Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 123

• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 100
• 110
• 118
• 119
• 120
• 121
• 122
• Archive 123
• 124
• 125
• 126
• 127
• 128
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

Progress with Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Just to track our progress. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Click on [show] for progress bar
99.8% complete Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists Goal: 0 articles Current: 27 articles Initial: 17,000 articles

Almost to 12%. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Back to the 12% mark. This would be a lot easier if several people did this. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, got it back down to the 12% mark. This would be a whole lot easier if multiple people helped out. As it is now, this category keeps getting larger inbetween editing secessions. Having to keep getting back down to the same mark time after time is not easy. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to help here. There has been some improvement though, I recall a few years ago this backlog was around 25,000 articles so to be where we are now is not a bad effort. This is against the backdrop of a significant increase in the total number of articles under the project's banner. Unfortunately this can be a tiresome task but I try to do a bit every now and then. Previously I have encouraged other editors to try and do 5 a day so as to spread the load and I will recommit myself to this where work commitments allow. Hopefully more of our project mbrs can as well. Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Got below the 14% mark. Having the do this myself is getting tiring. It would be a heck of a lot easier of multiple people did this. As Anotherclown said, even five articles per week. 65.64.177.103 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Now the total is back to 13.5%. It would be much, much, much easier to keep up with this category if multiple people helped with this. If the hundreds of people supposedly "active" with this project would just do five articles per week (less than one per day), this would be so much easier. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Starting to push it back to 14% but still a ways to go. I really, really, really, really, really need help with this. I need to take a break from this for a few days but if I do that, then the category will just continue to grow. So please, consider doing just one article per day. That will help so much. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember, this is a voluntary effort. You should really try to stop nagging. - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If I am complaining, it is because I have been begging and begging and begging and begging for any kind of help with this. Yet this category continues to grow while I am away. If the dozens of participants would only fill out a checklist for just one article per day, then much of this category will be done. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As Boneyard pointed out, this is a volunteer project. People will do what they want to do, not what they are nagged to do. You like to work on this backlog, I, for example, like to write articles on obscure German warships no one will ever read. If you really want to get help with this, you should try to organize another backlog reduction drive. But you're not going to get significant help so long as you keep up the histrionics. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Parsecboy: What do you mean by "articles on obscure German warships no one will ever read"? I read them...I personally have assessed more than one! Great articles, BTW. Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It was an attempt at levity through self-deprecation ;) Parsecboy (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I knew that...keep on writing them and I'll keep reading them, lol... I do have one question though. What will you work on when you have run out of German warships??? Cuprum17 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would take your begging a tad more seriously if you would register on Wikipedia. To me, it is the mark of a good editor to have some sort of personality so that the rest of the Project can relate. IP accounts, IMHO, should not be allowed to edit; just an opinion, of course. There are many things that I hope to accomplish on the MILHIST Project and filling out checklists is not the highest on my list. My time is limited by other worldly responsibilities and even if I filled out even one checklist a day, it would seriously cut into the content I hope to improve in articles which I have an interest in. Occasionally, when my mind is in a fog, I MIGHT tear through some checklists, but I really don't see that it accomplishes much. The key to Wikipedia is good, well written, accurate, referenced content on a wide range of subjects. Checklists don't really do anything for the reader of Wikipedia articles. Editors will tend to work on what interests them. If you are interested in filling out assessments then, by all means do so. When I submit an article for assessment, as a courtesy, I try to assess one or two or three on the same list if I can spare the time. I figure this is only fair and it assuages my guilt. Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt registering would help cut down on the backlog here. And yes, a single editor doing one checklist may not do much, but dozens of editors doing so would help. If you don't think checklists are that much help, then perhaps you should find a way of eliminating the checklists. Personally, I had assumed that since the checklists existed, then there must be some good reason for having them and that the project would have a special category for articles with incomplete checklists unless an incomplete list is a problem. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And P.S.: how many checklists could you guys have filled out in the time it took you to write all this down? 76.7.227.224 (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly one if done carefully, but your argument is a strawman. I do what I want with my time on here without direction from non-registered editors. I'm done here... ta-ta Cuprum17 (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on this particular subject before, and what I take exception to is the constant "I'm the only one doing this" tone of the original poster. I've worked on that backlog myself before, and may do so again, but I only tend to work articles in areas I know something about or have an interest in. I don't care if the OP is an IP or logged in...it's the whole martyr tone that bothers me (and always has). As was also pointed out, the backlog isn't a static thing. As more articles get tagged, there will be more stuff. The fact that the backlog percentage is remaining pretty stable (and even going down some) indicates that there are people working on them...and very likely more than just one IP editor. Maybe if the IP calmed down with the martyr act and showed some understanding that not everyone works in the same areas things would go better.Intothatdarkness 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As Anotherclown said it was around 25,000 backlog. If I could nicely correct him, it was just over 28,000. 25,000 or 28,000 articles, either way, with how many it is in the backlog now, we've ... or at least the ones that have helped ... It has taken those members this long to get it down to the current numbered of backlogged articles. Some 13,000 articles that is a HUGE effort. Unfortunately, there is some quite a number to go to get it down to a reasonable number where it is more manageable. Adamdaley (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the category continues to grow. It was down to 14,515 earlier. Now it is up to 14,567. Unfortunately I need to take a break from this for a couple days. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We should be asking ourselves: Why do the "incomplete" checklists for "B class" increase day by day? I put it down to inexperienced editors that only think assessing the "class" is enough. It merely moves the backlog from one place to another, therefore creating more of a backlog than the day before. For those who do the "incomplete B class" assessments try their best to reduce the backlog while constructively doing other duties such as writing, general cleanup, tagging, articles within our WP:MILHIST. Why do we need to dwell on it? It simply takes our precious, valuable and constructive time away from doing what matters more. I say end this discussion and work on the issues at hand. Adamdaley (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't just blame inexperience alone, Adam, but also the complexity of the MilHist banner itself.. it is very involved. WP:USA had a TfD for their banner back in September [1] (it was kept) due to beliefs that it was heavy-weight and impractical. I wonder if MilHist's banner has too many possible parameters that people just can't be bothered with the intricacies.. determining applicable task-forces, for example, as well as making all the standard B-class checks, sometimes make adding a banner take longer than should be necessary, making any backlog an arduous task to plod through. Maybe we should look to ideas on how to optimise the project banner and thus increase its benefit whilst trimming out anything people feel is unnecessary and surplus to needs. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 05:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

more name calling

So despite all the comments above and below asking you to stop hounding the project on the matter, you just had to persist? Does WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT apply here? These IP comments do nothing for the morale of the project and need curbing one way or another. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 03:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Here's a novel thought Marcus you could just ignore them...maybe! Have you stopped for a moment to consider your overly antagonistic approach isn't really helping the "morale of the project" either? 108.45.104.69 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 76s comments attack the many, mine rebuke the one. And when an IP, such as yourself, immediately appears to defend another IP, clearly there is some socking taking place – I don't believe in coincidences. You and 76 are using Wiki to soapbox against members of this project, which is contrary to policy. A good reason to block you both, for disrupting this project's harmony. IP 180 is worthless anyway – zero article contribs, tons of rants on Jimbo's talkpage. Not worth the bandwidth it was born with. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 03:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Ok here fine is this better. First let me clarify completely that there is no association between me and 76. What brought me here was the attitude of you and your fellow project members towards IP's. An attitude that is not unlike that shown between admins to editors I might add. Now if you want to do yet another sock investigation on me feel free. It will show that I have used this account, a couple of IP's that start with 138 and a couple that start with 108. That's it. Now back to the problem at hand. You and your project members need to stop badmouthing Ip's asking for help. Is it annoying they keep asking for help, sure, I get that. But at least they are trying to help. What you and your fellows are doing is going to turn a useful editor/IP into a vandal. Something that has occurred many times on this site. Now personally I could care less if you like me, but your antagonistic comments and attitudes against IP's need to stop. Its comments like that from otherwise good editors like you that are a contributing factor to the demise of this project. You don't want to do assessments, fine just ignore the fucking comments and edit. Now I really want to stop contributing to Wikipedia but when I see comments like the ones you all posted it really motivates me to login and tell you you are being a bunch of assholes to an editor that is trying to help. Additionally, I really don't give a damn if you block me or the ip's or shot off the whole damn server. This place is turning into a shithole because the so called admins don't have the balls to tell editors like you to knock it off. I also don't give a damn about this projects "harmony". As for the 180 IP, I have about 430, 000 edits and about 15 featured pieces of content, I got about 20 articles to GA. So I really don't give a shit if you think I am pulling my wait. I did more in a week than you did this year. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Kumioko, take your soapboxing elsewhere. If it took 3 accounts for you to decide that wiki is not for you, then why don't you quit obsessing? I thought military staff were supposed to have discipline.. you're like a child spitting his dummy! I don't care how many FAs or GAs you have.. that kind of talk is like boasting about your cock length to me. In short: "Yawn!" Your attitude is a disgraceful show of anti-wiki, but Wiki isn't going to change or disappear overnight just because you have a stick up your arse. I don't care for your tone, your rhetoric bullying. If you've "retired" then why don't you take your cosmopolitan cabin boy backside somewhere else. I dismiss all your remarks as egotistic and manipulating, only because I don't know your history with Wiki. And you know what? I'm not interested either. You have too much time on your hands, too much shite in your gob, and not enough supporters or friends to agree with your sentiments. By consensus, it would seem, you're seen as a failure. Just my interpretation of the comments on Jimbo's page. And basked on your biased and mistaken "farmers and criminals" reply way below, you suck at history anyway, no point you every being here. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Well thank you for showing everyone just what a jerk you are. I couldn't have done it better myself. I can also see clearly that your probably like a 19 year old or maybe a college stupid...I mean student. I also don't care about your history because as far as I can tell your a complete waste and the project (and Wikipedia) would be better off without you. The mere fact that no admins have come along to block you for your antics at this point only show how far Wikipedia and milhist have fallen. I remember a time a couple years ago this discussion would have been stopped long ago. Gone are those days it seems. Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry chum, Wiki doesn't tolerate a wife-beating policy to keep its editors in check. You might, but we normally prefer discussion first, without having to boot lick to Yankee prigs like you, who want all their own way or none at all. Gone are the days of cold War militarism, you might want to join our generation, yours is dead. In essence: "Yawn!" Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, time to stop with the name calling. All this arguing is doing nothing to clear out this category. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we are different people: I am merely desperately trying to get anyone to help out with this category and pointing out the obvious that this category will not go down unless people add checklists to the talk pages. Blocking both IP addresses will do nothing to cut down on this category. Marcus, instead of trying to block accounts, you could always use the time to add a few checklists, it is truly not that hard and will not take that much time. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't put any great value on the B-class category and won't participate in cleaning up those backlogs. So far as I'm concerned, the majority or wiki-editors will generally edit in the areas, topics and articles of primary interest to them. I don't believe that many people will dig through the B-class list to find articles to improve, they're more likely to use the search box, follow wikilinks, topic categories, etc to see what is covered and interests them to develop – not what backlogs claim needs doing. Just my 2 cents, but I think you put way too much precedence on those categories, or what checklists really achieve in the end. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of people take a look through the list for something to do, and even then only when they're bored and out of ideas so need something spontaneous. Not to say all WikiGnomes don't do this, but I really wonder how many editors out there cleanup an article's grammar/spelling and then take the time to check the talkpage to check it off on all the project banners. Few, I imagine. I know what's hard, and yes 14,000+ does require a vast amount of time.. but no, I couldn't always take the time, because I see no joy in it. To me those checklists are like donor lists that receive far fewer body parts than are needed to make a bigger overall difference. We should be finding a way for bots to do it.. not people. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I may add another thing Marcus: We have been arguing here for a few days. Now, it is clearly a fact that dozens of articles are being added to this category, especially recently and it is also a fact that a hundred editors, each doing two or three articles, will get a heck of a lot more done than a single editor trying to do fifty or sixty articles by him/herself.

While you were complaining about IP editors in general, both me and User 180 in particular, and about adding checklists to templates, the category has continued to expand. So, clearly what your actions are doing nothing to shrink this category. Instead of arguing here, for the next couple days, try using the same amount of time to add checklists to these articles. Then we can see which method will get this category closer to zero. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Instead of arguing here, for the next couple days, try using the same amount of time to add checklists to these articles." – America will have to invade the UK and install a dictator, before I ever take an order from one. Might want to think about how you make requests of people, your demanding tone leaves much to be desired. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, talking about dictators probably will do nothing to shrink this category. I was trying to point out the obvious fact that the only think which will remove articles from this category is to add checklists to the template. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Then I suggest you hop to it.. this isn't a recruitment center, you've had your responses. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been "hopping to it", which is what started this whole discussion. I was trying get anyone else connected with this project to do a few articles as well. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and one more interesting tidbit. According to the active members list, this project has 1,277 members. Dividing that into 14,567 articles, equals 11.4 articles per member. So if each editor would take only a few minutes each evening and add a checklist to a scant two or three articles at a time, then this category will be cleared out in less than a week, and any complaining, arguing, name-calling, etc., will stop. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: Enough with the latent anti-Americanism; being a Yank and supporting IP editors aren't synonymous. As for you, IP 76, this is meant with absolutely no disrespect, but are you by any chance an individual who self-identifies on the Autism Spectrum? I ask because I think multiple people have expressed the same opinion, and per WP:AUTISM, I'm trying to see if the problem is that the opinions expressed are only relatable to a neurotypical individual. Again, I'm not asking to ridicule or embarrass, so feel free to respond however or not respond.

In the event that you are an individual who identifies as on the A-spectrum, let me try and put it this way. The project is like a symphony or other piece of music. Certain editors play the role of the cello, certain other editors play the role of the flute, and certain ones may play the role of the violin. Generally, the people in the project like "playing their instrument" because its what they enjoy. Asking editors to contribute time to doing other tasks is like asking members of the symphony to play a different instrument. Sometimes it is beneficial, but if every member was forced to play the flute all at the same time, the music wouldn't sound as rich and varied. Sometimes, though, flute solos are called for -- or sections play all together. These are akin to backlog drives. I would encourage you to continue playing your role in the symphony, and not to badger other editors into playing different instruments.

