (laser printer, not ink jet) and laminated. These should last through the summer, but in alternately wet and cold climates, I doubt that they'll last the winter. Just replace the the card each year! I'm working on more permanent displays for the US and Andy will have some suggestions for the UK. See WT:QR for help, or contact me on my talk page if you need help. Smallbones (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Among the benefits: substantially raising Wikipedia's visibility and reputation. Well done! - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Military History (TV channel)

FYI, Military History (TV channel) has been proposed to be renamed to Military History, see Talk:Military History (TV channel) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I commented on the Talk page, but the proposal can probably be deleted. It didn't make much sense, and the proposing editor has been recognized as a sock puppet. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Question on the Treaty of Versailles

Did the military provisions of the Treaty of Versailles limit the calibre of German naval guns to 11 inches? I have been discussing this with User:Parsecboy recently. He believes there was no such limitation because it was not explicitly stated; I believe that it was implied in the wording of Article 181. Regardless of what we believe, the sources seem to be split. I agree with Parsecboy that the provisions do not explicitly limit the gun calibre (as it does the displacement in Article 190), but it seems rather odd that some authors believe that it did. How did this come about?

The text of the Treaty is on Wiki source here [31] and our discussion is on my talk page. I'm not looking to rehash the arguments, just to see if any of you know the historiographical reasons for this discrepancy. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Help is needed with the sourcing; see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox military person image param needs updating

Please join discussion at Infobox military person image param needs updating. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Really! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England

Hi guy, I'm looking for a collaborator(s) on this article. It's one of MILHIST's top viewed pages, with 9,000 daily views, and few people could dispute the importance of the subject. It's also got a wide range of scholarship (arguably disproportionately so). I've got two good works on the topic with me, and I think although the article in general is poor the structure isn't bad. Nor is most of it controversial. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can see what I can do. Which two works have you got to hand? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Scarisbrick and Loades. Why we don't have an article on the former, I don't know. (OK, it's because no-one's written it.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'm leaving a message on the article talk page regarding the citation system, which is all over the place at the moment, and which we could usefully sort out at an early stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sacred Band of Thebes

Article is currently undergoing a major expansion. Please join the discussion at Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes#NPOV and David Leitao. Thank you. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

World War II Radar Units

http://www.campevans.org/_CE/docs/theater-deployment-2009-06-01.pdf

Found this document while searching for something else. Thought it might be of interest to some of the members. Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

B class Backlog

As most of you are aware I've been contributing to the decrease of the "B class" Backlog over the last year. Finally at a second discouraging point in the backlog, it seems more and more articles are being written without the "B class" being done than I am able to complete and go through. It has been hovering between 21,778 and 21,790 for the last few days and I seem to be unable to get passed that magical 21,750. It would be appreciate if some more helpers could help with just a few to get past this struggling point I am having. In all, whoever has been helping over the past year to bring it down from around 27,800 down to where it is today, I would like to congratulate you for your consistent persistence with an overwhelming number of articles which grow each day while combating to decrease the number everyday. Any help would be appreciated very much. Adamdaley (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to note for those not in the know, but interested in helping, this is the category Adam is talking about. It's not hard to assess the B-class checklist, and there is relevant information here if you're interested. Parsecboy (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made my way through some of them, and will continue to do so. Intothatdarkness 14:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Intothat – It's appreciated. I can remember when the backlog was around 27,800 a year ago. I would have been happy to get 5,000 completed in my year as a Military History Coordinator, while we have achieved that as a Wikiproject and more. I realise that it was not done all myself and there are people out there whoever they maybe have certainly contributed to this BIG reduction in such a short time. Adamdaley (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A while ago I committed myself to doing 5 a day. Unfortunately I've rarely managed that - taking an uppercut for my laziness! I'll give it another go. Anotherclown (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I know I most do assessment and categorizing but once I am through with my divorce and clear those backlogs again I can probably help with the B-Class Checklist like in the past. --MOLEY (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect Shows as incomplete B Class Checklist

I am raising this again because I can finally cite examples. It would appear that Talk Pages using {{WPMILHIST|class=redirect}} appear on the list of articles with incomplete B class checklists. This would include Talk:List of United States Air Force tactical air support squadrons, Talk:List of United States Air Force range support squadrons, Talk:List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, and Talk:List of USAF Support Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, Talk:List of United States Air Force air rescue squadrons Does the template need to be changed, or do we just need to delete it when it shows up, --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On Talk:List of United States Air Force tactical air support squadrons i have just added list=yes after the class parameter and the category has been removed. Gavbadger (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Further, i believe this may be caused by the template being changed because of the new CL/BL etc list option because there is a new category that i have never seen or heard of before called Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles. Gavbadger (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue with the template-generated category cache mechanism, not anything specific to our template; in broad terms, a page can still appear in the listing on a category page even though the page itself no longer shows that category.

The easiest way to fix this is to perform a null edit (i.e. click the edit button and then click "Save page" without making any changes), which forces the category cache to refresh. Kirill ^[talk] 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. The Talk Page itself displays the template that shows the article is in the redirect category for WPMILHIST properly (The change to the talk page has been completed). However, the talk page still appears on the list of WPMILHIST Lists with incomplete B Class checklists --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. The main listing doesn't actually update in real time; that's a limitation of the MediaWiki category caching system, unfortunately, so there's really no way for us to fix it. Kirill ^[talk] 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about talk pages that the "main article" is actually a redirect to a differant article? I have been redirecting those talk pages to the talk page of the other article. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes these are talk pages where the main article is a redirect. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

But what is the etiquette for doing this if the talk page indicates another Wiki Project is involved? --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of reenactment images