As for registering, in my mind it's all about credibility. By registering, it makes it easier for editors to tell the provenance of your work, to assess any conflicts of interest you may have, and to ensure your work is trustworthy. I generally believe registering is good for the project because it makes our work seem more credible when an author is willing to stake their unique ID behind it. Hope this helps. Cdtew (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The active members list is far from accurate, perhaps only 1 in several are actually very active and involved with the project. Even so, being on the list is only to show a shared interest in the topic, not to opt-in to doing chores for the project. We have no mandatory duties here, we don't disperse tasks in the manner you suggest, we don't tell people what to do with their time. Even Cdtew's analogy of an orchestra is inaccurate, in that a musician must keep in time and if he hits a wrong note the whole piece is spoiled. We don't have "on beat" deadlines, if you make a mistake it can normally be corrected. If we need a job doing it is always, always, always an OPT-IN option, asking for volunteers, and even then it's still non-binding, no one can force anyone to do anything. Your opinions imply that "if you're a member of a WikiProject, you're expected to help when requested". The reality being this is not true. If you're a member you're not expect to do anything, period. How people contribute to that project ranges from writing or copy-editing, to reviewing, to the chore-like administration of categories work that you prefer. There are so many roles that people can take up on Wiki, that you can't expect everyone to drop theirs and jump on your wagon.. not only does Wiki not work like that.. but life as a whole doesn't either! Well, not unless you're Amish.. but we're not barn building here, and as much as all getting together to "rush" a job might sound effective, it's just not going to happen, because everyone has different commitments, and few of them aim to meet your personal expectations. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well...this has convinced me to avoid the B-class backlog list completely. People trying to hammer in the last nail have that effect on me. Intothatdarkness 14:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Off topic nonsense

Don't dismay 76, this unfortunately is how IP's are treated and looked upon in Wikipedia these days...as scum and villany not to be trusted. Just one of the many reasons I don't login much or edit outside discussions anymore. Just take a look at Procseebot happily blocking hundreds of IP's a day to ensure IP's are eventually unable to edit and people have to create a throwaway account just so that they can update a typo to an article and Wikipedia can have some false metric that X new editors created an account. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC) In the words of Number Six, "I am not a number, I am a free man". IPs don't mean a lot to some people, because they might relate to a machine accessed by dozens, even hundreds, of people. I believe anyone who is editing more than an hour or two a day, sometimes several times a week, and is unwilling to register is simply being anti-social. I refuse to believe they don't all have email addresses of are incapable of creating a free one via Google, Microsoft, or any other similar providers. IP's may be people, but they're not as identifiable – dealing with a "number" is impersonal, and your ranting does not justify non-registration, it only raises people's concerns with regards the thought, "what exactly do you have to hide?" by not logging in. Using an IP from home especially is pretentious and ignorant, in my opinion, even if you make 100 edits a day, I find it hard to respect someone who won't "join in" fully – it's like playing a game of baseball with a bag over your head – who the hell do you applaud when they get a home run? As for your "scum and villany" claim – utter bollocks, that view is not shared by consensus, it it were true registration would be mandatory by now. It should be: by registering you create a secure account and it provides a means for you to be solely responsible for your own edits, ever from a shared-IP which may be abused and blocked at any time, but you also become accountable for any vandalism, bad conduct or abuse of the site, which everyone should be. Quit the melodramatic crap, you New Yorkers are supposed to be thick-skinned, might try acting like it – if you're going to use an anonymous IP don't come here making speeches when that anonymity receives less respect than others. Registering has many benefits: take them or leave them, but don't whine about it because you volunteered to pass them over, that's your loss not ours! Registering earns you the right to become recognised, to build a reputation, to ask for more help for mundane tasks such as filling in 15,000 bloody B-class checklists. But you don't just come here bestowing contempt and start pissing everyone off by complaining that they're not pulling their weight when no one even knows you.. that's the epitome of rudeness! Genuine progress comes from building confidence not by coercion. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 13:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Hear, hear. Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC) All I can say to that Marcus is that some of us are here to help build an encyclopedia. Not all of us care about "reputation", which often times is overrated here anyway. I have seen editors who come in and plan to be admins and then carefully manage their wikicareer to do that. Others who don't care and work tirelessly for years are run off because their desire to build an encyclopedia doesn't coincide with some project or POV. Frankly if I were the 64 IP I would just stop working on the backlog since the help isn't appreciated or recipricated. But then that's the problem with Wikipedia in general these days, too much cronyism and nepotism and not enough collaboration. The spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia and this project leaves a lot to be desired. I remember when MILHIST was the pinnacle of collaboration. I'm sorry to see those days slipping away. Maybe instead of telling the IP that their efforts aren't wanted or needed an assessment drive could be done? But maybe those are reserved for "members only". 138.162.8.59 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Well, you've certainly got a nerve claiming "the help isn't appreciated or recipricated" given that this Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/June 2013 backlog reduction drive was organised in direct response to some IP fussing about the B-class backlog constantly. They had 20+ members give them a hand for a week to clear several thousand entries, at least.. what more do you want, the shirt off their backs? Blood? I think you don't realise that the B-class backlog really isn't a top priority for most people, so an IP coming here every few days flailing their skin over the matter doesn't really do any good. With over 15,000 articles at B-class or less, who do you really think is even going to address them all in meeting Wiki's impossible goal to get every article to Featured quality? IP needs to realise that this isn't a race, there is no need for all the urgency, there isn't a fire, people do not want to be harassed into doing drives every few months when once or twice a year is enough for something so trivial. We don't all have shared priorities.. just because an IP thinks it's important doesn't mean we all do. If they're the only one working on it for a while, fine.. we don't need to hear how we're making it harder for them. Are they reviewing article off the A/GA/FA backlogs? Are they dealing with vandalism? Are they reporting socks? Are they sending welcomes to new editors? No? Is anyone pestering them to do any of those things? No? Your nostalgic memories are clearly clouded – Wiki has probably grown vastly since MILHIST started, but membership hasn't (could it be too many IPs not bothering to register?), you cannot expect smaller numbers of members to clear bigger backlogs so easily. I'm simply afraid that you don't appreciate the logistics of what you're suggesting and the reality of team management. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Since I'm the person responsible for creating this category in the first place, perhaps I can offer a slightly different perspective? The reason why we've been reluctant to have another assessment drive—and particularly an assessment drive focused on clearing out this category—is simply that this particular backlog isn't very important, in the grand scheme of things. To be clear, my intent in saying this is not to belittle the efforts of those editors who have worked on reducing this backlog; every contribution is welcome and appreciated, regardless of what form it takes. The checklist backlog, however, was always intended primarily as a statistical tracking tool to help us determine how accurate our overall assessment ratings are, not as a high-priority backlog that actually needed to be cleared. That's not to say that editors can't choose to work on whatever they like, of course; if someone finds filling out the checklists enjoyable or rewarding in some way, then I don't think anyone will stand in the way of their doing so. But the reality of it is that the overall pool of labor in the project is limited, and it's difficult to justify spending a significant amount of it on a backlog that isn't critical and that doesn't correlate to any actual improvements to the articles involved. Kirill [talk] 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Perhaps IP 138 was right. I should stop helping out. This seems to happen every time. I start clearing out the category; I ask for help repeatedly; all of the registered users complain about my attitude. The end result: Much of the editing is still done by me. Seems interesting that the registered users who don't have the time or interest to clear out the category certainly have plenty of time and interest to debate here. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC) @138.162.8.59: As for IPs, I prefer to know to whom I'm speaking. The purpose of having a registered account is so I can get to know you based on your edit history. IPs (especially suspected socks) don't give me assurance that the editor in question wants to responsibly interact with Wikipedians. I, for one, appreciate the efforts of any editor in improving the project. I just don't like the nagging.Chris Troutman (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Frankly I don't think it matters if I login or not. I had a username but I got treated like shit after spending years helping out and trying to improve Wikipedia. In the end I got the gracious attitude that "we can't trust you and we don't want you here" so I stopped editing...finally. Every edit was a fight, tag an articel for a project and some other project gets mad, add an infobox, oh sorry infoboxes aren't allowed for articles "belonging" to this project, etc. etc. etc. So now, if I happen to login at all, I may comment on a discussion or 2 or maybe even fix a quick typo, but I have no intention of using my username other than to perhaps levy a vote where a username is required or to respond to direct questions on my userpage...possibly not even then. I just don't need to login and no one should have too unless Wikipedia has changed their policy in the last couple minutes. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the purpose of the project, the problem is there are too may within the Wikipedia editing culture that feel they are the only experts on their subject and anyone else who edits their articles need to ask for their permission. USRoads, Novels, etc. Milhist is probably the best and most productive project on Wikipedia but even this project has, over the last couple years, shown the signs of deterioration. And frankly the attitude being displayed here towards IP's is both revolting and revealing of the true nature of things here in the project. People should be glad IP's/editors are helping out. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC) "Seems interesting that the registered users who don't have the time or interest to clear out the category certainly have plenty of time and interest to debate here." – It's that attitude which pisses people off. You seem to think you have a right to decide what people should or could be doing with their time. But your comment goes two ways. You too could be clearing more off the B-list instead of preaching to us about how we supposedly mistreat you. Respect goes two ways.. I don't see you giving any to earn any back. I don't see why, either, if you have so much time to make yourself available to clearing out backlogs, you can't take 2 minutes to create an account, say hello, and make yourself a better acquainted. This is Wikipedia, not the NSA. You know us, who are registered, why shouldn't we be allowed to know you, even via some username? It's not like you need to wear a hood and do secret handshakes to be sociable online.. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Concur with everything Marcus British has written here. The initiating IP editor has made his goal known, has repeatedly requested assistance, and we are all generally aware of the backlog anyway. I don't see how continuing this discussion can improve either an article or the project. Therefore, it seems that future posts regarding the backlog are past redundant to the point of disruptive. If the IP editor continues badgering project members, I suggest that the IP be temporarily banned from editing this Talk page. Is that a feasible alternative? - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I think the most important point you made is that we are all fairly aware of the backlog anyway, and I'll add that it's not the only category-formed backlog we have, there are several, so I'm not sure why the IP is throwing all their efforts into just that one instead of the backlogs for ACR or GAR, for example, which relate more to getting articles developed instead of just logging things that may be addressed later, but there is no guarantee. I would suggest that the IP be asked to only update us here once per month maximum, if they wish and no more. We get plenty of polite notices left here for AfDs, disputes needing "eyes on", etc that invite our attention.. but those people don't hound us every few days thereafter for more and more, or perhaps only once if there have been no replies. I see no need for posting backlog notices at all, personally, but a one per month limit seems reasonable for those who may care. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Frankly if it was me and I asked for help about 3 times with no response I would just move onto something else or live with it because the task must not really be that important, that sentiment is pretty much verified here. What bothers me personally is the attitude being displayed about IP's. That multiple editors have stated outright that they give less credit or time to IP editors, inluding those who use the same IP. The arguments that IP editors who "don't have the time to make an account" are just being lazy or inconsiderate or disrespectful by not creating an account to participate! How dare they. That sentiment just falls short on my ears. If you have a problem with IP editors then I challenge you to submit an RFC to make Wikipedia editible only from a logged in account and just do away with IP's. Until that happens though, I personally do not have any sympathy for you and being "disrespected" because some IP editor is helping your project doing things you don't want to do and has the gall and audacity to ask for some help. Though be it an annoying number of times. I also recognize that there was a drive back in June where a lot of articles got assessed. It seems to me though that if the project can't keep up then perhaps it is as "unmanagable" as WikiProject United States was and it might be necessary to break it up to make it more managable. Aside from that I am going to stop comenting since the disdain for IP's and their editing has been made clear. In reality this applies to editors too but having an account does enable the individual to be more effectively banned or blocked and then and after any attempt to edit labelled as socking. So my advice to the 64 IP is to take the clear hint from the project members and find another place to edit. There are lots of other tasks and projects here in WP that need help, try over at one of those. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I will respond to IP 59 concerns about treatment of IP's on MILHIST. During the course of any given month, several of the 800+ articles that I watchlist are vandalized, often more than once. Almost all of these incidents are from IP's. To me, over the course of time, one IP number looks pretty much like another...it's just a number (and sometimes not even a static one at that). If I have a problem with a registered editor more than once I am more likely to remember a registered editor than I am a IP number. Most registered editors (though no all) have content on their user page that will give clues as to their personality and interests. This helps the editor having an issue (good or bad) with that user approach the editor with the right frame of mind. An IP number is just like a blank featureless face, hard to approach. Please note that I AM NOT condemning all IP users as being vandals and brigands...that is certainly not the case, but to me, you all seem to look alike...just numbers. Yes, it is kind of like guilt by association, but that is just the way my mind works when time takes away the details of an anonymous number. I hope this helps. Now, please register and I promise to respect you in the morning... XXX OOO XXX Cuprum17 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Oh, and by the way and for the record, I did my good deed for the day and assessed an article for MILHIST. That is no guarantee that I will have the time or inclination to do the same tomorrow... just sayin' Cuprum17 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC) IP 138 identified themselves as User:Kumioko just recently, on 19 November [2], so no worries about outing, given the self-identification and same pattern of moaning about "the state of Wiki" even on Jimbo's page. Regardless, if you're using an IP to stir up controversy to this degree on a WikiProject page (who are not the right place to discuss IPs with, we're a military history team, clue's in the name) but still have an active account, then technically you are socking. Might want to think about that... Ma®©usBritish{chat} 19:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I was going to stay away but I just wanted to put out that I am not the only one editing with 138, 138 is one of the proxy server used by the Navy. My only point here was that the attitude being displayed towards IP editors was disgusting and frankly I thought the MILHIST project better than that. I guess I was wrong. The other point I wanted to clarify is that I am not hiding, I made that clear repeatedly so although you can use the same BS language I see all over the project by people hungry to block and ban editors of "broadly construed" to include my editing as "socking" (or just about anything else...broadly construed) then do whatever makes you feel good. You could start by eliminating IP editing completely and force everyone to login since that seems to be the only way that participation is wanted in this project. Another sad thing is that I am the asshole in this because I think the way you all look at IP's is piss poor and I told you that bluntly and in no uncertain terms. Its the same way that admins look down on editors. As criminals and scum not worthy to edit. But no one cares about that either. The MILHIST project has really lost the point since the old days it seems. This discussion from that perspective has been truly enlighting to me. Thank god there is an alternative on Wikia to this project now. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Good to see members of the U.S. navy have nothing better to do that sulk on Wikipedia over IP rights. If that's the attitude of everyone who aims to defend the U.S. nation, "God" help you all. What a waste of U.S. tax-payers money! Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Good enough that a bunch of farmers and criminals kicked England's ass. So I feel pretty safe. ;-) 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC) IP 138.162.8.58: If you are on a Navy Network Information Center (NNIC) computer, then I know for a fact that you have to be logged in with your CAC card. I also know that personal use of a Navy computer is frowned on and possibly illegal. Please use you valuable time solving NNIC's problems and not making problems for editors on Wikipedia that only want to improve the work. Your IP (138.162.8.58) has a history of troublesome edits going back as far as 16 May 2008. Someone has too much time on their hands...I wouldn't want to be associated with them if I were you. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC) You 2 are like little kids tattling to mommy about the bully beating you up. Of course like all tattle tails you leave out the details about how you got socked in the eye for talking shit. But I'm not really worried about the "troublesome edits". Your comment about "making problems for editors on Wikipedia that only want to improve the work" is laughable considering I came here because you 2 were badgering an IP that was trying to help. All you 2 knuckleheads wanted to do was to tell them how you didn't like IP's. So now I am the bad guy because I told you that you were both out of line and your comments are reflecting negatively on Wikipedia and Wikiproject Milhist. But I am the jerk because I told you that your comments were inappropriate. How typical of this place. And people wonder why editing is declining here. This is a typical example of why that is occurring. Now let me offer you folks some advice. If you don't want IP's editing your articles and don't trust them...then get over it because IP editing is still allowed on Wikipedia. Until that ends, you don't have a leg to stand on and you cannot force someone to create a login if they don't want to. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Wow, this discussion has gone on far longer than I would have expected. This is bizarre, and all started by a nagging IP editor with momentum added by his contentious IP champion. I suggest we decline further discussion here. We can pick up any more discussion on the improvement of the WP:Mil Hist banner and assessment in a new section. I also suggest that any further complaints and pleas for contributions to assessment pages be deleted as contentious and disruptive, at least for a short time. As suggested earlier, monthly updates on progress would be acceptable. - Boneyard90 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD list

Is there a place to list AfD submissions for this project. Fro example, I wanted to add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uprising of the Iga Ninja.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's at WP:DELMIL. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And added. Thanks.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source question - War is Boring

Lately, I've been seeing citations from a website called "War is Boring" being added to articles, such as this one. As far as I can tell, medium.com is a blog-style site without any editorial oversight, and the articles on War is Boring basically appear to be commentaries/opinion pieces. Should we be using it as a source? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In my estimation, after looking the site over...no. Basically unsourced opinion pieces. Nothing substantial. In my opinion, one would be justified in reverting material sourced with this site for NPOV reasons. Thanks for bring this up, BilCat. Cuprum17 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a tricky case. The blog's main author, David Axe, is an independent journalist/war correspondent whose work often turns up in serious publications (see the mentions of him in the New York Times, for instance: [3]). He is also a commercially published author of several books on the US military, as well as some unusual graphic novel-type accounts of his experiences as a war correspondent: [4]. Some of the other contributors are also former or current military/war specialists, and until recently the War is Boring blog was published on the website of the major magazine Wired. That said, the blog tends to take a sensationalist approach (including the click bait tactics of presenting long-known things as being new, over-hyping new technology and exaggerating the likely effects of political developments) and some posts are complete rubbish. As very little original reportage or specialised analysis is published on the blog I doubt that there's much need to ever use it as a source - better references should be available. I agree that it's best thought of as an opinion blog. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Valuable historiographical resource

The book by Messenger, Charles, ed. (original edition 2001; Kindle ed. 2013). Reader's Guide to Military History has 900+ pages of historiography. That is, it evaluates thousands of books in all areas of military history. Large portions are available on books.google.com For example, has multiple articles on the Napoleonic wars that run to 36 pages of highly informative text. There are 587 signed articles by established experts. Rjensen (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It was well-reviewed in The Journal of Military History (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3093362). Chris Troutman (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Operation Bora and consider chipping in over there then. Regards--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

British soldiers killed at the Karlslust dance hall fire

Dear all, apologies if this should not be the correct place for my question. I am the creator of Karlslust dance hall fire, which occurred in the British sector of Berlin in 1947. So far, I did not succeed in finding English language sources covering the event, which would give the article another perspective. I'm quite sure they exist, because British soldiers were killed (the German sources are not coherent here, putting their number to three or six). Can you help me with this task? Any remarks and comments will be greatly appreciated. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest searching through British newspaper archives in the first instance. Histories of the British Army in Germany may also cover this, but the period between the end of the war and the Berlin Airlift is often skimmed over in English language works. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ADF.jpg invalid

I would like to bring to someone's attention that the ADF.jpg in the WikiProject Australia banner is not valid. It comes up as 25px and is redlinked. Adamdaley (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears to have been deleted following a transfer to Commons, except the whole "transfer to Commons" part didn't happen. I've pinged the deleting user. -- saberwyn 23:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified World War I Unit

I have a photo of a SPAD XVI, probably of the US Air Service the First Army Observation Group. However, I can't identify the unit emblem shown on the fuselage. Can anyone assist, please? Thank you in advance Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not among the squadron fuselage markings approved in November 1918 by the AEF. That would narrow it to either a squadron that had no combat credit or a headquarters. I tend to the latter (with a leaning toward Air Service, AEF only because I have seen a photo of Billy Mitchell by a similarly -- but not identically -- marked aircraft).--Lineagegeek (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The plane might not be American - the insignia on the wings more closely resembles the RAF then anything the US or AEF would've used. That's my take. That having been said, I agree that the eagle emblem on this picture resembles the one shown here, and again here, and in both cases associated with Billy Mitchell. Given this, it could be his personal emblem, although again I am not sure if that is a correct assessment. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks a lot like the one in the NASM (from the 2d link you posted), even to the point of the stripes painted on the wing struts. Also notice it's a Spad XVI as well. Thank you for your help with this :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The roundel on the wing seems to have a white centre, which would make it either US or Russian. British aircraft also carried a roundel on the fuselage. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a small serial number on the tail - ?674 - if it helps... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The tail number is 967. The one in the Smithsonian is 939, so not the same aircraft. There is no reason why Mitchell shouldn't have flown more than one aircraft in the unit though. Monstrelet (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible edit war over Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

Shortly after this article completed its time as the main page, I reviewed all of the changes made since my last check and found that Pol098 had made a large number of edits. Some of these were genuine improvements to the wording, but others were not and I returned them to their original state. He then reverted my changes, which included dealing with problematic edits by Magus732, to his preferred version without explanation. I've reverted him, which puts me at 2RR, so I'm bringing the problem here to avoid. This is an FA-class article so its prose has been extensively reviewed, but that doesn't mean that it's perfect. Nonetheless, I'm leery of making extensive changes in the wording and reverted many Pol098's changes that did not offer a clear improvement. He seems insistent on the superiority of his rewording, so I would like the community to render judgement on them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've commented in detail on these rather small changes on the article's talk page. Pol098 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

OBs categories

I was going through this category and was wondering if Category:Military organizational structures should be renamed. It seems that all obs can be considered "organizational structures". Also, I was wondering about Category:Structure of contemporary armies‎. To me, "contemporary" should covern present day, but this category includes Formations of the Soviet Army, which disbanded over 20 years ago and doesn't exist anymore. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain how I tried to thread this needle in naming this category, and then people can consider. The articles in Cat:Military org structures all describe the structures of entire armed services or comparable institutions, for example Organization of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The subcat for contemporary is exactly as it says: contemporary armies. Contemporary defined by Wiktionary points towards 'modern,' and modern is defined as 'Pertaining to a current or recent time and style; not ancient.' We should carefully avoid the overwhelming WP:RECENTISM we seem to be afflicted with: the Soviet Union went away only 22 years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up because I was a bit confused about how "contemporary" the article has to be for this category. For example, the Soviet army formations list is in the contemporary army cat but not the 1984 Italian army article nor the 2008 Turkish army article. The contemporary history article link in Buckshot's post defines the term as history within living memory (or, the past 80 years). Since "living memory" would probably be constantly shifting, perhaps the category should use a more absolute timeframe in place of the "contemporary" concept, such as the most current structure available for the armed forces in question. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The only reason the Turkish and Italian articles are not in the subcat is that nobody's moved them there. The cat now has clear subcats for army and air, and may get a naval one in due course. I don't think we need to redefine 'contemporary'; warfare has had significant similarities since say the Napoleonic Wars in terms of the intro of the division, so we could probably start it there. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this article exist?

Does a Wikipedia article for either the event or for any of the individuals being discussed at [5] exist? I could not find anything at Category:Massacres in Afghanistan. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 00:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears you have an opportunity to create it Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Added; now at 2011 Helmand Province incident. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Another submission for your consideration. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A-class review of List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories

I am facing a bit of a communication challenge on the review of the list mentioned above. The review process seems to have worn down the nominator Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) that he considers resigning from Wikipedia (check his final comment). This was not my intention and I feel bad with myself that I failed to communicate properly that my review comments were meant with the best intensions for the article. Clearly I failed to achieve this. I am therefore stepping back from further reviewing this article and ask the community here to help mend the situation. Sorry for the hiccup. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I left message. So did TomStar. We'll see if we can help him through the hiccup!  :) auntieruth (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for article: Ancient Indian Warfare with Special Reference to the Vedic Period

• Singh, Sarva Daman. Ancient Indian Warfare with Special Reference to the Vedic Period. pp. xiv, 203. Leiden, E. J. Bril, 1965. Fl. 25.

When doing work on the article for Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, The Concentration of Heroic Progress: An Early Mahayana Buddhist Scripture I noticed there was another book reviewed with that title (the article review I was looking at ended and this one began).

Is anyone interested in doing a search at the University of Houston libraries for book reviews of this book, then going to Wikipedia:RX and obtaining the said book reviews, and then writing an article on this book based on the book reviews? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing AS and NZ articles

I've updated the list of requested articles here: Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history so if any of our Australian or Kiwi editors are looking for something to do there are a surprisingly large number of articles still waiting to be written. Likewise if anyone can think of any other missing articles pls add them to the list. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'd also note that a very high proportion of the existing articles on NZ military history are under-developed, so there's lots that can be done. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Official Records of the Australian Military Contingents to the War in South Africa by P.L. Murray (1911)

Gday. For anyone interested I found an electronic copy of this online now here: [6] (previously very hard to find in hard copy). A good source for Australian Boer War units etc. Anotherclown (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion?

About the incomplete checklists category above: Would it be possible to split it by task force? I would be glad to do any articles, but I would probably have an easier time determining the B2 fulfillment of ACW articles than those of other subjects. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be helpful to. Not sure how to do this so hopefully one of the other MILHIST regulars might. Anotherclown (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've tackled some of the unassessed articles, and have probably added to the confusion, simply because my checklists were also incomplete. However, the four or five articles I assessed were unfixable (at least by me), and I left notes for the editor on what to do. I'd be happy to work on Napoleonic War stuff if I'm directed to it. And, btw, I've enjoyed being back on wikipedia and editing again! auntieruth (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome back! Anotherclown (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible source: "The C.I.A.’s Misuse of Secrecy" (Op-Ed)

• Jaffer, Jameel and Nathan Freed Wessler. "The C.I.A.’s Misuse of Secrecy" (Op-Ed). The New York Times. April 30, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

31st Independent Brigade Group

Does anybody know why British 31st Independent Brigade Group redirects to 6th Airlanding Brigade (United Kingdom)? It isn't explained in the article, or on the talk page of the redirect as far as I can see. I'm sure there's a logical answer. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

6th Airlanding became 31st Independent in 1946, while in Palestine. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I was trying to find the brigade that was defending the Royal Military Canal in 1940! Alansplodge (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This looks better from the Imperial War Museum The Brigade was formed as a Brigade Group in the UK on 17 July 1940. On 10 December 1941 it was redesignated 1st Airlanding Brigade Group and came under command 1st Airborne Division. It probably lost its unique badge at about this time although it did not lose its Group status until 10 March 1943. A second 31st Independent Infantry Brigade was formed after the Second World War and wore a black desert rat on a red oval. [7] Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that several editors have solved the problem at the 31st Brigade (United Kingdom) article. Thank you, one and all. Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

AfC submission

Is there any notability guideline for these ships? If so, please tell us about it on the AfC talk page. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"military space program"

The meaning of "military space program" is under debate, see the discussion concerning the name of Category:Military space program of the United States, where this has come up. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 query

Following a rather emotive question on the Miscellaneous Reference desk, I have posted a query at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and would be very grateful for any knowledgeable input. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Diagrams not in English

Is it o.k. to utilize images that include text from another language? I am finding it hard to find diagrams on Japanese firearms in English and this diagram explains the Type 94 malfunction perfectly. My Japanese is poor but I could possibly alter the image to include English text. WIKIPEDIA COMMONS LINK TO IMAGE IN QUESTION--Molestash (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In principle yes. In this case, I think some overlaid English translation would probably be essential though, as it will make little sense without it! If your Japanese is up to it, it might also be worth updating the Commons file, as it will be hard for future reviewers etc. to confirm that the tags are correct if there's solely the Japanese text to rely on. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Unknown conflicts or wars

Hi all looking for some help. I am doing an article of Major-General Guy Archibald Hastings Beatty and according to the Western Front Association [8] he saw active service in Persia (1919), in the Kyhber Pass (1919) and in Mesopotamia (1920–1). The Kyhber Pass will be the Third Afghan War but can anyone shed a light on what the other two conflicts were? Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Persia" is the British attempt to establish a protectorate in Persia, briefly described in Persian Campaign#Aftermath. "Mesopotamia" is the Iraqi revolt against the British. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Mulan"

The meaning of "Mulan" is under discussion, see talk:Mulan (disambiguation) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attempt

Just so younz know, there be chatter on the talk page about the title and whether or not it should be changed since at the moment this is shaping up to be more of a civil war than a coup d ta. Input over there may prove useful, all the more so since the article be linked from the main page at the moment. 24.92.109.251 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Simultaneous reviews

What is the preferred procedure if I would like to simultaneously list an article for WP:PR and MILHIST A-Class review? Also what is policy regarding two simultaneous A-Class reviews?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I think it is generally accepted that if an article would benefit from PR, it should wait until the PR is finished and those issues addressed before nominating it for ACR. To my knowledge there are no restrictions on having two articles at ACR at the same time. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had up to three at a time for ACR, but it would be most helpful if you would do a review of other ACRs for each one you have up yourself. I've noticed things move a lot faster that way. —Ed!^(talk) 18:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

WW1 Reparations

Hi, I am working on the World War I reparations article. I am currently expanding the information on the Bulgarian reparation demands and payments. Thus far, I have established the following:

1 - Treaty of Neuilly established that Bulgaria had to pay 2.250 billion Gold francs in reparations.(Treaty of Neuilly, Article 121)
2 - In 1923, the Bulgarian reparation sum was "revised downwards" to 550 million gold francs "plus a lump sum payment of 25 million francs for occupation costs".(Marks, Myths of Reparations, pp. 234-5)
3 - Between the treaty signing and April 1922, 173 million gold francs were paid (1)
4 - Between 1925 and 1929, Bulgaria paid a further 41 million gold francs, before reparations were abandoned at the Lausanne conference of 1932.(2)

Can anyone provide additional information (including sources)? Such as:

1 - Do the above figures represent total Bulgarian reparation payment, and if not what was it?
2 - Did an event, such as the Dawes Plan for example, occur to revise down the Bulgarian reparation payments?

Thanks for any help provided.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Number 4: Between 1925 and 1925? Possibly mid to late 1920s? Adamdaley (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Typo on my part, it should read 1925-1929. I have amended the text above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

British Library free use images

A colleague has brought to my attention this collection of 1M free use images taken from old books

http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary

They may be well known to some editors - others like me may not have seen them before.

They are tagged but not it seems indexed. A quick look showed there are military images in there, including useful maps. If anyone has the time, it might reveal some hidden treasures.Monstrelet (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone has very kindly listed all the books that have been scanned to create this collection at the seven pages starting at commons:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Full list of books 1. NtheP (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2013 now open!