In the last few days photographs of reenactment scenes have been deleted from both the English Civil War and Red coat (British Army) articles. In the ECW case the reason given was that it had been "removed per WP:Milhist policy". Grateful for confirmation that there is such a policy. This is not a contended issue - simply a request for guidance. If reenactments photos are acceptable then there may be a case for restoring the Redcoat picture since it illustrated a point made in the neighboring text.121.73.91.201Buistr (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't find the guidance but my recollection of previous discussion is re-enactment/reconstruction image use depends on the purpose (they shouldn't be used where they would mislead, where suitable authentic images exist or simply for decoration), their degree of accuracy and their utility in illustrating the point. For example, an image of a museum quality reconstruction of Roman armour may be of more use than an image of some rusty frangments. However, if we do have a policy, I'm sure other editors will be able to direct us to it. Monstrelet (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Such a policy would likely be detailed in WP:MILMOS, and I see nothing that disallows use of reenactor photos. IMO, the use of reenactor photos is not much different to using paintings, in that they represent a historical event where live photos are unavailable. In the case of most early Redcoat wars, pre-Crimean War, one of the first photographed wars, there is often little choice as paintings are usually of specific battles or notable figures. Giving readers a rough idea of how things would have appeared with modern photos is not really harmful, nor WP:OR, in the sense that photos are supportive not primary content to be cited. The standards for FA quality articles may be less sympathetic towards recreations, but up to there, I don't see why there should be any problem. The editor claiming policy is wrong, or needs to link to the specific page and section detailing this so-called policy, not to MILHIST in general, as that's passing the buck - he needs to take responsibility for such claims. If there has been a discussion about the matter in the past, which I personally don't recall, the outcome needs of it needs to be determined and entered into project policy clearly, so as to be widely available to everyone, not just a few editors to use when they feel like it. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 09:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out User:MarcusBritish and my replies crossed in the ether. I support his view about clarifying, though I do have a recollection of previous discussion, which, as he says, did also cover the use of artistic images significantly postdating events (e.g. Victorian illustrations of the Ancient World), to which similar considerations apply. Monstrelet (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that there's any policy ('official' or otherwise) in regards to photos of reenactors. Where the reenactors are credible (eg, they don't look like this guy!) and no better images are available, such photos can be quite valuable. Lots of serious history books use photos of reenactors in such circumstances - though the recent Osprey book on the Battle of Mons Graupius which features a photo of a Roman Army enenactment group which included a woman in armour and lots of fat men was rather bizarre! Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear and prompt response to my query above. I have restored the deleted photograph to the Red coat (British Army) article citing the credibility/purpose guidelines given above and noting that the reenactment group shown present an unusually authentic appearance for an English regiment of foot 1812-16 (uniforms accurate, side whiskers visible but no mustaches, ages about right, no spectacles or pot-bellies). In respect of purpose, a point made in the text that the scarlet of officers' coats differed visibly from the duller madder red of those of other ranks shows clearly in the colour photo. The ECW reenactment photo remains deleted. Buistr (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Having seen reenactors who are about as far form what you would have seen (excelent kit though) in terms of age and health I would be warry of using such photos, but the photo in nthe red coat article does look good..Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D I am not sure that your example is as bad as you think. When looking for a suitable image for Red coat (British army), I came across this ;-) -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A challenge.....

I was looking at stubby core articles and was surprised by the state of Soldier - c'mon, this could even be a 5x expand for DYK surely. A challenge anyone to do it...the reward? A warm fuzzy inner glow and kudos....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle links to May not July

Just a quick note that The Bugle links are to the May newsletter rather than the July one. Secretlondon (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I used preview but didn't click the links. I've redirected the May pages to July for the time being. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Change of article name

Is one Google search sufficient justification, for changing the name [32] of an article, without consultation? --Rskp (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions now in place for all all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed

Editors who work on articles involving the military history of these three countries should note that the Arbitration Committee has placed these articles under discretionary sanctions, which allow admins to respond to problematic editing with sterner than normal measures where necessary. The details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Trip to Gettysburg

Hi me and my uncle are planning a trip to Gettysburg first going to Washington D.C. We plan to go to the Smithsonian but is there anything else we should look at that would be of historic interest. We will only go for about a week so we would have about five days to look at stuff. Please help Nhog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

List of museums in Washington, D.C. might be of interest to you. The Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center is well worth the trip if you have an interest in historic aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Sandy Hook

Eyes, please, I'm gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Military strategy

This as well. I'm done dealing with ignorant dicks who apparently cannot undertsnad simply Emglish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

AfDs

USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66) have both been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Barry Cooke

New article on US Navy aviator Barry Cooke who doesnt appear to be particularly notable, just looking for project view on this. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I proded the article but it has been removed with the comment that he was one of the few killed in Operation Desert Storm whose remains were never recovered. Scott Speicher also has an article. I couldnt see much notability in either aviator but before going for AfD need some advice on the trend towards recentism for memorial articles. It appears that particularly in articles about Americans that memorial pages spring up all the time. If this is a change in direction fine but we should start to create articles for all those who were lost in the vietnam war or even the second world war. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK no support must make a list of missing airmen from WWI and WWII to create lots of articles as we appear to have support for memorial articles on non-notable airmen. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this. That's clear deletion bait, there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was just checking if anybody had noticed this! MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WWI digital resources

Hi all,

A few recently uploaded collections from the Europeana 1914-1918 project that may be useful:

• 2,000 photographs from Denmark (unfortunately labelled CC-BY-NC-SA)
• 16,000 photographs from Italy - this one seems to mainly be an index without thumbnails, but does link through to the main repository. "free access, rights reserved"
• 14,000 Austrian newspaper issues - "rights unknown", but may be PD?
• 22,000 pages(?) of the Italian Illustrated War News - "free access, rights reserved"

Not all the best copyright status, but some may be useful for reference nonetheless. I'll let you know about future releases. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment

For anyone interested, I have opened a proposal for a new WikiProject to deal with the vast number of articles that relate to Western genre related movies, TV, actors, etc. I'm aware a lot of Wikipedians are not comfortable with the growing number of pages on things like soap operas, pop songs, etc. In this case I feel there is more prominence what with Westerns being either directly or loosely based on historic Old West events, characters, etc. The American Film Institute aims to recognise movies that are of cultural significance, which helps give notability to this genre in more ways than completely fictional movies. For MILHIST members, those who enjoy war films and westerns, like myself, to identify historic recreations, use of accurate uniforms, weapons, locations, events, etc, there may be some added interest. Fictional war movie articles always seem more interesting with a "historical accuracy" section, to me, that point out the relationships between a movie and real events. I hope there may be members here interested in such involvement, to help give these fictional articles more relevance and background - e.g. The Alamo, Deadwood, Gunfight at the OK Corral, are all based on real historic events, some military themed. At present, most of these articles are simply floating about with no central organisation, and poor content. I hope Western fans, Americans, or those who simply love John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movies, might be interested. Comments, ideas and support welcome. Thanks. — Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 19:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Westerns

Milhist peer reviews open

G'day, there are a couple of Milhist articles at peer review that need some attention if anyone is free and keen to help out:

• Frontier Force Regiment: open since 21 July, no comments;
• Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher: open since 29 July, no comments. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Chilean ship Porvenir

What type of ship was the Chilean Navy's Porvenir that was in service in 1927? A better wikilink is needed at List of shipwrecks in 1927 please. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I should be able to check this tomorrow. Slap me with a trout if I forget. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the 1905 or 1922 volumes of Conways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The signal:noise ratio is not good, because it's named after a port, and there have been other ships carrying the same name (example example etc). However, the Meteor expedition met a Chilean "survey vessel" by that name, at around that time. bobrayner (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a list of Chilean Navy ships somewhere through archive.org -- I have to find the site and play with the url (the ships are listed alphabetically, but there's no list, so I have to change the number in the url to find it) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be very useful. this also identifies a vermessungsschiff (ie. survey vessel) called "Porvenir" in the same area and era. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So we might be leaning towards RV Porvenir then? Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the sources I found called it RV, so that would be an odd choice, but we could wait for Ed's results... bobrayner (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

RV is the ship prefix for research vessel. Chilean survey vessel Porvenir would also be a good title, if that's what she was. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dang, I was wrong, my site goes in order of commissioning date. The new site ([33], look for "Unidades Históricas"), which now finally has the links to these pages (I think), has the wrong links—all I get are errors. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, We'll go with survey vessel for now. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Historical periods and toponyms

Hi all, Just having a discussion about the creation of an article regarding the occupation of the territory of modern-day Serbia during WW2, and would like to get a wider view as I am getting confused about what is common practice. Essentially, the question is whether it is ok to create articles about the occupation of a topographical area in WW2. The newly created article is Occupation of Serbia in World War II. See this discussion. My query is whether it is ok to create such articles. As I put it on the talkpage, would it be ok to create an article Occupation of Malaysia in World War II given Malaysia wasn't actually topographically defined that way during WW2 (ie there wasn't a defined topographical area called 'Malaysia' during WW2)? I can see there would be a need to have a section about WW2 in the History of Malaysia article (and there is), but an article on its own? Your views would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