Military historian of the year 2013

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nominations

• Anotherclown (talk · contribs) While Anotherclown probably deserves to be nominated for the strength of his work on the Battle of Long Tan article alone, he is another hugely prolific contributor and played a key role in getting three articles to GA status. He has also performed sterling work as a coordinator and makes a huge contribution to tagging, assessing and maintaining articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) AustralianRupert's two successful A-class nominations, five successful GANs and many articles developed to B-class standard are only the tip of the iceberg of his contributions. As well as serving as a coordinator, he does a huge amount of "wiki-gnoming" style work to assess, improve and maintain articles and contributed one of the best op-eds to have been published in the Bugle. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Cdtew (talk · contribs) During 2013 Cdtew has developed eight articles on North Carolina's role in the American Revolutionary War to GA or higher status, representing a huge improvement to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Cliftonian: for continued efforts to improve Rhodesian military history coverage, including four FAs and several GAs this year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Dank: for his active role in four FAs this year, as well as his contribution to other quality articles though constant reviewing/copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) for his dedication and work on World War I flying aces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7: for dedication to improving coverage related to the atomic bomb and other subjects, including 10 FAs this year, and as the inaugural recipient of the ACM with Diamonds. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ian Rose (talk · contribs): a major content contributor, tireless co-ord and diligent reviewer. Achievements this year include 8 x FAs, 6 x As, and 15 x GAs. Strong reviewer at GA and A and goes the extra mile to ensure accuracy. Other good works include role as FA delegate and on the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs): for long term contributions. Jim has over 98,000 edits, including 34 x GAs, 4 x As, 2 x FAs and a Good topic (not to mention his ongoing efforts to assist reviewing – 112 x GA reviews and many A class reviews). Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keith-264 (talk · contribs): for his prolific contributions to World War I articles. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Mongo (talk · contribs): for pushing for and getting the Fort Yellowstone article up to FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Nick-D (talk · contribs): for continuing sterling work as a content contributor and co-ord. Has encouraged and mentored many editors as they got started and helped established editors maintain focus. His achievements this year include at least 5 x FAs, 1 x A, and 2 x GAs. Not to mention work with the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs): for his work on World War II articles and work as a reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs): What can I say? The guy's a machine on FAs, As and GAs and always gives a great review as well. It's largely down to him that MILHIST now boasts the largest featured topic ever, "Battlecruisers of the world". —Cliftonian (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the nomination, but as a previous winner, I must decline the nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
    • A gentleman as well. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Tomobe03 (talk · contribs): for his work on Balkans-related articles and GA reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wild Wolf (talk · contribs): for his continuing work on ACW articles. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Zawed (talk · contribs) Another editor working on an under-represented topic, Zawed has made a major contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand military history by developing five articles on the topic to A-class status and 10 to GA. Zawed is also among the most regular assessors of articles nominated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2013 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2013

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. This year, in addition to the annual "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jimfbleak (talk · contribs): although an old and wise hand around wiki, he is a very recent member of the project. Recently took his first MILHIST article (that I’m aware of) – Melbourne Castle – to FA. Anotherclown (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • He has also nommed these at FAC: Titchwell Marsh, North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Cley Marshes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Khanate General (previously Typing General): Although only active since mid-year, Khanate is already making his presence felt as an editor of quality Central and East Asian military history articles, including a Featured List and several GAs, and as a reviewer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Omnedon (talk · contribs): generally more focused on geography and local history, he this year brought the important article Jefferson Davis up to FA standard. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ssriram mt: An experienced editor on wider Indian topics, Ssriram has made a welcome appearance to editing articles within the MilHist area, and has been recently improving article on a number of Indian forts, including getting Fort Dansborg up to GA standard. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flow news update

Greetings. First off, thank you for greatly assisting with the feedback and suggestions on Flow's development - the team can only build it as well as our support enables them to.

For this page, one of the most active and complex WikiProjects around, the Flow team has decided that it makes more sense to hold off for a few more development sprints (2-week time chunks), until certain features have been further developed (such as a more condensed view for navigating many long conversations) and new features (such as closing and summarizing topics) added. We'll be starting off with the other 3 smaller WikiProjects that volunteered - Video games, Hampshire, and Breakfast - and aiming to launch in mid-January if you'd like to follow the progress of Flow there.

Please continue to test out the mw:Talk:Sandbox, and leave feedback and suggestions at mw:Talk:Flow (or here at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ) - the more we/you speak up with good insights, the faster it will turn into the discussion&collaboration system we've always wanted and needed. Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

GA backlog

Gday all. Bit of a backlog building up at GA at the moment, currently up to 45 articles. If anyone is looking for a way to contribute doing a review would be quite helpful. Pls see Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Warfare. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone could review my German occupation of Belgium during World War II (the oldest article so far unreviewed) then I'd be extremely grateful! Brigade Piron (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Howdy. As this request has been sitting since 19 Sep 13 without any interest I will take this on. That said I will state from the outset that I am out of my depth as this topic is well outside my lane. I will do my best but will also ask a few other editors for their opinions to (hopefully) ensure a thorough review is completed of this important topic. As such if anyone is interested pls go to the review page and add your cmts. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Been some progress here with the backlog now down to 40 GA reviews (of which) 27 are still awaiting a reviewer. That said still plenty of scope for people to pitch in if you are interested. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Name of empire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could the MILHIST discussion revisit its decision [9] on the basis that –

a) the common name which is relevant to the choice of article name Wikipedia:Article name#Use commonly recognizable names, should not be used when naming an historical state, country or government, and

b) there is nothing in the original quote relied on to change the name of an empire, to sustain such action. The exact wording reads:

"[m]any 'Western' history books (including virtually all histories of the Gallipoli campaign) use the terms 'Ottomans' and 'Turks', and 'Ottoman Empire' and 'Turkey' as if they are interchangeable. The words may be synonymous to English-speaking peoples, but in fact they have quite specific historical meanings." [Fewster, Basarin, Basarin pp. xi-ii] --Rskp (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well part "a" of your argument already fails, if you look at the list at WP:UCN you'll see "United Kingdom (not: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)", which accounts for all 3 in terms of being referred to as a historical state, country and government.

In this case it could be argued that "Turkey" is not a common name, it is not a shortened term or popular term socially, it is an alternative term, between "Turkey" and "Ottoman".

By "historical meanings" do you mean "Turkey" meant something different then to now? I would suggest the contemporary term is more important here, per WP:MODERN. You're writing for a 21st century audience, doesn't matter if "Turkish" was once offensive, it isn't now and is widely more known than "Ottoman" without the need for readers unfamiliar with the Ottomans to have to do some background reading, because the word "Turkish" describes the nation who governed the Ottomans, the word "Ottoman" is broad and ambiguous.

I would also suggest that it might be too soon for this debate. The consensus was just a few weeks ago.. opinions don't change that fast on Wiki, and you haven't really presented a strong opening argument above to convince anyone, I doubt, to sway their views so soon. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not revisit this issue yet again: this was resolved only a few weeks ago, and there's no reason to think that consensus will have changed over such a short period. Rskp, this is unhelpful conduct in a field in which you have recently been sanctioned by ArbCom, and you really need to move on - it clearly goes against the spirit of the first sanction which has been imposed on you in which you have been banned from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' in any article. I will be asking an uninvolved admin to intervene in this matter if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the safest option would be to close this discussion as premature, and RoslynSKP should probably not return to it for at least a few months to give time for the Arbcom sanction to prove its effectiveness. The WWI centenary starts from next June 28, if we go by the assassination of Ferdinand, I think that once the focus on WWI becomes more dedicated, it would better to discuss this matter in detail then when there are more editors around looking at the topic objectively. Opinions? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've asked uninvolved coordinators to consider closing this thread. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good plan, to revisit this issue when more editors are around, who might be able to focus on the topic. --Rskp (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I meant at all: please drop this issue permanently. Re-raising issues where there is a clear consensus and which relate to an active ArbCom sanction is not a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I disagree, I think an open discussion on the WWI centenary would produce more fruition than attempting to subjugate the matter completely, which Arbcom did not insist on, and which you as a coord should not be requesting either. It is 6 months to June, I don't see how that's an unfair period to let the waters settle. If there is a bias in the "Ottoman" matter there is little to be gained by the same old-hands debating it again, come next June I hope we will have a fresh intake of editors specifically interested in the WWI anniversaries who will help shed further light on the matter. Given than Wikipedia is a collaborative project, I consider than an unbiased solution compared with "drop this issue permanently" which is a heavy-handed and obtuse approach given that we never use the word "permanently" against editors on Wiki, unless they're banned, rather we use "indefinitely". Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

HMS Cabinet

Does anyone know anything about the loss of HMS Cabinet in 1827/8? Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mjroots: That seems like an odd name for a (presumably British) ship. Do we have any information about its history other than the 1827/8 date? Kirill ^[talk] 06:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: - There was a Court Martial following her loss. It was reported in a Dublin newspaper and repeated in an Australian newspaper in late 1828. See here.

@Mjroots: Looking at that article, I'm going to hazard a guess that we're not actually dealing with a real ship here, but rather with a metaphor for some sort of political shakeup within the Wellington ministry. Note that the names of the ships and officers suggest some connection to the political situation in the UK at the time (e.g. "Admiral Sir George King" → George IV of the United Kingdom, "Vice Admiral Sir William Henry" → William IV of the United Kingdom, "Capt. Wellesley" → Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, etc.). Having said that, I'm not sure what specific event this might be in reference to; perhaps someone with more knowledge of British politics of the period might have more insight? Kirill ^[talk] 13:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: - Ah, Irish politics then. Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a reference to F. J. Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich, who became Prime Minister in 1827, but couldn't keep the coalition government under him together, and resigned 144 days later in January, 1828, when George IV asked Wellington to form a Tory government. According to the article on Goderich, it sounds like he was a total disaster of a PM, hence why they probably satirized it as a "court martial" for mishandling the ship of state. Cdtew (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It continues to amaze me the knowledge I find in editors here, it really does... :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting for the military historian and newcomer of the year awardsextended by one week

Per this discussion on the coordinators' discussion board, the deadline for voting in the military historian of the year and military history newcomer of the year awards has been extended for a week to encourage additional participation. Voting will now close at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014. For the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Hogun/archive1

Despite my reduced man-hours on Wikipedia, I'm attempting to get the fifth and final article in the series on NC's American Revolutionary War generals to featured status. I would sincerely appreciate any reviews, positive or negative, that you may be willing to contribute. Cdtew (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have had this on my list to review (recusing myself from FAC coord duties) and should get to it before long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Iraq War article on wasteful spending

• Pany, Thomas. "Irak: Der Wiederaufbau-Pfusch." Heise. 6 March 2013.

It's in German but it can be used to improve articles on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

United States World War I contributions

Some articles that have been completely revised or created as a small contribution to the World War I centenary

• List of American Aero Squadrons

All AEF squadrons (combat/non-combat) have been researched and listed

• List of World War I flying aces from the United States

Also all of the men have had their individual articles either created or expanded/edited

• List of Training Section Air Service airfields

All airfields in the United States have had articles created, and locations noted in the list article

• Organization of the Air Service of the American Expeditionary Force

Also, all of the United States combat squadrons of the AEF have been revised or created from scratch.

• List of Air Service American Expeditionary Force aerodromes in France

Mostly complete, still working on some airfield articles

Am planning on writing articles about the observation balloon squadrons in 2014.

Regards, Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

New articles list

The Milhist new articles list has not been working for some time. Can anyone fix it? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

Once again, my friends, we face our old adversary - a rising tide of disambiguation links. Any help would be appreciated in wiping out this backlog of heavily linked disambiguation pages under the ambit of military history:

• Battle of Niš - 49 links
• Battle of Chattanooga - 12 links
• Battle of Gaza - 12 links
• Battle of Newbury - 12 links
• Battle of Winchester - 12 links
• Battle of Yorktown - 12 links
• Battle of Ypres - 12 links -- Done
• Battle of the Philippines - 11 links
• Battle of Algiers - 11 links
• Battle of Mogadishu - 11 links
• Battle of Mesilla - 10 links -- Done
• Battle of Kharkov - 10 links
• Battle of Hill 60 - 9 links -  Partly done - re List of The Unit episodes - seems to be some sort of template but I can't access it to edit
• Battle of Târgu Frumos - 9 links
• Battle of El Alamein - 9 links
• Battle of Doiran - 8 links
• Battle of Rabaul - 8 links --  Done by someone else
• Battle of Arras - 8 links
• Battle of Beledweyne - 7 links --  Done
• Battle of Cambrai - 7 links --  Done
• Battle of Changsha - 7 links
• Battle of Farmington - 7 links
• Battle of Lwów - 7 links -- Done
• Battle of Saltville - 7 links
• Battle of Vella Lavella - 7 links -  Partly done - re VMA-124, is either the Battle of Vella Gulf or Land Battle of Vella Lavella.
• Battle of Warsaw - 7 links
• Battle of the Aisne - 7 links -  Partly done - re Edgar Feuchtinger, can't identify which/how many Battles of the Aisne.
• Battle of Bapaume - 7 links -- Done by someone else
• Battle of Cape Finisterre - 6 links ---  Done
• Battle of Champagne - 6 links
• Battle of Guam - 6 links
• Battle of Mantinea - 6 links -- Done
• Battle of Nördlingen - 6 links -- Done
• Battle of St. Quentin - 6 links
• Battle of Wissembourg - 6 links
• Battle of the Weldon Railroad - 6 links
• Battle of Abukir - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Albert - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Coronea - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Delhi - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Grozny - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Panipat - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Placentia - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of San Juan - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Ushant - 5 links -- Done

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#FLAGS and WWI flags of Commonwealth dominions

There is debate at Arthur Currie relating to the employment of "British Empire" (and associated flag) vs. Canada (and associated flag) for topics that relate to individuals from the dominions prior to the Treaty of Westminster. Looking for verification that the general consensus is to leave dominion flags and allegiance where it's clearly determinable. I know it's a long-standing approach but looking for confirmation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• The issue now involves a long list of articles editing by User:Bardrick in the last two days. including: John George Pattison, Charles Merritt, John Hamilton Roberts, John Hamilton Roberts, Bernard Freyberg, 1st Baron Freyberg, Howard Kippenberger,John Monash, Peter Walls, Quintin Brand, Keith Park, Adolph Malan, Billy Bishop, Leslie Powell.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is partly my dearly-held belief, but WP:INFOBOXFLAG trumps MILMOS, and states as follows: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used."

For those reasons, I am of the strong opinion that no flags at all should appear in these sorts of biographies, as they are leading to exactly the sort of "unnecessary disputes" the MOS talks about. Unless the flags convey additional information not already conveyed by the text, they should be avoided. Cdtew (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree fully with Cdtew re. the flags. I've also noticed Bardrick making these edits and have reverted "British Empire" in the case of an article I largely wrote on the basis that the subject only served in British units for a small proportion of his service life, and even then the allegiance should have been considered to the UK, which has long been the MilHist convention, not the "British Empire". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted changes to Kippenberger and Monash articles while this topic is under discussion. For what is worth, I think both would have identified as New Zealander and Australian respectively. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This involves more than just biography arrticles, several battle of articles also use flags, and some have been involved in an edit war over British Empire - Australia etc. I would vote for their removal if it comes to getting a consensus. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the flag topic for a brief moment, can we agree that th allegiance field should be the associated dominion and not "British Empire".Labattblueboy (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No not really, that would depend on what period in time you were talking about. During and before WWI most British Empire subjects would say their allegiance was to that. While after they might say Australia, Canada etc So unless you no for certain that Joe Bloggs said his allegiance was to Nova Scotia any thing else is just guesswork or synth. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's work with WWI and individuals that were born and died in a dominion (Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc) and whose military service is related specifically to that dominion (ANZAC for Australian, CEF for Canada), as is the case for all those listed above.Labattblueboy (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody would have said "British Empire" in 1914. People did not identify themselves that way. Australia was an independent country. Debate centred around what obligation, if any, Australia owed to the Empire. Australians tended to think of the subjects of the British Empire as being non-white peoples in the Imperial colonies. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC) And it is not synth, I can easily back it up. Hawkeye7 (talk)

a different situation in Canada perhaps? While Quebec may not have identified with France or Britain and the army was probably unwelcoming to Francophones, the Canadian Corps had a high percentage of British-born volunteers. A source says that it is not until the end of the war that Canadian-born make up over 50%. That may interpreted two ways: as Canadian-born not wanting to volunteer, or that Canada had a very large number of British-born citizens. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The corresponding figure in Australia was about 27% British-born in 1914, although Bean notes that many of them had lived in Australia since they were children. As in Canada, the proportion of British-born fell as the war went on, and the recruits became younger. I would not say that the Canadian Army was "unwelcoming" to francophones, who served with distinction in the francophone 22eme Battalion, although you are too right about their not identifying with France or Britain. Trouble really only began with the introduction of conscription, which opened up Canada's internal divisions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that a legalistic criterion like the Statute of Westminster is better than ahistorical projections, which wouldn't have been accepted by the people who were there. Oh and Australia wasn't independent in 1914 (or 1918).Keith-264 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I always prefer the British Empire designation because it makes it clear to the un-informed reader that this is talking pre-independence. I think it also depends on the war - it's a lot easier to justify the "British Empire" designation for Australia (say) in WWI than it would be for Korea...Brigade Piron (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