• I think it would be appropriate to make more effort to use contemporary placenames. Using strictly modern placenames is misleading and anachronistic (and encourages a false sense of continuity). We say that the Mayflower set out for Virginia; not the USA, which didn't exist until a century and a half later.
• European history can be particularly difficult because the same name may apply to different geographical areas over time (how far have the borders of Poland shifted back and forth over that country's unhappy history?), and because the same label might also apply to ethnic or linguistic groups which might fall within different borders (if it's possible to draw borders at all), and because we're used to using these labels for states, even though the modern state is a relatively recent invention.
• Because of these difficulties it's worth paying extra effort to make sure that the title and lede are accurate/neutral in other respects; we have to make it clear to readers exactly what we're discussing. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Bobrayner here. We shouln't rewrite history. It was Constantinople until 1922, Danzig until 1945, and Newfoundland was separate from Canada until 1949. The Libya of 1936 is not the same as the Libya of today. The same goes for flags , , were all used by the same country at different points in time.

Yes, it take a bit more effort to do the research and get it right, but it's worth it in the long run. To this end, the correct title would be Occupation of Malaya during WWII. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely think we should be linking to the name contemporary with events. It seems, this can be problematic in some cases. Newfoundland, frex, tends to draw links to this, even on pages intending this. Many editors, even many Canadians, don't know there's any difference (don't know, or recall, NF was ever independent), & so will never use the second link... There's also issues of nationalism: more than a few Greeks (with reason IMO) object to modern Macedonia's use of the historical name, & I foresee links about Alexander III going to here, instead... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, let me expand a bit so I can be clear about this specific example. The Kingdom of Serbia became part of a unified Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918, which included a sub-division called 'Serbia'. In 1929 the name of the state was changed to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the sub-division of 'Serbia' was split among several sub-divisions, none of which corresponded with the boundaries of the former sub-division of that name, and none of the new sub-divisions was called 'Serbia'. In 1941 Yugoslavia was invaded and divided up between the Axis powers, mostly annexed and all occupied, with a puppet Croatian state being established. One of these divided up areas, an area smaller than the former sub-division of 'Serbia', remained under German military occupation, and its official name was the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Given the above, would the most appropriate approach be to have an article entitled Occupation of Yugoslavia in WWII, with separate sections for each of the divided up parts of Yugoslavia, including the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, and forks for articles on each part? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Germans effectively(?) broke up Yugoslavia, and occupation policies for each of its constituent/replacement entities differed considerably, so separate articles seem sensible. Where relevant, the articles should note differences in the territorial composition of these entities from other entities of the same name though to avoid confusion (and sorry about using 'entities'; I'm not sure if these should be called 'countries', 'regions' or something else; please mentally substitute whatever is correct!). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

G'day Nick-D, yes that is correct, and there were several completely different annexation/occupation regimes, Bulgarian, Hungarian, German, Italian and Croatian. However, what has transpired in the ('winces') Balkan taskforce area is articles have been developed that are about the WWII occupation of the territory of modern-day provinces and countries. In addition to Occupation of Serbia in WWII we also have Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941–1944. Both clearly state in the lead that the article is about the occupation of the modern-day province/state in WWII. It only appears to be a problem with areas of modern-day Serbia, I haven't noticed it in any of the other former Yugoslav countries, but I probably should have a closer look. There is a concurrent issue with the part of Yugoslavia that remained fully under German occupation, the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

British Military War Crimes Courts

As was recently discussed at Talk:Melford Stevenson, we seem to be missing an article on the British military tribunals that operated in Europe after the Second World War, which held more than 500 war crimes trials in Germany (mainly Lüneburg, Hamburg and Wupperthal, but also Essen, Helmstedt, Burgsteinfurt, Brunswick, Borken, Elten, and Hannover), the Netherlands (Almelo), Austria (Kagenfurt) and Italy (Bari, Rome, Venice, Padua) between from 1945 to 1949.

Examples include Kurt Student for his actions in Crete; the submarine and commerce raider trials of Karl-Heinz Moehle, Heinz-Wilhelm Eck, and Helmuth von Ruckteschell; the trials for the Stalag Luft III murders; Fritz Knoechlein for Le Paradis; trials involving various concentration camps, including Natzweiler-Struthof, Neuengamme, Ravensbrück and Belsen, and the Zyklon B case involving Bruno Tesch; trials involving "baby farms"; Curt Gallenkamp and others for the murders after Operation Bulbasket; Nikolaus von Falkenhorst in Norway; doctors from Loibl Pass camp; Nicola Bellomo, Albert Kesselring, Eberhard von Mackensen, Max Simon, and others in Italy, and last but not least Erich von Manstein.

I have made a start in a sandbox (here) but contributions and comments are welcome before this is moved out to the mainspace. Thanks. -- Ferma (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks really good. We also don't have articles on most of the many war crimes trials that were held in South East Asia after World War II. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is worth to ask for some help at de:Portal:Nationalsozialismus as the war crimes trials are best researched in Germany. --Bomzibar (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:War

Hi,

Since very few people, it would appear since the last conversation took place in 2009, use this discussion page for the War template. I am requesting interested parties come take a look at the discussion, which I have just started, as I feel certain sections of the template need rejigging. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.86.206 (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Fortifications tag

Yesterday, I created an article on an armory (the 160th Regiment State Armory in Los Angeles), and then assessed it for the military history project. Was I right to tag it as a fortification? Should I have tagged it as something else? Or not even assessed it for the military history WikiProject? pbp 16:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems a sensible use of the tag to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Assal Uttar/Khem Karan

I would like editors who have interest/knowledge/expertise in reviewing battles to review this case of Battle of Asal Uttar. This battle was fought in 1965 between India and Pakistan at Khem Karan. According to a number of sources, Indian forces were pushed back and the town of Khem Karan which is in India was captured by Pakistan. Further offensive by Pakistan's armored division was stopped successfully by the Indian army at Asal Uttar that is some 5 kilometers Northeast of Khem Karan. After that India tried to push Pakistan back but they couldn't succeed and one of their whole battalion (4 Sikh) surrendered after suffering heavy casualties, 4 Mahar also tried but suffered heavy causalities. The town of Khem Karan remained with Pakistan till the ceasefire. The same has been recorded by the then Defence Minister Y B Chavan in his diary.

Now some editors are of the view that India won this battle decisively, backed by some sources. My question regarding it is that is it considered:

1. Victory for India
2. Victory for Pakistan
3. Stalemate

Besides this I will also like to have opinion about the title of the article. Some refer to it as "Battle of Khem Karan", where most of the battle was fought while some name it "Battle of Asal Uttar". --SMS ^Talk 21:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How do the reliable sources on this battle (including both those published in India and Pakistan) describe it? If reliable sources provide differing accounts, then the article should cover this. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sources don't cover the battle in detail, Indian authors mostly cover what happened in Asal Uttar (.i.e. only 2-3 days of about 18 day war), while I tried to look for what Pakistani authors or anyone involved in the battle have written but couldn't find any reliable source online that covers the battle thoroughly. Some sources which I came across say somewhat close to what I wrote above. Let me add them here, so you can read yourself what the author is saying:

1. Pradeep P. Barua (2005). The State at War in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. pp. 188–190.
2. R. D. Pradhan (2007). 1965 War: The Inside Story. Atlantic Publishers. pp. 42–47, 54–56.
3. Jogindar Singh (1998). Behing the Scene: An Analysis of India's Military Operations 1947-71. Lancer International. pp. 151–180.

The last book is by the Chief of Staff of Indian Western Command during 1965, besides the GOC of Indian Western Command Harbaksh Singh has also written a memoir, which covers this but not thoroughly. A history of the Pakistan army by Brian Cloughley published by Oxford University Press also looks like a reliable source that covers the battle comprehensively, but has limited access online. --SMS ^Talk 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately those pages in Google books don't load for me, so I can't comment on their contents. If no one complains, go with whatever it is they say :) Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

FAC update

We've got 3 current FACs that are roughly 4 weeks old or older: HMS Bellerophon (1786), May Revolution and Iraq War in Anbar Province. Bellerophon and Iraq War in Anbar have two supports; it would be a shame if they die for lack of a third. (May Revolution may have a tougher time; it has no supports yet, on its fifth nomination.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Making progress ... now we'll probably need a thorough spotcheck (if that's not a contradiction in terms) for Iraq War in Anbar Province. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion relating to the David Irving article

There's currently a discussion about how to word the first sentence of this article (in particular, how Irving should be first described) at Talk:David Irving. Input from other editors would be much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The gist of the dispute is that, while there are several sources in the article that do dispute the propriety of the appellation with regard to Irving, there are about 2,000 published sources that refer to the person as an "historian". The suggestion is to follow the majority view and refer to him as a "historian" or "controversial historian" (also common) in the first sentence, whilst elaborating on the point of view disputing said appellation in the entire third paragraph of the lead (which is already in the article). -- Director (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification: Military-related discussion

Hi, the discussion on {{Army}}, {{Navy}} and {{Air force}} was opened in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Some lacking data (aliases, military).... --Virtpedia (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of total rebel casualties Talk:Casualties of the Syrian civil war

As a notification of another discussion, comments from uninvolved editors on whether its OK to develop figures for total rebel casualties from a source which provides only daily figures (with some provisos) would be much appreciated at Talk:Casualties of the Syrian civil war. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

National Army Museum Book Festival 8-9 September

For the benefit of British editors, the National Army Museum in London is holding a Book Festival on 8-9 September. A number of very well known military historians will be speaking and the ticket prices are pretty modest (£25.00 for both days). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Cley_Marshes#Second World War coastal base

I'm trying to come up with a suitable category for this article so that we'll know that it's the best article we've got covering the ruins of this British coastal base from World War II. Would Category:World War II British coastal bases work? - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think base is overstating it a bit, it sounds nothing more than one of the many coastal fortifications that sprung up all over the place. I'd use Category:Coastal fortifications although I admit I'm surprised this has no sub-categories by country, era or both. NtheP (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That probably should be broken down by country, I'll take a peek at it when I get a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition to adding the cat, I decided to tag this one for Milhist. Even if an article appears some day on the fortifications or the PoW camp, this article is likely to remain the best treatment of all the WWII material associated with this place, in part because the article is likely to pass its FAC. Btw, I also just tagged Adriatic Sea, also at FAC, because it has a ton of military history in the History section. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

List of African-American firsts

You are invited to visit the article's talk page and comment on inclusion criteria. Zepppep (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Royal Wessex Rangers

Template:Royal Wessex Rangers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Category names

These two discussions at CfD would benefit from input by the project in choosing the proper form of the names for the categories involved. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

17th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment

I've started cleaning up this article a bit and I could use some help. Thanks! 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Abandoned Soviet/Russian Air Base

Anyone have any information about this facility ? There are numerous aircraft, what appear to be Tu-22 Backfire bombers, along with an Il-76 transport and a An-12 sitting derelict in the snow. 43°54′53″N 131°55′24″E Bwmoll3 (talk)

Wikimapia says that it's "Abandoned Vozdvizhenka Air Base", though whoever wrote the entry there noted that it appeared to be operational at the time the imagery was taken. According to the 326th Heavy Bomber Aviation Division article, the unit based there has been disbanded, but its Tu-22s have been abandoned at the base and are being stripped for spare parts. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I probably needed to source the 326 HBAD article better when I wrote it. I've now red-created the Vozdvizhenka (air base) article, and it will get translated at some point. Also on our lists should be 444 TBAP/HBAR. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The runways and taxiways are free of snow, as are the visible aircraft, all of which appear to be complete. Vehicles in the car parks, large areas of dirty snow suggestive of human activity, vehicle tracks... What's abandoned about it? --Pete (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that many of the aircraft are being cannibalised for spares; they might look intact from a satellite view but some appear to have been deliberately made non-airworthy. Some interesting pages here and here. Site still guarded, though. bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My translation of the Ru-wiki page indicates that as of the date that info was added to ru-wiki, the airbase is still active but the heavy bomber regiment has been disbanded. There is still an airbase commandant (commandant's point?) and an aircraft repair factory (ARZ) at the airfield. The ARZ is possibly tasked with dismantling the bombers. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Google Earth, Google's imagery of the base dates from 2005, which pre-dates the disbandment of the 444th Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment. That said, Wikimapia obviously isn't a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, the Vozdvizhenka article is now on relatively solid ground. The mystery is now a new bomber base at ru:Средний (Иркутская область); anyone who wants to investigate that, please feel free... ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean this one Buckshot06 ? Gavbadger (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, look at all those planes parked there... Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And another.... 68°09′34″N 033°27′41″E Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's nothing, look at 51°37′29″N 039°07′53″E - there are 35 fighters on the long apron and a load more of different aircraft and more fighters to the north east - 51°37′21″N 039°09′42″E but i think that is a bit more "active". Gavbadger (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Grrr.. that is Belaya (air base)!! I'd *checked* this, and it's merely the Russians having seventeen names for the same location !! Now I will have to re-update all the Ru articles. Bwmoll3, thank you for your observation additions to Konotop; please add a date whenever you do so, as it's a bit hard to tell otherwise about when the observation was made. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Military aircraft by nationality

Template:Military aircraft by nationality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for you to access free research databases!

The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

• Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Go sign up! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, goody! I love free stuff. :D (You do know, don't you, that's the word advertisers love to use most? Even if it's completely untrue? ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

War and military GA nominations need attention

G'day all, if any one is interested in doing some GA reviews, the War and military section at WP:GAN could do with some attention. There are currently 35 articles listed, of which 30 are still waiting for a review. The oldest is from 20 May 2012. The GA criteria can be found here: WP:WIAGA. If anyone is new to GA reviewing, I would be more than happy to try to answer any questions that you might have. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Axis occupation of Vojvodina#RfC:Is this article subject notable, and if so, is it an acceptable fork of existing articles?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Axis occupation of Vojvodina#RfC:Is this article subject notable, and if so, is it an acceptable fork of existing articles?. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Orders and Decorations

Is there an expert in the house on the subject of Japanese Orders and decorations?