PS I was surprised to learn that flags shouldn't be in the infobox.Keith-264 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Australia was independent in 1914, having been granted Dominion status in 1907. The "British Empire" had no legal or constitutional existence. When Bridges was given command of the AIF in 1914, he was equipped with a charter that gave him the right to refuse any order given by the British authorities and to consult with the government in Australia on any matter. I don't see haw this constitutes allegiance to Britain. (The commanders in Korea were given a copy of this charter.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dominion doesn't mean independent. This is a matter of fact not opinion, as is British empire rather than British Empire.Keith-264 (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it does. The dominions signed the Treaty of Versailles as separate nations. We can argue about the gradual process by which the dominions became more and more independent; but when it comes to allegiance, the choice is between "Britain" and "Australia". Nobody in either country would said "British Empire". Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Independence is not more or less, it is or it isn't. Notice also "British empire" (sic) is a form of verbal shorthand not a title. Australia eventually became a nominally sovereign state after 1918 (of course it's really a US imperial colony same as Britain).Keith-264 (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that. From 1901 Australia was self-governing, had its own Army, and control of its own foreign affairs. The British parliament still had the right to enact laws for Australia, but had agreed not to. So it met all the criteria that most people consider independent. In 1907, the conferring of dominion status made Australia independent in name as well as in fact, and the British parliament passed a law removing its right to legislate for Australia, which it had never exercised. Australia signed the treaty of Versailles in 1919 as an independent nation, and this was followed by the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which recognised that Britain and Australia were equal in status, and the 1931 statute of Westminster, which allowed the Australian parliament to make laws outside its territories. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All quite valid points in my opinion, and ones which myself and others have raised when this issue has been discussed previously. That said I'm not altogether convinced that this discussion warrants serious attention (and comments like "of course it's really a US imperial colony same as Britain" confirm that in my mind). Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's simple, when did Australia become a sovereign state? There must be an objective definition and surely that is the moment when the British state ceased to have a role, such as legislation, legal appeals to the Privy Council etc. Denying the realpolitikal subservience of states to the US empire seems a bit Pooterish too; I thought that the cultural cringe was obsolete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion#Australia 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Four colonies of Australia had enjoyed responsible government since 1856: New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.[24] Queensland had responsible government soon after its founding in 1859[25] but because of financial dependence on Britain, Western Australia became the last Australian colony to attain self-government in 1890.[26] During the 1890s, the colonies voted to unite and in 1901 they were federated under the British Crown as the Commonwealth of Australia by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. The Constitution of Australia had been drafted in Australia and approved by popular consent. Thus Australia is one of the few countries established by a popular vote.[27] Under the second Balfour Declaration, the federal government was regarded as coequal with (and not subordinate to) the British and other Dominion governments and this was given formal legal recognition in 1942 (when the Statute of Westminster was retroactively adopted to the commencement of the Second World War 1939).14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Keith-264 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Appeals to the privy council were abolished in 1986. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see why this is relevant. If you asked Australians of the great War period about their allegiance, the answer would have been "Australia". We have always used this for the allegiance. The United States was not independent until 1783 but the biographies of the American Revolutionary War are marked "United States" not "British Empire". Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It just took us eight years to get the British Army to leave ;) Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

We're into the last 12 hours of 2013 down under so if I can't check in again before 2014, Happy New Year all, great working with you, and look forward to seeing you again after we all recover from our respective parties... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. Euryalus (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year to all. We are a marvelously diverse group from around the world; from different cultures tied together by a common interest. I hope that every one of you is happy, healthy and enjoys success in 2014. Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year everybody. Here's to another fine year in 2014. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Arius1998 (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Blwyddyn newydd dda! --Molestash (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Help needed on the Refdesk - Query about Congreve rockets

Some expertise needed please for this question "Military quotation" on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. A big thank you to all the editors from this project who have helped with various Refdesk queries in the past and Happy New Year to you all. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

GAR

Winston Churchill, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Repeat reviews

If an article passes A-class review, can it be put up for review again if it changes enough or if the review was far enough in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Peer Reviews are OK as long as the rules at WP:PR are followed. That's an overall Wikipedia review vs. a Wikipedia Project review like MilHist's A-class review. I'm not sure if a peer review will help an article much that passed A-class review. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering about multiple A-class reviews. Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) was 15,283 characters of readable prose when it passed ACR, and it is now 27,190 characters of readable prose. Is it eligible for a repeat MILHIST ACR?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted at WP:MHR the only reason A-class articles are normally re-reviewed is when there is a concern that they no longer meet the criteria. Is that the case here? The article looks to be in good shape from a quick skim, and I see that you've been working on improving it. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I hope I am improving it. I am gearing up for WP:FAC and WP:GTC runs, which is why it is currently awaiting feedback at WP:PR. Hopefully, this can be a GT lead article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Nick says. Tony, if your main interest in another review is as a pre-FAC check, I think PR would be the way to go in this case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. I misunderstood the original question to be about a 2nd peer review after an article passes A-class review. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New program evaluation of contests released

Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:

• Program evaluation: on-wiki writing contests

I think you'll be proud of the results, we are! SarahStierch (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

69th Infantry Regiment (New York) and 69th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Is it just me, or are these articles covering the exact same topic? bd2412 T 15:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. In theory there could be two articles, but one should deal with the 69th New York as it existed during the Civil War and the other (69th Infantry Regiment) would take on the history after that when the National Guard was organized. Alas, it rarely seems to be that easy, though. Intothatdarkness 15:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a tremendous amount of duplication between these, which really should be avoided. I would suggest that either they be merged, or the "United States" article be reduced to material that is not about the New York regiment. bd2412 T 16:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's something you'll find with regiments that existed during the Civil War and then again later as part of the National Guard (or re-created for lineage purposes by the whole Brigade Combat Team thing). Technically, I think it's better to have a solo article for the Civil War 69th NY (it was a pretty distinguished regiment) and then something separate for the later unit. There are technical differences between a state Volunteer regiment and a National Guard unit, and I think it's important to make that distinction clear. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Just one point - every other U.S. Army infantry regiment is at XXth Infantry Regiment (United States) (apart from whatever the 3rd Old Guard is at, at the moment, due to persistent claims there) so the current regiment should be at that article title. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's why I tend to think two articles is the way to go. One for the actual CW 69th New York and another for the National Guard descendant (with history picking up around WW 1 most likely). When doing lineage, the Army has a really bad tendency to cobble things on that look good on paper but don't really work well from a historical standpoint. This is especially true when they create lineages for National Guard units. Intothatdarkness 22:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Advise you speak with @Adamdaley: I believe he is assessing all the regiment articles for the Civil War and his sources may help here. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The only source for the above articles, is the Dyer Compendiums. I have no further information such as books or files for New York. As Intothat said the first article should be about the regiment during the American Civil War. Adamdaley (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There should be some stuff out there on the 69th NY, or at least the Irish Brigade (the ACW isn't one of my main focus areas, so I don't have any sources close to hand). I've always felt it's best in these cases to have separate articles: one for the actual state Volunteer unit and another for any "legacy" National Guard unit. Intothatdarkness 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to there being two articles, so long as they are clearly covering different things. bd2412 T 14:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that's easy enough to do. The 69th NY article should deal with the regiment during the Civil War and end when the regiment was mustered out of service. The 69th Infantry Regiment article could link back to that history as a lineage thing, but its history should start when it was organized in the National Guard (so World War I...possibly with some earlier stuff if there's good sourcing for it). Just my thoughts, though. Intothatdarkness 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that the regiment was renumbered at the outset of U.S. involvement in World War I as the 165th Infantry, it seems like an article on that unit should pick up the WWI and WWII history of the unit. My personal view is that Wikipedia articles should address the unit identities as separate articles except in cases in which they changed during a conflict (the final designation should indicate the article title in those cases). As already mentioned, U.S. Army unit lineages are so flexible as to embarrass a contortionist, and I would suggest the official lineages merit only a mention in unit articles. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Draft" rating

I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class military history articles, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we had this new namespace, and personally I don't see its appeal.. we each have the ability to create an unlimited number of sandboxes to draft articles in, which seems more than suitable, the last thing I want to see a lot of attention being diverted towards a load of half-baked drafts by anon-IPs and treated in the same way as the B-class checklist category like a backlog that we should be keeping down rather than letting grow. Given that we already have peer-reviews, B-class assessments, A-class reviews, GA and FA reviews taking up a lot of resources, I think any Draft-class categories should only be created as low-priority lists for those who are interested, and not as a "work in progress" to be fussed over. For example, if by the end of 2014 it ends up with 100,000+ drafts that people have started but never really developed we should consider that their problem and not this projects to have to "manage" through drives. I gather drafts will auto-categorise themselves until they are moved into article space; that should be sufficient enough. I think we'll have a busy four years over the upcoming WWI centenary, I don't think we can afford to take on any major schemes revolving around making drafts our responsibility, but that said we can at least make the category quietly available to anyone who is interested in seeing what's brewing in case they want to lend a hand. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if the WPMILHIST banner adds a class-mask check for DRAFT, they will autocategorize. However, the category would still need to be created, otherwise it will be a redlink category. And ofcourse, people will need to add the banner to the talk page. No other work would need to be done. Those interested in improving some draft article with an intriguing name will have a category through which to peruse. (and possibly speedy delete some entries from) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible and uncontroversial change to me. It would provide a means of encouraging collaborations in draft articles, raising the profile of drafts and would contribute to better processing of articles created through whatever has replaced the AfC process. I note that this has the bonus feature of hiding these articles away from Google searches. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What would be the fundamental difference between a stub and draft? To me, the difference is that a draft article indicates work in progress, it is currently actively being worked on, while a stub is something more static. Is this what this new class indicates? Unless we provide good guidelines I find it more confusing than helpful. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with MisterBee1966 in finding the purpose "drafts" confusing. My experience with MilHist has been that veteran members tend to dedicate a lot of time to their articles in sandboxes and don't publish them until they're ready for an ACR or even FAR, although some members go for a less stressful B-class or GAR release, which is still an excellent platform. Stubs tend to be made live in mainspace without much preparation and allowed to develop of their own accord and often begin as very low-quality and poorly sourced scraps of history. I agree we may need some basic procedures to follow with regards tagging and even deleting drafts, or we risk being overwhelmed by a heap of scrappy articles which are either started by people cheekily hoping we'll finish them off, or drafts that only repeat content found in existing articles that would be merged were they normal stubs. I think the coord team needs to discuss how drafts tagged as MilHist articles will be managed, if at all, so that we're all on the same page and not CSD'ing willy-nilly (if that's possible). Last thing we need are disputes over "non-articles" and it seems to me that WP:Drafts contains no advice or proper guidelines for editors and is a feature that has been rolled-out with poor support. I'm sure there is potential in identifying promising drafts and encouraging that articles be developed to a high-standard before publication, but we should be more clear on how WikiProjects should handle drafts. I'm also interested in knowing how "drafts" are patrolled or reviewed to prevent a massive backlog of nonsense forming on the servers. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would consider a draft article in Draft space to be just like a draft article in a User space sandbox, except a bit more inviting for others to edit. bd2412 T 13:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I've often developed articles in my user space, but will probably use this system as a means of encouraging other editors to work on them with me. Having a project tag for this would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm another in the confused category about drafts. Most articles I edit I would consider works in progress - perhaps because I see what I'm doing as contributing to their evolution rather than "publishing" them. I understand the idea that it could be used to deliberately encourage collective editing but would we set up an automatic system to remove draft tags a certain time after the last edit? Otherwise I can see us with a backlog of abandoned drafts, or something with the forlorn looking status of something with aging merge proposals. Monstrelet (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The DRAFT tag would be automatically set by the WPP banner, if the page exists in WP:Drafts-namespace. When a page is removed from [[Draft:]]-namespace, it would automatically get removed from the DRAFT-tagging. Drafts can always be deleted through WP:MFD or one of the qualifying WP:CSD criteria. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

NSA does not deny spying on members of Congress (Related to NSA which is relevant to the Intelligence task force)

• Fung, Brian. "The NSA refuses to deny spying on members of Congress." The Washington Post. January 4, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Material and references should be added to relevant articles (or their talk pages), and not be posted on this busy and wide-ranging talk page. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Then may I carve out a separate talk page for the intelligence task force? About article talk pages, it's possible that people don't watch talk pages of some of the articles this is relevant to (obviously almost nobody watches talk pages of the lesser trafficked articles). And while I do have time later to see where this can be added, not every editor does and some might do well to drive by and say "Hi, I found these sources!" In consideration of my comments, if you don't want them on this page, what project-related page would be the best place? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it's normal practice on any projects to use their talk pages post links to news stories and other individual references. I'd suggest that you add the material to relevant articles, or post it on their talk pages. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Of the articles I know are relevant, I've posted this article to the talk pages. But there might be some article I don't know about that it might be relevant to. That's why I wanted the intelligence task force to take a look. While I didn't know of anyone before me who did this practice of "here are sources", I have done "here are sources" posts on some projects. In relation to the NSA stuff some other editors have done the same thing in places like Talk:Edward Snowden. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Espionage has its own talk page. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Espionage has its own talk page. The Intelligence task force of WP Military history does not have its own talk page and AFAIK it's still a separate project. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Milestone reached...

Just to say that the Fortifications task force has reached a milestone, finally having 100 Good Articles under its wing as of today. This follows a strong year of work by the community on topics ranging from North American blockhouses, to Portuguese colonial forts and strangely named artillery towers in Norwich. Thanks to everyone on their work on this aspect of military history in 2013, and I look forward to another good year in 2014! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Having recently enjoyed reviewing a couple of your excellent castle GANs, Hchc, I'm happy to have played a small part in helping you guys achieve this milestone. Will make a note to mention in the next Bugle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My congrats too! Bloody good job. I look forward to the day when Operation Bora reaches those dizzying heights! At which point I might try for special project status... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, everyone! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Voting for military historian of the year for 2013 now open!