I have a problem on the Robert L. Eichelberger page. The source, a 1945 Time magazine article says:

Eichelberger, who as intelligence officer had many dealings with the Japs, blandly outwitted them, blocking them from taking over areas they wanted. For some Japanese reason, the Japs seemed to admire these efforts. At any rate, they decorated him with the Imperial Order of Meiji, the Order of the Sacred Treasure and the Order of the Rising Sun.

It has been pointed out that, as the result of work done in 2009, based on a reading of the Japanese wikipedia, Imperial Order of Meiji is a redirect to Order of the Sacred Treasure. The Japanese honors system article say that "the Imperial Order of Meiji was established in 1875, and was later renamed as the Order of the Rising Sun" and that the "Order of Meiji was just the original name of the Order of Sacred Treasure".

The question is: how many decorations did he receive? One, two or three? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The One Hundred Immortals D.S.C. 1695

Does anyone know the significance of "The One Hundred Immortals D.S.C. 1695". Photo is of a plaque on a World War I memorial in Anacortes, Washington. I couldn't find anything readily with Google. - Jmabel | Talk 20:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That couldn't be referring to a DSC issue number, could it? The way it's phrased looks like "#1695 in a series". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The number is 6795. NtheP (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Pershing's One Hundred Immortals would fit the date. 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

yep, try http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=15195658 Hchc2009 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry about getting the number wrong. And I guess I should have thought of "Distinguished Service Cross" but for some reason I didn't. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Move request for "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" -> "German-occupied Serbia"

There is an ongoing discussion on moving "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" to "German-occupied Serbia". --Zoupan 23:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for United States A-Class review process

There is a proposal at WikiProject United States to start an A-Class review process for United States related articles. Since the projects for the American Civil War, American Revolutionary War and the United States military history task force all could relate I wanted to notify you of the proposal. Please stop by and join the discussion. Kumioko (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

About brevet

Hello! Let's say someone held the rank of captain but was made brevet major. Later he was promoted to major. I'd like to know what is the correct term we should use: should I say that he was promoted to full major? Or permanent major? Or both apply?

Lastly, can I say that someone was promoted to brevet colonel? Or should I say that he was made brevet colonel? Or both apply? --Lecen (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the army and conflict. With the US, brevet ranks could come from a couple of sources. In your first example, one construct I've seen is that he was promoted to the permanent rank of major. Brevets (no matter their source) were considered temporary. Intothatdarkness 15:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I know what a brevet means. What I want to know is: "should I say that he was promoted to full major? Or permanent major? Or both apply?" The first question was if I should say full or permanent, or if I can use both. The second question was if I could say that someone was promoted to brevet [rank]. That is, if the word "promoted" is correct, or if I should use another term. And also if I can say that someone was made brevet [rank]. Is the word "make" ok in this case? --Lecen (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did answer your question. "Promoted to the permanent rank of major" is the standard construction in US sources. Intothatdarkness 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You can certainly say either that someone was "made a brevet x", or "promoted to brevet x". I think "full x" is more common than permanent, although I've seen examples of both. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In the UK substantive would be used rather than full or permanent. Brevet rank was often "granted". NtheP (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That's what I wanted to know! --Lecen (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The classical language would be that John Doe was brevetted as a major in 1888 and promoted to major in 1890. GregJackP Boomer! 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

An example from a print article on Maj. Gen. Braxton Bragg: "...May 9, 1846, for which he was brevetted a captain, which rank he attained in full in June; ... was brevetted a major; and again at Buena Vista, Feb. 23, 1847, and was brevetted a lieutenant-colonel; was appointed major of the 1st cavalry, March 3, 1855 but declined..." (p. 688, New American encylopaedia, 1872). GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

One thing to be careful of using "full" is that "full colonel" often refers to the rank of colonel vs. lieutenant colonel. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The same problems would apply to Lieutenant, Commander, Captain, Admiral, General, Marshal. (ie. 1LT, snr CAPT, full CDR, etc) -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger, if full isn't a good idea, what term should I use, then? "Permanent" as mentioned earlier? --Lecen (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If I was writing it, and a distinguishment was needed, I'd use "promoted to the permament rank of major" - I'm pretty sure that's the way it's usually written. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A better term is "substantive". The Australian government used to use brevet rank as a means of saving money. During the 1930s it was common for officers to hold substantive, temporary, brevet and honorary rank, often different. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd use substantive, too. I've seen it. Plus, "permanent" may not be accurate, either, since I've seen temporary (war) ranks in some cases; IDK if they're strictly breveted or not. (Custer comes to mind: temp rank Gen, pmt rank L/Col.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The British army tended not to appoint brevet rank during wartime but had various combinations of substantive, war substantive, acting & temporary ranks. Peter Young, who became a historian and founded the Sealed Knot, was at the end of WW2 a substantive Lieutenant but also with the war substantive rank of Lieutenant Colonel and the acting rank of Brigadier. When he retired from the army in 1959 he was a substantive Lt-Colonle and honourary Brigadier. And his example wasn't uncommon. NtheP (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael P. Murphy

This already passed A-class and is being considered for FAC. What the standards nowadays for the citation text? Do we display the full text, and is that the best format? - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dank, I started a Pre FA discussion on the article talk page with a few notes. It will surely expand but this gives me a starting point. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Kumioko (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Counter-insurgency

Someone needs to take a look at the POV editing now going on at this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems relatively minor and has been reverted by other editors; the disputed section could, however, really benefit from citations. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Kilmer GA nomination

The Joyce Kilmer was a GA from 2007-2009. It was reassessed and demoted. I took the last two days to revise it and renominated it to return to GA-status. Please take a look at the article and review it against the GA criteria.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1865

I am hoping to get this to GA class and I am looking for suggestions on what needs to be done to improve the article. Thanks. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Header

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart William Peach KCB CBE FRAeS

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach KCB CBE FRAeS

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach KCB CBE FRAeS

Air Chief Marshal, Sir Stuart William Peach KCB CBE FRAeS

Someone recently added all of the parameters to the header of the infobox in an article I've worked on, in accordance with the instructions on the template, but this was reverted, to - in my opinion - something better-looking, so I was wondering what the consensus is, and whether we could change the template to reflect that. If you follow the instructions in the template you get something like the first example.

There are three things I don't like with this:

• The pre-noms and post-noms are in a larger font than the name
• Having the knighthood on the top line doesn't feel right
• I don't think we need to repeat the full name

I would be much happier with the second example (ideally with the name larger or the rank and post-noms smaller).