Military historian of the year 2013

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Anotherclown (talk · contribs) While Anotherclown probably deserves to be nominated for the strength of his work on the Battle of Long Tan article alone, he is another hugely prolific contributor and played a key role in getting three articles to GA status. He has also performed sterling work as a coordinator and makes a huge contribution to tagging, assessing and maintaining articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) AustralianRupert's two successful A-class nominations, five successful GANs and many articles developed to B-class standard are only the tip of the iceberg of his contributions. As well as serving as a coordinator, he does a huge amount of "wiki-gnoming" style work to assess, improve and maintain articles and contributed one of the best op-eds to have been published in the Bugle. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. User:Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
7. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
9. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Buistr (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
11. Zawed (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
12. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
13. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
14. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cdtew (talk · contribs) During 2013 Cdtew has developed eight articles on North Carolina's role in the American Revolutionary War to GA or higher status, representing a huge improvement to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. User:Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cliftonian: for continued efforts to improve Rhodesian military history coverage, including four FAs and several GAs this year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Cdtew (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dank: for his active role in four FAs this year, as well as his contribution to other quality articles though constant reviewing/copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Cdtew (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. User:Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) for his dedication and work on World War I flying aces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. (as nominator) MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7: for dedication to improving coverage related to the atomic bomb and other subjects, including 10 FAs this year, and as the inaugural recipient of the ACM with Diamonds. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. 10 FAs this year! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ian Rose (talk · contribs): a major content contributor, tireless co-ord and diligent reviewer. Achievements this year include 8 x FAs, 6 x As, and 15 x GAs. Strong reviewer at GA and A and goes the extra mile to ensure accuracy. Other good works include role as FA delegate and on the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Cdtew (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Zawed (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs): for long term contributions. Jim has over 98,000 edits, including 34 x GAs, 4 x As, 2 x FAs and a Good topic (not to mention his ongoing efforts to assist reviewing – 112 x GA reviews and many A class reviews). Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keith-264 (talk · contribs): for his prolific contributions to World War I articles. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. (as nom) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• MONGO (talk · contribs): for pushing for and getting the Fort Yellowstone article up to FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nick-D (talk · contribs): for continuing sterling work as a content contributor and co-ord. Has encouraged and mentored many editors as they got started and helped established editors maintain focus. His achievements this year include at least 5 x FAs, 1 x A, and 2 x GAs. Not to mention work with the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Zawed (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs): for his work on World War II articles and work as a reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. (as nom) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Tomobe03 (talk · contribs): for his work on Balkans-related articles and GA reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. (as nom) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Quality, balanced work on 1990's Balkans articles is hard to achieve, Has made real advances in WP's coverage in this area. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wild Wolf (talk · contribs): for his continuing work on ACW articles. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Zawed (talk · contribs) Another editor working on an under-represented topic, Zawed has made a major contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand military history by developing five articles on the topic to A-class status and 10 to GA. Zawed is also among the most regular assessors of articles nominated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
2. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting for military history newcomer of the year for 2013 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2013

Nominations for this year's Military History Newcomer of the Year award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to only vote for only one candidate. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014. The top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jimfbleak (talk · contribs): although an old and wise hand around wiki, he is a very recent member of the project. Recently took his first MILHIST article (that I’m aware of) – Melbourne Castle – to FA. Anotherclown (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC) He has also nommed these at FAC: Titchwell Marsh, North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Cley Marshes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Khanate General (previously Typing General): Although only active since mid-year, Khanate is already making his presence felt as an editor of quality Central and East Asian military history articles, including a Featured List and several GAs, and as a reviewer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Even though I'm not nominated, I believe all the nominated this year deserve a vote. Season's greetings! Arius1998 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
4. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
8. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
9. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Omnedon (talk · contribs): generally more focused on geography and local history, he this year brought the important article Jefferson Davis up to FA standard. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. (as nominator) —Cliftonian (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Cdtew (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ssriram mt: An experienced editor on wider Indian topics, Ssriram has made a welcome appearance to editing articles within the MilHist area, and has been recently improving article on a number of Indian forts, including getting Fort Dansborg up to GA standard. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range of years in article titles

From WP:YEAR: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." So, it would be proper to shorten the closing year in the following page titles, right?

• Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574)
• Siege of Steenwijk (1580–1581)
• Siege of Rheinberg (1586–1590)

Then they would be consistent with Siege of Acre (1189–91) and Siege of Algeciras (1342–44), or are those the ones that are wrong (if this project has decided to use the longer format)? My guess is that these articles got this way because the page creators were used to seeing the longer format in birth/death year ranges, where the closing year is not shortened (see WP:BORN). Chris the speller ^yack 17:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you'd be okay moving the articles to a shorter date format and redirecting the current titles to them, or just creating shorter titles with redirects, bearing in mind to use ndashes not hyphens in the date. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even sure why we need the year disamb, as there do not appear to any other sieges of those towns. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Were there more than one battles of the above ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No doubt the move would be okazay, as WP:YEAR specifies. But I agree with Jim, why the dates at all? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the years should be written in full we are not short of space as they were some paper based encyclopaedias. The full date has been used for may years, at first because all years were linked, and I see no reason to change from four digits. This seems to me to be yet another example of where changes are decided in a guideline by a few editors and then treated as gospel afterwards. For example I went back 1000 edits to this version of the guideline with is from 13 August 2010. It said:

Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash: 2005–06 is a two-year range, whereas 2005/06 is a period of twelve months or less such as a sports season or a financial year. A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not.

I doubt there was an RfC over the removal (24 September 2010) of "The full closing year is acceptable" and if there was I be it involved less than 20 editors.

At a practical level it is a bad idea to shorten years in date because it make it less likely that an internet search will return the Wikipedia page as the first hit if all that is known by the person searching is the end of the siege and the town name. -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But why the dates? What is the need for disambiguation in the first place? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge on whether the cities were besieged more than one (and so if these articles need dab extensions). I am just commenting in general that full year dates are better than partial year dates -- (1572–1574) instead of (1572–74) -- because full years may aid internet search engines to locate the correct article. -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

map query

http://www.firstworldwar.com/maps/graphics/maps_04_belgium1914_%281600%29.jpg is this map avilable on Wiki? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I can see. If the licensing is good, upload it to commons, and I'll clean it up. (Hohum ^@) 15:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue about licencing I'm afraid. There are other maps from the same source already on Wikipedia though. I've uploaded lots of maps from ex-copyright books here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Keith-264 if you're interested in exercising your Wikimojo.Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

National subcategories of Category:World War II prisoners of war

Over at Category:World War II prisoners of war two new subcategories have recently appeared. These are Category:British World War II prisoners of war and Category:French prisoners of war in World War II. Now, I think having national subcategories for the prisoners is a very good idea, but I also think that a decision should be made as to how these categories should be named. Right now there are two different systems, "Nationality World War II prisoners of war" and "Nationality prisoners of war in World War II". Are either of these preferable? Manxruler (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is potential confusion between those captured by the nationality and those members of that nationality that were captured. Whatever solution is adopted should take this into account. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur, category titles should be more like "British people taken prisoner of war in World War II" to avoid confusion. W. B. Wilson (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, confusion should be avoided. Also, a clear distinction between civilian and military prisoners is necessary. Manxruler (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, civilian prisoners are interned. I think something like "British military personnel captured in World War II" and "Fooian military personnel captured by Britain in World War II" would be appropriately distinct. The civilian versions could be "British people interned in World War II" and "Fooian people interned by Britain in World War II" Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Any categories for civilian prisoners/internees would be subcategories of Category:World War II civilian prisoners (a category which description could also use some work). Presently the only subcategory of that category is Category:World War II civilian prisoners held by Japan. Manxruler (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We've now also got Category:Belgian prisoners of war in World War II. I think that "Category:Fooian prisoners of war in World War II" seems to work fine, and that we should go for that formula. As for prisoners of war by detaining country, we already have an established and well-functioning system with "Category:World War II prisoners of war held by Foo". Manxruler (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) is a painting series that has passed your A-Class review. I was about to nominate one of the paintings in the series, Freedom of Speech (painting), when I noticed this edit by Climie.ca to remove it from the project. There were similar edits ([10],[11] & [12]) for Freedom from Fear (painting), Freedom from Want (painting) & Freedom of Worship (painting). Does the removal of these works from the project represent the consensus of WP:MILHIST editors?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover?, "8: Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose." – If you feel these paintings qualify as depicting military history then they probably fall under our scope. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also want to nominate Freedom of Worship for A-Class.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

They depict military history as our reasons to enter World War II although they are only thematic depictions. I am going to readd these to MILHIST.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How do these fall under the Military history WikiProject's scope? These aren't depictions of military history, these are paintings of regular citizens. Your explanation above is an extremely tenuous connection. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In terms of Military History, they were integral to the Second War Bond Drive. I don't know if they classify as depictions of military history, but as the cornerstones of the Second War Bond Drive, they are part of military history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know what Hisotriography means, but do they fall under "Military historiography, publications, and historians." They were published illustrations used to boost morale.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is what FDR said about these paintings (From the Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)): Roosevelt wrote to Rockwell "I think you have done a superb job in bringing home to the plain, everyday citizen the plain, everyday truths behind the Four Freedoms...I congratulate you not alone on the execution but also for the spirit which impelled you to make this contribution to the common cause of a freer, happier world". Roosevelt wrote to the Post "This is the first pictorial representation I have seen of the staunchly American values contained in the rights of free speech and free worship and our goals of freedom from fear and want." Roosevelt also wrote of the corresponding essays, "Their words should inspire all who read them with a deeper appreciation of the way of life we are striving to preserve."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By using that argument, you could say that thousands of articles should be added to our scope. Take rationing, for example. It's clearly related to military history, but that doesn't mean that it should be in our scope. With Four Freedoms, the fact that they were used to support the war effort in the Second World War does not mean that they fall under our scope. The paintings aren't a military publication, and if you had read our article on the subject, you would have realized that they do not qualify as historiography in any sense of that word.

What this falls under is criterion eight, which is quoted by Marcus above. The explanatory note attached to this criterion states that "We generally cover only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do published illustrations to promote the war count as "publications" for the project?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Military publications" refers to books, articles, and other scholarly works on or about military history. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do War bond drives fall under the project?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Note 4 goes on to say "However, songs and music with long military associations—for example, It's a long way to Tipperary and Lili Marleen—are within our scope." Do things that are so closely associated with the military (the association being their central role in the War Bond Drive) that they are exhibited in concert with the dedication of the National World War II Memorial fall under the note 4 exception?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I stumbled up on "Any Bonds Today?" which also seems like it should be tagged by the project as closely associated with the military.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that this is a tenuous connection, one that Milhist doesn't consider strong enough to be under our scope. These are not paintings of military action, and their legacy is that of Roosevelt's human rights declarations, not the war bond drive. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I assumed "long military associations" means a connection other than depiction of military action. Isn't that how "It's a long way to Tipperary" and "Lili Marleen" are connected? Also not clear on this phrase "legacy is that of Roosevelt's human rights declarations, not the war bond drive"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The two songs in question are in scope because their extensive use by the militaries of the period means that the articles about them can (and do) include a substantive amount of actual military historiography. This is not the case for Rockwell's individual paintings; Freedom of Speech (painting), for example, contains no information on military history, beyond the simple statement that the painting was used for a war bond drive. Consequently, there is no reason for us as a project to be involved with assessing or reviewing that article; there is, quite simply, no material in it that is relevant to our particular area of expertise. Kirill ^[talk] 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin, I can buy your statement regarding three of the four works. I still think Freedom from Fear (painting) may fall within the scope of the project.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kirill. How do you think Freedom from Fear is in scope? It's set during the same time as the Blitz, sure, but it's certainly not a depiction of it, and again, this doesn't have a military association. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I don't understand the meaning of "long military associations" as you apply it from Note 4. However, I do understand "material in it that is relevant to our particular area of expertise" as Kirill put it. This is an article that is about international reactions to The Blitz, Battle of Britain and/or other subjects within the scope of MILHIST. The article will probably need input from Military experts to make sure that it is referring to The Blitz, Battle of Britain and/or other subjects correctly. It is primarily about these subjects. I would not be surprised if Military experts could not offer advice on the current use of the The Blitz and Battle of Britain in the article and offer correction. I would not even be surprised if the proper link were a third article not mentioned. In short, your project's expertise is essential to reviewing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any significant discussion of the Blitz in the article as it currently stands; that may be a limitation of the topic or just a symptom of under-development of the article itself. In my opinion, if the "finished" article winds up including significant military-related material, then an argument can be made for it being in scope; if, on the other hand, such material isn't present, then the article would not be relevant to this project. Kirill ^[talk] 17:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be the case that a Featured Article on this topic would actually discuss The Blitz and explain the fear that such military events stimulate. I can not say what a featured version of this article may include, but having presented a lot of military art in the past for this project, I would expect that during a ACR, military people would advise me about what military content should be added to the article. Should this article be expanded with content that explains what The Blitz was and the resulting fear that it stimulated. I imagine if it should discuss the Blitz, it might also need to discuss the Battle of Britain, but that is not my area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Historiography" refers to the methods behind the study, presentation and application of history as a subject rather than history itself, so any media which depicts historical events generally won't fall under that category. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Generally, though the project has accepted media depictions of military actions so long as those military actions actually happened (not a made up war or anything). One film FA which falls within this project's scope is Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, but this isn't a media depiction of a military action, Crisco. The four images are all non-free of I would have displayed them here. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wasn't talking about the Four Freedoms (I agree with you guys there). Just replying to point out that WP:MILHIST isn't quite "pure" historiography, by consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, my bad Crisco. Thanks for the clarification. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think these fall within the United States home front during World War II and not the Military history of the United States during World War II. So civil and not military history, but the home front is tagged for this project. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney, thanks for your clarification. I have already conceded that three of the four are outside of the scope of MILHIST. I am just trying to clarify wether a proper presentation of Freedom from Fear (painting) falls within the project. See discussion above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I concur with Jim's assessment above, and would throw in this comment - I think you have to make a mental distinction between (a) art impacted by and inspired/influenced by military events/people/things, and (b) art that actually depicts military things/makes a direct commentary on warfare/illustrates a military event. I think, for instance, your Whaam! article is the perfect example - it is a direct commentary on combat. This, on the other hand, is like Guernica - it's not a direct commentary on combat, but it is something influenced by war. Things that are merely influenced or inspired by military events are, in my opinion, outside the scope of this article. Otherwise we're opening the floodgates, as war has likely inspired almost as much art as abstract concepts like "love". EDIT: Another example is Howard Chandler Christy, which I think should be a MILHIST article, because he is primarily famous as a military illustrator and war correspondent, and was influential in the recruiting methods of the US armed forces during WWI (which is a nuanced difference from a painting that is influential in the civilian War Bond drive, imho). Cdtew (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Cdtew When you say "makes a direct commentary on warfare" isn't a painting whose purpose is to say it is a human right to be free of the fear of war's direct impact making a commentary on warfare. This work is between Guernica and Whaam in terms of the level of its directness. Whaam depicts combat. That is as direct as it gets. Freedom from Fear show a man who just read the newspaper about fierce bombings. It is not about combat, but is about the emotional toll of war. Guernica is also about the emotional toll of war. However, it says something like "War is like being attacked by dragons". Nothing in the painting is specific to any war. Freedom from Fear says something like "This particular battle is emotionally taxing". However, it presents a specific concern related to a specific battle. I see the Picasso as a general anti-war depiction, while the Rockwell work is intimately tied to a specific battle of historic import. There is nothing in the Picasso related to military history while the Rockwell actually has historic artifacts in the form of a newspaper of the day tying it to specific events in military history. Unlike the other three Four Freedoms, this one is tied to a specific part of military history in graphic detail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I think my answer to your question is in what you just wrote. Contrary to what you said, Guernica also presents a specific concern about a specific battle (the aerial bombardment of Guernica). It says "this particular event was emotionally taxing" to the same extent that FfF does. Just because one is a realist and the other a more abstract cubist depiction doesn't make them any more or less related to a particular battle. Both paintings could have substituted any battle in any war and been the same - for instance, the paper could read "GERMANS INVADE BELGIUM, 1914" and, apart from minor anachronisms, it would be the same (contrast with The Surrender of Breda, which depicts an un-substitutable historic event). Regardless, they're not MILHIST paintings because they exist on a broader, societal plane. They talk about issues larger than military ones - they discuss human morality, fear, grief, all in the context of particular military events. All I'm saying is if you look at it from that perspective, Guernica, Freedom from Fear, The English Patient, Triumphal Arch, and Chagall's U.N. stained glass windows would be MILHIST subjects. All I'm saying is, based on the guidelines, there needs to be a very common-sense, unattenuated rationale, and I don't think FfF fits. So, I think the test should be like this:

1. Does the art depict a military event (battle, revolt, engagement, council of war, etc.), a military figure, or military equipment? If yes, it's MILHIST. If no, then...
2. Is the intent of the art to serve as a direct, particularized commentary on a specific military event, figure, or equipment, rather than a broader social, political, or artistic message? If yes, it's MILHIST. If no, then...
3. Did the art have a substantial and direct impact on military events or the commemoration thereof (e.g. recruitment posters, memorializing the battle/its participants, etc.)? If yes, it's MILHIST; if no, it's not.