I would be even more happy with the third example, which looks a lot cleaner, giving prominence to the normal way the person would be spoken of. What does anyone else think? Antrim Kate (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on all three bullet-points. I don't have a preference between the second and third examples, but both are better than the first imho. bobrayner (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the second and third examples look better than the first, but the most common form that I've seen for military people, and which has been endorsed in dozens of GA/A/FA bios I've worked on, is just the full name, without rank or honorifics. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ian - the simpler the better as a rule. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Ian - let's keep it simple. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not the role, nor within the remit, of GA/A/FA to decide such stylistic matters, even if these options were available to them at the time when those articles were assessed; which they were not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

[After ping on my talk page] The three values are emitted as three separate metadata fields (I can give a long technical explanation if anyone wants it). The full name should be given for that reason, and because the job of the infobox is to summarise certain information from the article; the subject's name being a key part of that. The third example can be achieved by rendering two parameters on one line, but has th disadvantage of obfuscating his name. To achieve the second example, we'd need a fourth parameter ("|honorific_prefix_2=", say), which could be combined with |honorific_prefix= for the purposes of metadata emission, if MediaWiki allows it . I would not recommend this. Your point about relative font sizes is easily addressed in the template code. Consider also how this will affect Non-UK/ commonwealth subjects. Consider also compatibility with {{Infobox person}} and other biographical infoboxes. I have added a fourth version, note comma. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely the primary role of the infobox is to display salient information from the article, in a clear and concise manner, and the layout should be driven by that, rather than any requirement to emit metadata. If metadata is required it should be a secondary consideration and, presumably, could be supplied via non-displaying parameters if necessary. (There is already a rank parameter within the infobox.) I'm also wondering how the metadata is used, because what we have above are already compound parameters - there are two separate parts to the pre-noms and three parts to the post-noms, all of which would need to be separated out to be of any use. My own preference would be to include postnoms, but on the grounds that I believe they're relevant to a reader, not that they're needed for something else. Incidentally the instructions for infobox person state that the name should be the common name, i.e what the default page title would be. And a short non-technical answer would be appreciated! Antrim Kate (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content is used and reused in many places: en.wikipedia.org, m.en.wikipedia.org, our mobile apps, independent mobile apps, DBpedia and lots of others, some of which we don't even know about. Some people access the former, but in a non-graphical (text only, or audio, or even Braille) browser, or using a text reader. I know of no justification for asserting that the "primary role of the infobox" is visual display on one of those. The metadata emitted by our biographical infoboxes is used in a variety of ways, too, but the key one is the hCard microformat, whose parameters (and thus level of granularity) correlate directly with those in vCard, the most common electronic format for the cross-platform interchange of such information. As such, it's very useful, and among others is used by Google to populate search results. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the American Civil War

I noticed this in the resources section of the ACW task force page. Apparently the Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War is the precursor of this article. What should be included in the ACW timeline article? I would imagine engagements (which would overlap with the engagement lists by year) and political events (elections, passage of conscription laws, etc.). Wild Wolf (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we'd have to be very careful about using such broad criteria; strictly speaking, the number of engagements of the war runs to well over 10,000; obviously major battles (either strategically or by size) would be included, but there are minor battles and battles-within-battles that are important for a variety of reasons, and I think therein lies the debate. There are also political events that, while important, are of questionable interest to most people (certain Congressional votes, for example), and there is the question of how we treat actions during and integral to or in the midst of the war but that, strictly speaking, were not exactly contested between north and south (Indian actions, for example, or the actions of the U.S.S. Wyoming against the Japanese navy in 1863). We run both the risk of inclusion of trivialities and of being overly-austere in our selection; the one will make any such article (or more likely series of articles, probably broken up by year) too cumbersome to manage and too long to maintain the average person's interest, and the latter will make it essentially useless.IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So basicaly scratch the idea for the article and remove the link on the task force page? 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying that; I think we'd benefit from such a timeline; while we already have a timeline of certain battles, I think a more expansive project is called for. I'm just suggesting that we exercise good judgement in its implementation.IcarusPhoenix (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

61st (South Midland) Infantry Division

Hi,

A few years back i made a mistake and renamed the 61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article to 61st (South Midland) Infantry Division. I have checked Joslen's OOB and a few other sources and it would appear the correct division name did not include 'South Midland' and it was just the 61st Infantry Division. I have attempted to rectify this mistake today, however i get the following error:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

Any help?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

61st Infantry Division redirects to 61st Division, and this redirect may be blocking the move. I've moved it to 61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom), which is probably the better name. Andrew Gray (talk)

Nice one, thanks for the help.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

NP. At some point we really need to fix up all of these with and without "Infantry", sort out what needs merging/splitting, etc. Still some WWI divisions with no article... Andrew Gray (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

...and having said that, I see you're doing it already. Thanks! ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I had nothing to do today :PEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England

Hach and I have been able to make some considerable progress on this article since the start of the month but at the moment I've hit a bit of a writer's block (Hach's been doing things over than content creation) and so if anyone would like to jump in that would be very useful. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

HMS Namur (1756)

This may be of use in expanding the HMS Namur (1756) article. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict on date order

Hello; The article Troy Middleton was written with dates in dmy order. According to the wikipedia manual of style, despite strong ties to the U.S., this appears to be OK based on the portion of the manual quoted and highlighted below. An editor has now twice reverted the dates from dmy to mdy in the lead and infobox, but has ignored the dates throughout the remainder of the article. What is the working-group position on this? Is it OK to leave the dates in dmy, or should they be changed? If the consensus is to change the dates, then they should be changed throughout, right? Thanks for any feedback.Sarnold17 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Choice of format

"...Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that country (month-day for the US, except in military usage; day-month for most others; articles related to Canada may use either consistently).

• Otherwise, do not change an article from one form to another without good reason. More details can be found at WP:MOSNUM#Dates." Sarnold17 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've commented on the article talk page; the MOS notes that "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" - this seems a clear case for this to apply. An article should certainly use the same format throughout. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's usually not a good idea to Selectively cut and paste a guideline in order to change its meaning. Guideline actually says, without moving words around:

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.

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.

YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references or in tables, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable.

You took "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.". Then selectively edited it to say "except in military usage", and then "placed" it within the first sentence, to imply a completely different meaning. Striking this portion of comment. I should have assumed more Good Faith, as there is a sentence in WP:MOSNUM#Dates that says this word for word.

Facts are that biographies, even biographies of military personal, rarely use the military date format. I looked at a few and couldn't find one that so far has. Of course there has to be a least one that does that I haven't seen and I'm sure someone will be eager to link for me., but just because one or two articles are incorrectly using DMY, does not alter the fact that dates for articles about US people should adhere to the US date format.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

NB: JOJ - just for clarity, the bit above (Choice of Format quote) wasn't from me, by the way - I think Sarnold17 forgot to sign it. My comment follows on and is indented. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted! And thanks. I will admit for sake of full desecration, I did think it was you, but my comment/opinion still stands as written, to whomever is the author may be. --JOJ ^Hutton 15:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I'd have thought the same! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Took a quick look at the edit history, because I thought that I had just simply missed the signature, that is clearly there now, but there wasn't one there before. No wonder I goofed.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree - I'd added it for Sarnold after your comment to prevent further confusion, as it was so unclear otherwise where one editor's comments stopped and the other started. I'd have thought exactly the same as you reading it the way it was first formatted. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MOVED TO Talk:Troy H. Middleton Sarnold17 (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian Air Force

I don't know if its the school holidays over there, but the Egyptian Air Force article seems to be getting a little too much attention from number massaging or reference deleting editors - more eyes on the article and/or semi protection would be useful.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for a week. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Westerns

Howdy, WikiProject Military history! Your editing history indicates that you may be interested in joining the new Westerns WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and maintain Wikipedia's coverage of fictional Wild West articles. If you are interested in participating, you are welcome to sign up at the project page. We hope you will join us! Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not particularly well worded for non-userpages, but yeah, this WikiProject is now setup and still in the early stages of building its project area before user-participation can really begin to function. Anyone interested, please feel free to join. Note, this project not only covers film and TV, but Western novels, comics, actors, directors and authors, etc who make the fictional-Wild West possible. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Most decorated soldier of Second Indochina War contradictory statements

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jorge Otero Barreto#Most decorated. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania videos

... just went up at http://www.youtube.com/user/wikimediadc. Good stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm working through them now, some of my favorites: (add your own!)