In my opinion, because of its only slight and loose affiliation with a military event, which, in reality, could be any military event, Freedom from Fear would not pass this test. Cdtew (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of the "flag" of the Mongol Empire

File:White Sulde of the Mongol Empire.jpg

The image in question

There are a large number of historical battle articles which use File:White Sulde of the Mongol Empire.jpg as the "flag" of the Mongol Empire within infoboxes. It is not a flag. Not only that, it has never been used as a "flag" in the sense of how Europeans used flags in antiquity, and how flags are used in the modern era. Why is this allowed? --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:MILMOS#FLAGS which states: "When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods. Be especially careful to avoid using the flags of modern countries for ancient ones; in many cases, the proper successor of a country no longer in existence is a matter of considerable controversy." Ergo, if the "flag" being added to articles misrepresents a nation, remove them per that MOS guideline. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it actually being used as a flag in the wiki articles? I seem to recall that several kingdoms of the European Dark Ages are represented by a symbol, which isn't any kind of flag, just a way to fill the appropriate bit in an info box Monstrelet (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what that picture is supposed to represent. It isn't a 2D flat image, but an actual picture of a physical object. For another image, see here.

For examples of how the file is used on Wikipedia, see Battle of Ngasaunggyan, Mongol invasion of Europe and List of wars involving Japan. I don't really see how a depiction of a group of eight piked ornaments should be used in the same manner as, say, the Union Jack. These pikes were essentially giant poles with fabric decorations coming off them, used to represent the advancing Mongol horde; it is these physical decorated poles that were used on the field to represent something, and a two-dimensional picture of them isn't the same thing as waving a national or army flag. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A few editors (and especially IP editors for some reason) are very thingy about having flags in infoboxes, and roam around adding flags or other symbols without any consideration about whether they're suitable or not (for instance, some articles on recent battles involving Somali pirates have had the pirates marked with little skull and cross bone flags!). I agree with Marcus' comment that where these aren't justified they should be removed as there isn't a need to have flags or equivalent symbols in infoboxes. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently the file is used on more than 100 pages, and many of them I believe are used inappropriately. Before I do anything about it, I'd just like to confirm that there is community consensus that the image shouldn't be used in infoboxes like how it is currently used. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Any MOS – parent or project – is based on consensus, so you have it for granted. In your example Battle of Ngasaunggyan we see that Mongol Empire has that photo, Pagan Empire has none. It's a pretty lame representation, and I'd support its removal if you seek consensus further to the MILMOS. Go for it, if anyone plays games with you and reverts them raise it here and we can back you up. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: I'd also advise that if you are going to remove the image from as many as 100+ pages, you leave a concise edit summary such as "Removed photo used to represent Mongol Empire per WP:MILMOS#FLAGS as it is inappropriate and not recommended". That helps us follow your removals also. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Turns out this image was a copyright violation to begin with. See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:White Sulde of the Mongol Empire.jpg. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

T-26 FAR

I have nominated T-26 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Free books on the Gallipoli Campaign

Anyone interested in the Gallipoli Campaign, may be interested in this external site. The Gallipoli Association has links to several free on line books. Some books also cover the Western Front and other campaigns. [13] Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jim - I was able to use one of them to pull several nice colored illustrations of warships during the Gallipoli Campaign for use in our articles, such as this one for an article that lacked a lead image. Parsecboy (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad they were of use.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Two more disambiguation issues.

Two of our top heavily linked pages for this month's disambiguation contest are:

1. Afghan civil war: 75 links  Done
2. Imperial Army of the Holy Roman Empire: 64 links

These require some expert attention, and any help would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed split

I've proposed a split of the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Discussion is on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

First World War centenary edit - POV query

Hello all. Could I ask an editor or two to look at this edit? The edit seems to take a media allegation as fact. --IxK85 (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree: the story was basically repeating some kind of rumour, and the material added to the article was then presenting the rumour as being a fact. I've just removed the material from the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ditto. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that this kind of issues should be first dealt with at article's talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add Portal:Film in the United States to Gone with the Wind (film)

Hi! Here is an RFC on whether to add Portal:Film in the United States to: Gone with the Wind (film) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_Portal:Film_in_the_United_States_to_Gone_with_the_Wind_.28film.29

I placed this proposal here because the talk page of the "United States military history task force" redirects to the main talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Here's another one. I appreciate your help. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's an unsourced BLP at present (none of the links are about Mr Sholly). More generally, he appears to have had a very successful career, but I'm not seeing any reason to think that he would have been the subject of the kind of coverage needed to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colonel Arthur Thomas Finney

Hello, I'm preparing this for transfer to main space. Does he meet requisite notability requirements? Viet Nam War POW, Silver Star, DFC, Oak cluster in lieu of 2nd DFC. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 20:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest not per WP:SOLDIER

1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour or
2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
3. Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or
4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or
6. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or
7. Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them; or
8. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or
9. Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Glina massacres ACR needs more reviewers

G'day. This review needs more reviewers or will need to be closed fairly shortly. If you can assist pls have a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Glina massacres. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Muslim conquest of Khuzestan request

This single-sourced article needs some work, appropriate cleanup tags, or something... as is, it could easily be deleted. I found it in the Copyedit backlog, but the content is not suitable for c/e now. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 03:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ajax royal awards for the Battle of Chemulpo Bay

"Awards for bravery". The Nautical Magazine (1905). The Board of Trade have received from H.M. the Emperor of Russia, through the Foreign Office, two gold cigarette cases for Captain H. E. Batt, master, and Mr. Keen, surgeon, of the British steamship Ajax, of Liverpool, which have been awarded to them in recognition of their services to the Russian officers and men wounded at the battle of Chemulpo in February last year. Same but shorter mentioned by Lewis Bayly at his "Pull together!: The memoirs of Admiral Sir Lewis Bayly", P. 112

The captains of Varyag, the Pascal, and the Elba were decorated by the Tsar, who also gave cigar-cases with his monogram in diamonds to the captain and doctor of the Ajax.

From Russia I twisted the Web around but found only a short Australian cargo record from 1904: "Ajax, steamer, 4,477 tons. H. Batt"

Does anyone know anything about their full names and other details? --NeoLexx (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Madison Bodge. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II: Request for mediation

Two established and competent editors are involved in a protracted dispute over referencing in a GA review. I tried to mediate the argument as best I could, but I am neither familiar enough with the GA criteria nor referencing on Wikipedia to be able to give a definitive opinion on the matter. I ask that any long-term GA reviewers, as well as anyone familiar with referencing on Wikipedia, to comment on the GAN page and help us reach consensus. I am sad that this dispute has so soured the relationship between these two editors, and I think we need several members of the community to step in and help resolve this dispute. This is an urgent matter, and the sooner other editors step in, the better. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can give us in the matter. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am following GA critera. Section 1b of the GACR states, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." Refering to MOS:LAYOUT we are drawn to section 3.4 Notes and references. It begins "For how to generate and format these sections, see Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources" Wikipedia:Citing sources aka WP:REF includes section 6.1 Variation in citation methods aka WP:CITEVAR. Extracted guidlelines of note from sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2:

To be avoided

• Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another

Generally considered helpful

• Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent

By following GA-criteria I am led, with no uncertainty, to a sound conclusion and made the reasonable request that all references be made consistent. They are currently a mixed bag of <ref>s and {{sfn}}. Per WP:CITEVAR this is avoidable and unhelpful, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion it fails the GAN requirement to follow MOS:LAYOUT closely enough. I will be failing this part of the GA nomination should the article remain a mixed bag, per WP:GACR which is built upon consensus that affects ALL of wikipedia and ALL GA nominations. A local consensus cannot seek to make an exception for one-off nominations, WP:IAR does not apply here.

I would welcome MilHist members thoughts on this, as there is nothing else needs asking other that the question "what does the GA criteria cover". Anything else is extraneous to the matter and I do not consider my interpretation flawed or unreasonable. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The reviewer has decided to fail the article, so there is no longer any need for mediation; the nominator and the reviewer will go their separate ways. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth I do believe the reviewer was right in highlighting the inconsistent referencing format (and I would have done the same thing). Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ac. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with AC and Peacemaker. Articles should be internally consistent in this regard. Intothatdarkness 16:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Marcus assessment on the citation criteria. What concerns me is that another reviewer chose to pass the article only 24 hours later. Seeking broader consensus on this topic would have been a better approach. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is concerning to me as well (other issues aside) - I'm not really sure of the protocol though, but it seems Marcus failed the review (as the reviewer - which he is obviously allowed to do if he believes the article doesn't meet the criteria) then another editor somehow reopened the review (?) and passed it. Surely at the very least it would have needed to be re-nominated and a complete 2nd review completed before it could be promoted? But even that seems WP:POINTY to me, and I question the thoroughness of the so called "second review" anyway. The article still had several "citation needed" tags outstanding from Oct 13 (in addition to multiple other issues identified by the original reviewer and other editors) when it was somewhat arbitrarily promoted. I've gone through and added the missing citations now because I couldn't accept a GA on a topic like this with "citation needed" tags. That said I still think there are many other issues with this article but they are beyond my knowledge / resources to fix. There seems to be a few editors trying to ensure this article meets the grade (after the fact) though so hopefully these get resolved. Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks kindly for the feedback guys. It is not the "pass" in itself which is annoying, but the fact that it was made without any actual reassessment ever taking place. It is my belief that GregJackP was purposefully being troublesome and this has simply led to a protractive debate over the matter, which GregJackP fails to see any wrong in provoking. It would have made more sense for him to either open a GA2 and perform a bona fide second review of the article, by properly taking all the criteria into account, or as MisterBee suggests, seeking broader consensus. My close was made on the grounds that it would be impossible for myself and the nominee to continue working on the review after the debate, and so GregJackP had no right to "pass" the article within the space of my review. His strict adherence to GACR without looking to question other faults within articles appears to allow poor standards by treating GANs as rubber-stamp "sufficient" rather than "always room for improvement" which is detrimental towards the GA process IMO. The nominee was far to defensive in arguing against consistent referencing, and failed to own up to the fact that it was he who implemented the changes to short form in the first place. As a result I was in a position that forced me to request that he convert all refs in tune with WP:REF guidelines. GregJackP clearly does not accept that this is the case and is either happy with the poor referencing, poor prose, biased tone, and unreliable sourcing, or more likely, never reviewed the article in the first place to realise that these issues were and still are present. His argument now becomes a WP:COI, in that he performed the "pass" therefore he "must be right". Nice to see that other members of MilHist don't share his blinked understanding of GACR and would have challenged the poor referencing. Regardless, this incident has forced be to conclude that GAN can easily become a nasty process if nominees are not prepared to go the extra mile to improving an article (bearing in mind that converting refs to a uniform standard is not difficult) and would rather argue about it and aim to disgrace the reviewer with false assertions and malicious remarks in the name of self-interest as Poeticbent did to me. I will not be taking on a GAN again anytime soon, and if it suffers from the indignity of bad editors such as GregJackP, so be it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Having had a look at the article, and felt the need to a make some adjustments to the text, you can add me to the list of those who think that promotion to GA was rushed. Prior to the referencing dispute, the GA review was making progress and had already led to improvements but not reached the GA standard. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

An independent reviewer (non MILHIST), has reverted the promotion,its now back at B Class. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the situation escalated. Marcus was blocked and GregJackP retired. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project

Still trying to drum up reviewers for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armed Forces Special Weapons Project/archive1. If anyone would like to pitch in, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Trees (poem) in scope of MILHIST?

Is this poem in scope of our project? The poet Joyce Kilmer served in the military. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so: it doesn't appear to be on a military-related topic or a response to such a topic and the Joyce Kilmer article seems to state that he first joined the military several years after he wrote it. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Stab-in-the-back myth

Eyes needed. An editor is pushing a POV that runs counter to the standard histories of post -WW I Europe and the caused of WW II. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that any editor, who wish to look at this issue, quickly glance at the following diff before diving in.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this is a POV editor pushing a FRINGE theory based on a single journal article. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There's now a discussion of this at Talk:Stab-in-the-back myth‎ which other editors are most welcome to participate in. Input from people with knowledge of the air raids on the UK in World War II or the geography of the Liverpool area would also be valuable at Talk:Liverpool Blitz‎. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

WWI centenary - news sources

Prompted by the section a little bit above, based on a news source, I was wondering what the views are of people here on news sources in general relating to WWI news (which will be increasing in volume over the coming year)? Putting to one side the issue of new books coming out at a rate of knots and how to manage the information in those, there will be a lot of coverage in news sources as well. Some will be soundbite headline-type, others will be more thoughtful and considered. Some will be features written for newspaper by various historians and writers. Is it worth discussing how to handle such sources in general? One site I'm going to be following a lot (being from the UK) is the BBC one here. There will obviously be lots of others as well. The level of news coverage of war as a historical topic will be unprecedented, so it might be worth discussing how to reconcile and manage an influx of such sources. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS provides useful guidance for considering this topic IMO (though it is only an essay). I tend to distrust articles on historical topics written by generalist journalists, and for most aspects of World War I there should be no need to use such sources. News sources are obviously more useful for coverage of commemorations of the war though given that no special expertise is needed to cover this topic well. An interesting aspect of the early flow of material on the war is that some of the old cudgels are being taken up again, but in a more thoughtful way (eg, the argument about whether most generals were bunglers or were making the best of a bad situation is springing back to life, but people seem to be taking more measured positions). Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's that thoughtful or measured in the UK at the moment. Currently the Education Secretary is making a bit of hyperbole about Blackadder Goes Forth not being a serious documentary. It's all a bit disheartening to be honest. Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you both for those thoughts. The sort of article I was talking about are more the ones like this series on European capital cities before the outbreak of war: Vienna; Paris; Berlin; St Petersburg; and London. There are books (and journals) that cover this sort of thing (the 'social history' as opposed to the 'military history') - I have a couple of them - it is that sort of thing I was hoping to get feedback on. Though it is difficult to know how useful articles like that are. I agree that the political headline news sources of the sort mentioned by Steve and in the previous section (the POV one a bit further up the page) are best avoided or used only in a very limited fashion. If anyone else reading this is able to browse that BBC site (here is the link again) and give examples of what they think may be useful there and what is definitely not, that might help. Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that this will be a useful and reliable source. It's slightly less news focussed and more article driven anyway (although I dare say that any 'news' will find its way onto here eventually, much as the Gove/Blackadder saga has). Given that Wiki is supposed to reflect sources, this is a good example. On a side note, I would recommend that anyone who wants to follow Centenary news follows this page on Facebook (if they have an account). I'm not in any way endorsing Facebook as a source, but I've found it to be an excellent way to find out a lot of interesting facts and news on my Facebook feed. Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Lae_War_Cemetery

Hello,

if interested persons would like to have a look at Lae_War_Cemetery you will see I have updated with some photos. The page also needs a few fact checks and prose redesign. Was hoping someone with knowledge of military history can add links to the different regiments in the "panels" list at the bottom of the page..