• Technology and Infrastructure II. Starting at 17:30, Karyn (WMF) talked about her research on the 5 to 6 editors per day who reach 1000 edits to article pages. Many of them don't interact with the community at all; many of them don't even have talk pages. Nevertheless, over 90% of their edits "stick". About half of them seem to be writing mainly about things of local interest. I think these are editors we often overlook, who we shouldn't be overlooking.

• GLAM I, at the 55:00 point: SJ Klein talks on "Building a collaborative digital library for America", a well-funded project to help digitize GLAM content that will be providing lots of new online reference materials.

• Wikiculture & Community II, at 25:50: User:Steven Walling and User:Maryana (WMF) talk about 10 things not to do in warning templates. Maryana says you can find more by searching for "Template A-B testing" at Meta:. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Translation opportunity: es:Categoría:Batallas de la Guerra del Chaco

I noted that Category:Battles of the Chaco War (1930s, Bolivia vs. Paraguay) has only 9 articles, while the corresponding es:Categoría:Batallas de la Guerra del Chaco has 21 articles. Many of the Spanish articles are properly footnoted, have images, infoboxes, etc. It could be a quick way to bring over a number of at least C-class articles into this project. I've done a few of them in the past, but could use some help from other Spanish speakers/readers. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Grozny (August 1996) needs to be rewritten

It does not that bad at the first glance, but actually it relies on a single source[34] to the point of copyvio. I rewrote it partially already. Also any of the online sources cited in the article are not (instantly) available anymore, like all of the CNN articles. --Niemti (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Military Date Proposal

A discussion on the encyclopedic need for the use of military dates on United States military related articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to strike out the requirement that American military articles use military dates. Please join in.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Stanislaw Ulam

Stanislaw Ulam has been proposed to be renamed, see Talk:Stanislaw Ulam -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion one way or the other whether Milhist should tag this article? Ulam was a mathematician and one of the central theoretical guys at the Manhattan Project. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems to me he should be tagged as one of the leading lights behind the Ulam-Teller bomb. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Search for an Army War College book

I need some data about the German 12 Infantry Division and their defense of Mogilev during WWII out of the book 1985 Art of War Symposium: From the Dnepr to the Vistula, Soviet Offensive Operations, November 1943 - August 1944 : Transcript of Proceedings published by the US Army War College in 1985. As WorldCat says it is only available in American libraries I want to ask if someone has access to the book and send me scans of the relevant chapter via Wikimail? Thank you and best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the information you need specific to this book, or will other sources on the 12th Inf Div do? Farawayman (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Its specific to this book, another user in de:Wiki needs the for his article work about Rudolf Bamler and a third recommended this book, in special the chapter by Heinz-Georg Lemm but has no access to it. --Bomzibar (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Bomzibar, have you considered contacting the United States Army War College librarians directly? They'll find it for you within two minutes, I suspect. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Contact details for the librarians are at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/library/directory.htm. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A-class review update

G'day all, there are a couple of A-class review noms that need some attention if anyone is free and keen:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Oerip Soemohardjo: probably needs another review;
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Joseph Desha: hasn't been reviewed yet (open since 3 August);
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (F): probably needs another reviewer;
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian): hasn't been reviewed yet (open since 18 August). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Desha and 1st Croatian hadn't been added to the MILHIST Announcements template, which might help explain why some (like me!) hadn't noticed them -- have now added. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Isn't it supposed to happen automatically, Ian? If not, sorry about that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No apology necessary, mate -- I don't think it's ever been automatic, my recollection is that coordinators (which includes me of course!) generally add them to the template when they see them added to the A-Class Review page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

First Indochina War

Two IPs continue to make the same change to the result section of the First Indochina War despite being reverted by a number of editors. They have been invited to participate in an open thread on the talk page but to this point have not. I've reverted a few times so I guess my posn is clear. I request other editors to have a look at the article and participate in the discussion. Thread is here Talk:First Indochina War#Vietminh victory. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

M60 in black ops listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect M60 in black ops. Since you had some involvement with the M60 in black ops redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

redirects usage Modern Warfare Mobilized and Black Ops Declassified

Black Ops Declassified and Modern Warfare Mobilized are currently video game redirects. It occurs to me that these could just as easily refer to real world topics. What do you think? We have articles on black operations, declassification, mobile warfare and mechanized warfare -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The current targets are appropriate. There's no such term as "Modern Warfare Mobilized" in the 'real world', and as for BOD one, note the capitalisation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. See Active Duty vs. Active duty. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Unknown editor changing Nazi Germany to National Socialist Germany

An IP editor is going around to many Eastern Front military pages, changing "Nazi Germany" to "National Socialist Germany." I have already once reverted these edits in the Battle of Stalingrad page, but I see the same editor has again reverted those edits. The editor has also modified

• Kingdom of Romania,

• Romania in World War II,

• Template:Battle of Stalingrad,

• Petre Dumitrescu,

• Battle of Moscow,

• Third Battle of Kharkov,

• Siege of Leningrad,

• Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb and

• Operation Barbarossa

in the same manner (by the time you read this, many more pages too I would presume). IP address is: 95.178.188.252. Is there any way to stop this? Farawayman (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This diff is pretty much vandalism, so it might be worth posting a cease and desist on their talk page. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I see that's already been done. I suspect they'll be blocked if they continue. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And it appears that blocked they have been. I'm sure there's a "White Supremacist Revisionism Wiki" out there somewhere for them to play with instead. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's happening again on WW2 Balkans articles, see Mile Budak. I'm mobile, I wonder if a MILHIST admin could do the honours? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've run across it too. (Only once so far.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

and again, this time it's User:95.178.187.36. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be doing this from a variety of IP addresses. See User talk:95.178.188.252. -- The Anome (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see no revisionism, because the whole word "Nazi" is just a colloqualism. The country's name was Reich, aka the Third Reich (Das Dritte Reich), the ruling regime's name was actually National Socialist (abbrevated "NS", as in NSDAP, and sometimes "Nat.Soz." or "Nat.-Soz.") and never called themselves "Nazi". That's unlike the Bolsheviks actually calling themselves "Bolsheviks", for example, and I think the current standard on Wikipedia is like calling the Soviet Russia "Commie Russia". Note how the German Wikipedia article is Deutsches Reich 1933 bis 1945 (English Wikipedia: "Nazi Germany"), with Nationalsozialismus (English Wikipedia: "Nazism"), Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (English Wikipedia: "Nazi Party"), and such. I don't think they're being a "White Supremacist Revisionism Wiki"? --Niemti (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Nazi" is not a colloqualism--it is the standard term used by most scholars writing in English. The term "Third Reich" was never the official name of the country, but it is also used by most scholars. Our job is to follow the RS not do original research in a foreign language. Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Nazi" IS a colloqualism, invented by their enemies, just widespread (a similar problem on Wikipedia is with "Viet Cong", which was an invention of the anticommunists and another point of Wikipedia's bias). The country's official name was actually just Reich (then the Greater Reich), that's true, but we should differ it from the previous Reichs (that were not around during WWII, sure, but anyway), so the Third Reich is an obvious choice. --Niemti (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They know it's disruptive, and they keep on doing it from one IP address after another. Disruption alone is sufficient for a block. I've just rangeblocked a couple of their originating netblocks for a short period. -- The Anome (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: similar edits are also coming from 176.222.32.0/20 and 89.201.128.0/19 -- The Anome (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarily, Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза is correctly translated in full as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but the National Socialist German Workers' Party is just redirect to "Nazi Party". Unlike, for example, Polish United Workers' Party, which is also translated correctly (even as in the west it was just known as "Polish Communist Party"), or Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), and so on. Full and correct names, but not for the NSDAP, why? And back to the subject, the country's name should obviously be either the Third Reich or maybe the German Reich (but neither "Nazi Germany" nor "National Socialist Germany", which was never an official name too). --Niemti (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia house style, except in specific circumstances where precise names are to be used, is to use "Nazi Germany" for the entity in question. The IP editor knows that what they are doing is disruptive, and appears to be changing their IP address regularly to avoid blocks. Their edits go well beyond just a difference of opinion about the name: see this edit, for example, for a glimpse of their worldview. -- The Anome (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A self correction: nationalsozialistisches Deutschland was actually one of official names, and so the guy is right. Or you can use just simply "Germany", which was also an official name (as per the infobox, but the article "Nazi Germany" should be renamed into something like German Reich (1933-1945) and so it can factual like in German Wikipedia). --Niemti (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We've been into this many times before: the English-language usage for this entity, across a wide range of sources is "Nazi Germany". Not only is this the vernacular usage, it's quite standard to use it in formal scholarly writing: see http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=nazi+germany . It's really not worth revisiting the argument again. It doesn't matter what they called themselves: the NSDAP lost their naming rights right around the time when they decided to start wearing the hats with little pictures of skulls on them. -- The Anome (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? In that case, the NSDAP outnumbers Nazi Party "in formal scholarly writing". What now? And about "Viet Cong", did the NLF "lost their naming rights right around the time when they decided to start wearing jungle hats with red stars on them"? And, is the German Wikipedia being a "White Supremacist Revisionism Wiki" for using a correct nomenclature? Or has been Poland overrun by Germans again, so it is correctly using III Rzesza instead of "Niemcy nazistowskie" (a phrase which also exists), and Narodowosocjalistyczna Niemiecka Partia Robotników instead of "Partia nazistowska", and so on? Because I live here and I didn't notice. --Niemti (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the skulls, you see. You'd think they'd have known better. -- The Anome (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the "Viet Cong" (NLF) really used the red stars. And the NSDAP had no party headgear, and the party militia (the SA) didn't use "skulls, you see" neither. --Niemti (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said below, I think you should now watch the Mitchell and Webb "Anxious Nazis" sketch, which is the final word on totalitarian iconography. -- The Anome (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• The most common terms are "Nazi Germany", but "National Socialist Party". That's how they should be used here per WP:Common usage. My very best wishes (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • From where I'm sitting, "Nazi Party" gets 28,500 Google Scholar hits [35], and "National Socialist Party" 7030 hits.[36], making "Nazi Party" the common usage. "NSDAP" gets 31,000 hits, but that's a technical usage never used in informal speech, and it also gets that many hits by pulling in a lot of German-lanfuage sources.[37] I've never heard anyone use the term "National Socialist Party" in informal speech. -- The Anome (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you are right. But it means that many other pages (like "Communist Party of the Soviet Union") should be renamed.My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Renamed into what? "Communist Party of the Soviet Union" is correct. And so is the Communist Party of China (and scores of its sub-articles, such as Organization Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, some with even longer names) instead of something like ChiCom (which is just a redirect). Oh, and the CPC arguably killed more people than the NSDAP. --Niemti (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they both murdered millions of people, and both ideologies are despicable. That's not the issue at hand. The issue is that their own self-chosen names are not definitive: the English-language Wikipedia community decides what they should be called. Sometimes this name coincides with their own self-chosen name, or one of its translations. Sometimes it does not. These arguments have been had, over and over again, to the point where we really should have a FAQ. -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about "informal speech", and there's nothing wrong with the "German-lanfuage sources". Polish article is also titled NSDAP, but most articles in other Wikipedia use the translated full names of the party. Oh, and the skull-and-bones was not the NSDAP symbol at all. (Hakenkreuz was.) --Niemti (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you should now watch the Mitchell and Webb "Anxious Nazis" sketch. -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? So Hipster Hitler stole their joke. --Niemti (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a very good joke. It's just as well we won the war, as it's a joke that we've very lucky that we can make, as the Nazis were quite keen on killing people much like me. I think we've earned the right to call them anything we want. So when you read the words "Nazi", think in terms of an English speaker thinking "the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei -- no, fuck 'em, I'll call them Nazis, that would really piss them off. That, and having won the war. Also, WP:COMMONNAME." Did I remember to mention that we won the war? -- The Anome (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Now now, lets all calm down. I agree that the German Reich would be the 'correct' naming for Germany during the period, but as The Anome has pointed out the common name in English is Nazi Germany. The article on it even points this out: "Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, is the common name for Germany when it was a totalitarian state ruled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP)." In the infobox it notes the correct name too : Greater German Reich/Großdeutsches Reich. The same point is made on the page for the NSDAP.

In all, i think everyone are getting there knickers in a twist over nothing :P EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, thanks much for bringing this to our attention. Article talk pages and article review pages are good places to work out problems in individual articles, and you can use RfCs and noticeboards to get wider attention. This page is mainly for notifications across the whole Military History Project, rather than a place for heated debate, because if people's watchlists fill up with stuff they don't need, they stop watching. Please go ahead and make any final arguments you want to make, then I'll box this up. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: I definitely think this needs a FAQ, so we don't have to revisit it every few months. In other news, I've blocked the original IP vandal's entire set of IP ranges, so you shouldn't have to worry about it for the next day or so. -- The Anome (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who actually made the "White Supremacist Revisionism Wiki" crack, I suppose I should really quickly explain to Niemti why I said that; you should actually take a look at the edits the person was making. They weren't just changing all references to "Nazi" to the official and more ambiguous "National Socialist", they were actually changing the nature of history; they changed the invasion of Czechoslovakia to the "liberation" of Czechoslovakia, they called Nuremberg a "show trial", and were removing any criticizing quotations about prominent Nazis and replacing them with language such as the following from the Rudolf Hess article: "...a war hero, martyr on allied show trial and prominent National Socialist politician." Potential colloquialisms aside, the editor was demonstrating definite (and despicable) POV and needed to be prevented from committing further vandalism. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure I've got all of their vandalism, so there may well be more of their revisionism left. They were very persistent: please let me know if they come back again after the block. -- The Anome (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They're BACK... See Mile Budak, which also had some egregious racist edits. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)