The Lae page has also been updated. I am at this location for a few months if anyone wants specific photos taken. Phenss (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Lae article says that two VC recipients are buried in the cemetery - if you have time, would you be able to photograph their graves? I'm not sure how practical it would be for you, but some photographs of the point where the 9th Division crossed the Busu river following the Landing at Lae would also be fantastic given that the dramatic geography of this area almost led to disaster for the assault troops who had to swim the river. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello can you advise the row location and site as it is a big cemetery. Also can someone give me a coordinate reference where the crossing happened. cheers

Phenss (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The VC graves are:

• Lieutenant Albert Chowne VC, MM - CWGC page grave number QQ.A.8
• Flight Lieutenant Bill Newton VC - CWGC page grave number S.A.4

Hope that helps - Dumelow (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Photos added. Please review and format as desired.

Phenss (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Requests for assessment

For days now, I've been seeing the articles that have been added to the "Requests for assessment". They have been deleted since they have been assessed, but I'm still seeing them as they are still there, yet I know that they are not. I've cleaned my internet history so many times, they still appear. Adamdaley (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell exactly what you you are looking at. Where are you seeing them listed? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In the "Requests for Assessment" for B class assessment for Military History articles. Adamdaley (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping for a specific link to check the same page as you. I went to the MilHist assesment page and went to the Requests for assessment section and followed the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. I see no pages listed there now... -Fnlayson (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Gday Adam - I've actually been experiencing similar lag issues with a number of transcluded pages over the last few days. Seems to take awhile for the edits to filter through. I'm not technically advanced enough to know why but I'm assuming its some sort of issues with Wikipedia's servers or something. Shouldn't need to do anything. Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a general WP thing at the moment for some reason -- we've been experiencing it on FAC pages, and I've noticed it at the MilHist template (e.g. the Glina massacre ACR was listed long after you'd closed and removed it, AC). If you're able to purge the cache of the page you're viewing, it can do the trick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still experiencing the same problem. Luckily, it's not the same articles as the ones I'm seeing today. Even though I know there are no articles up for assessment (in edit mode). The problem still remains. Adamdaley (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WikiProject_Military_History_Lag. Adamdaley (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2‎

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2‎.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Help at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Japanese Resistance to the Empire of Japan in World War II

If anyone has a stance on the topic, we have a novice trying to get a draft through AFC. If anyone has any input, you can type and sign it directly at the top of the page, or use the {{afc comment|1=WRITE COMMENT HERE}} template to add any suggestions or comments for reviewers or the originator. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Did some clean up, it looks promising if there are any members with knowledge of the subject I expect the new user would welcome the assistance. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles which exceed 300, 000 template transclusions

Greetings WikiProject Military history. I don't really edit here at Wikipedia but I am Reguyla and I have been building up the Military Wiki over at Wikia. I recently found out that some of the aricles for your project exceed 300, 000 template parser calls and wanted to reach out and let you know in case you wanted to reduce that and make them more accessible. The list of articles I am aware of is below.

• List of shipwrecks in April 1917
• List of shipwrecks in June 1917
• List of shipwrecks in March 1917
• List of shipwrecks in May 1917
• List of United States servicemembers and civilians missing in action during the Vietnam War (1966–67)
• List of United States servicemembers and civilians missing in action during the Vietnam War (1968–69)

Please let me know if you have any questions. If you don't wish me to post things like this here let me know that too. I'm not sure what the procedure is for this sort of crosswiki contact. Reguyla (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Images of WWI and WWII war memorials in France

For all those not aware, the administrators in the commons are taking a rather hard line with regards to WWI and WWII memorials in France being considered subject to French freedom of panorama. As a consequence, images for a number of war memorials has already been deleted. Although I disagree with the general conclusion, I've begun putting forward a number of memorials for deletion from the commons and then moving images that are used in the main subject article, or a couple of articles, to wikipedia en.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Would you like help with any specific categories of images? NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

British Army war diaries digitization and tagging project

Hello all, thought I'd post a couple of links that might be of interest to members of this project. The UK National Archives have published the British Army's war diaries of the First World War, and are hoping for crowdsourced help to tag the data on each page. Links are National Archive blog post and Operation War Diary project page. --IxK85 (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's a huge - and important - project. The Australian War Memorial digitialised the war diaries of the main Army units of the World Wars a few years ago and they've proven a very useful asset. A useful feature of the Australian diaries for Wikipedia editors is that they often include detailed maps of unit positions and movements which are now in the public domain (though it often takes a bit of hunting to find them!): I presume that the UK diaries also include maps from time to time. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That's truly amazing. I spent the best part of a year (off and on) extracting data from several hundred Second World War war diaries for a project; although obviously very serious in nature, the fascinating tidbits of information that come out of them is truly astounding. I'd recommend this project for anyone with an interest in First World War history. I think I'll sign up for this (although I've probably reached my threshold of commemoration volunteering already!). Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

PS. Yes Nick, they do include maps (as well as illustrations and other content) quite often in the Second World War ones. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, excellent. I'd note that war diaries are also an excellent source of information on orders of battle. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually even the cataloguing of the war diaries gives a pretty good indication of the order of battle (form Division down at least). Just to say that so far only the first 5 infantry divisions (ie 1 Div to 5 Div) and first 3 cavalry divisions (1 Cav Div - 3 Cav Div) are covered. These essentially made up the original BEF at the time of first contact with the German forces. However, these divisions are covered for the whole of the war, so the diaries of some individual units will run right through the war, and into the army of occupation period in Germany in late 1918 and 1919. In other cases where new units were formed during the war, or were transferred from other divisions during the course of the war, then they will have a war diary in the available digitised material from the point they were added to the division. Equally, if a unit was transferred out of these divisions then the available material will stop at the date of transfer. Diaries have had to be broken down into chunks to make sure our servers can handle the load, and also due to the fact we have to operate the online service on a cost recovery basis due to Treasury rules (yes I'm afraid there is a fee for downloading from The National Archives website). Taking part in Operation War Diary is however completely free - but while you can choose a particular unit to work on, you will be started at the first untagged page, rather than right at the beginning. David Underdown (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

Is there a limit to how many books we accept in a further reading section? An editor Defalbe (talk · contribs) has just added a couple to Gallipoli Campaign, one with a worrying note thats its available to buy on E Bay. While a list of further reading can be usefull, for something like a war or campaign it could be never ending. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The same editor has added dozens to 63rd (Royal Naval) Division. Hamish59 (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any hard and fast Wikirules on the subject... all I can find is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Further reading (which recommends "a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject") and a semi-abandoned proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Further reading.

My personal view is that works in Further Reading should fall into two categories - works that would be useful sources but are not cited (and as the article develops, would eventually be integrated as references) and works that provide insight into a subject but are not appropriate for use in an encyclopedia article (published first-hand accounts are the first thing I can think of, see HMS Vengeance (R71)#External links and further reading for an example). They should be specifically related to the subject of the article, and I would prefer quality over quantity (so the 31 works at 63rd (Royal Naval) Division are a concern). Attempts to use Wikipedia to advertise book sales should be killed from orbit. -- saberwyn 19:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I flat out revert any additions to "Further reading" or "External links" that I believe are mainly intended to be promotional. For a link to stay, there should be some considered opinion that it adds important material to the topic, and the opinion of an unregistered or newly registered editor (especially one who is adding similar links to many other articles but no actual content) does not suffice.

I think WP:EL has some complicated rules with double negatives about "what an article would contain if it became featured" that support an even harsher version of my viewpoint. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding thirty different books, several of which are out of print, is probably a good indication it's not promotional ;-). I understand the concern about volume, but if we can produce a relatively comprehensive bibliography of the subject in further reading then I think this is valuable and may as well be included. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Visiting Scholar (please apply now)

Want to gain free access to a top research university's library so you can improve Wikipedia articles? Apply to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar!. George Mason University's position is now open: Application. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

There has been a paragraph in the article Battle of Berlin which was put together after extensive exchanges on the talk page back in the middle of 2010.

The wording is

During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder, and despite Soviet efforts to supply food and rebuild the city, starvation remained a problem. In June 1945, one month after the surrender, the average calorie intake of Berliners was still low as they were getting only 64 percent of a 1,240-calorie daily ration. Further, across the city over a million people were without a home. Notes

Against the current consensus this text has been replaced with

According to Antony Beevor, during, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Historian Atina Grossmann claims that for women "Goebbels's fevered prophecies about the threat from the Asiatic hordes seemed to be fulfilled." The looting and rapes gradually subsided. According to historian Oleg Rzheshevsky, such portrayal of the Red Army is a return to views that were instilled by Nazi propaganda and Neo-Nazi historians. Notes

It would be helpful if other informed editors were contribute to the discussion at Talk:Battle of Berlin#Goebbels's fevered prophecies as we have a situation at the moment were one editor has reverted reverts by three other editors and seems willing to continue to edit war in their preferred version. Perhaps others will support their point of view, perhaps they will agree with the current consensus either way more eyes and comments would be appreciated. -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have stepped in, locked the page for ten days after freezing it at the majority consensus, and invited editors to go to the next stage of drafting paragraphs on the talk page. Would a Milhist coordinator or two please take a brief look and make any further suggestions that come to mind? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ranger program

Ranger program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is about a space probe program. This strikes me as odd, as Rangers are specialized types of troops (and other things, such as forestry and law enforcement), and there should be many ranger programs, many more prominent than the space missions. Any opinions? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The word "program" is sometimes synonymous with different institutions (college department, school team), so it sounds like you are talking about Ranger School. I would think that if the official name of the space probe project is Ranger program, and/or that is how it is commonly referred, as are other spacecraft projects (Apollo program), then it seems to me that all articles are under their most accurate and appropriate titles. - Boneyard90 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, it was a program to develop, launch, etc the Ranger probe. "Project" is also used for some older NASA programs. Examples of both are at Unmanned NASA missions and List of NASA missions. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added a hatnote to the article as confusion is possible. (Hohum ^@) 17:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

GA reviews for Battle of Rafa and Third Battle of Gaza

Gday. Wondering if anybody would be able to assist with addressing some of the points raised in the reviews for these articles? The nominator and principle author of these two articles is topic banned at the moment and cannot address the cmts that have come up. I've done a little but don't really have the sources (or the time) to work through most of these (but have done one or two and may be able to chip in for a few more). These articles are not in bad shape in my opinion and with a few editors working on it may be possible to get one or both of these over the line. The reviews are here - Talk:Battle of Rafa/GA1 and here - Talk:Third Battle of Gaza/GA1 if anyone is interested. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A few of these sources are available online though so someone with some time could assist with these at least. For instance Cutlack [14], Downes [15], and Powles [16]. Anotherclown (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Some names come to mind @AustralianRupert:, @Jim Sweeney:, @Keith-264:, @HJ Mitchell:, @GraemeLeggett: and @HLGallon:. Any of you blokes able to assist here? You guys have worked in this area and would probably have the sources and knowledge to assist if you are willing. Anotherclown (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had a quick look but I'm stuck with trying to finish 2nd Atois before the thursday deadline for a library book going back. sosKeith-264 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I did start but see Talk:Battle of Rafa with the history etc, withdrawing. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ack - thanks anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been following some of this and I've made this post at RoslynSKP's talk page to summarise the status of those nominations, plus advice to seek clarification from ArbCom if that is needed (the admin who imposed the block that triggered the topic ban said at the time that he thought it only covered article space - I'm not sure, but that may have caused some of the confusion here). The timing of the topic ban and the start of the reviews of these GA nominations (nominated in September, October and November) is unfortunate. I'm not sure of the etiquette here. Might it be worth asking at WT:GAN what the best approach is, or is it normal for others to step in and help out with the reviews in such cases (I would have thought withdrawing the nominations and having someone else nominate them with a joint credit might be better)? Also, does anyone know whether it is possible to stop Legobot leaving messages on behalf of the reviewers asking RoslynSKP to take part in the reviews? Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

All three GARs, including First Battle of Gaza, should be withdrawn. I withdrew the First Battle before the review was started, but that was reverted! --Rskp (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm B. Frost

Can someone please try to deal with the complete lack of appropriate referencing in the BLP Malcolm B. Frost. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Anon. It appears this may be a vanity article, or at least on in which the author has a COI. The primary editor is Afrosty, note his contribs here. The similarity of the username with the subject's surname alone is telling. Seems to be solely dedicated to editing the article Malcolm B. Frost, editing articles to include mentions of Frost, or working on the declined AFC for Patricia A. Frost, Frost's wife. Note that Illegitimate Barrister has been working on improving the article, but has apparently not helped add refs. His input may be valuable, but I see this as a candidate for AfD, as it really reads like a promotional piece and/or resume. I don't do much modern military stuff, so others' input would be appreciated. Cdtew (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree it's a vanity article. I was looking at the photographs in the article and none of them come from any official army source. They all appear to be from the same individual who uploaded personal photographs. Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I had the same concerns as you guys did when I came across the article. It seems to be a self-promotional article, written primarily by a heavily-biased editor to make the subject's image look better. There appears to be a list of references, but no inline citations. I tried to neutralize the language some, in addition to some copyediting. The article seems to use the DoD's style guide so I tried to clean it up and make it use the Wikipedia's manual of style. However, some of my edits appear to have been reverted. I think it might (again, might) fit Wikipedia's notability standards, as he is a general officer and has his name mentioned in several published sources. I think there might be a conflict of interest here, with the similarly-named user editing the article and only that article. In light of these circumstances, I suppose an AfD might not be too far-fetched in regards to this situation. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a trifle tricky. It is a vanity article, but he has commanded a brigade in combat and is a brigadier general, so is notable. However, it may need to be razed down to the stubs to make it fit Wikipedia rather than DOD conventions. I will place it on my watchlist, revert the reverts that the editor has made, and if necessary send Afrosty a clear message - Wikipedia is not for promoting himself!! Buckshot06 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, Buckshot! Regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Hello again fellows! Could you have a look at this one? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And this one. Such interesting submissions! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One more. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet another one. Is anyone looking at these? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've accepted one and moved it to mainspace, and reviewed another but only offered suggestions for it at this time. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. Here's a bit of a dodgy one. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have declined that one also, I know the author is trying hard but there are just too many issues with the submission. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you once again. Here's one about Civil War stamps. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That last one is very good. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Could use some fresh eyeballs and voices at this previously stale merge proposal, splitting the content at Opium Wars into the articles First Opium War and Second Opium War and turning the page into a dab between them, to avoid the existing content fork. — LlywelynII 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Enfield revolver up for GA reassessment

Gday. For anyone interested Enfield revolver is up for GA reassessment - Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Enfield_revolver/1. Looks like it could use some attention from some of our firearms editors. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment left on the reassessment page. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Southeast Asian military history task force

Does anyone else receive an image error with the Southeast Asian military history task force? I receive the pixel dimension on all related articles. --Molestash (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have received it. Look further down on this page. Adamdaley (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Southeast-Asian template invalid

While doing Battle of Nghĩa Lộ the Southeast-Asian template image has become invalid. Adamdaley (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the template to use a new version of the map from Commons. Let me know if you run into any further issues with it. Kirill ^[talk] 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

This submission is relevant to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Category for internees

Do we have a category tree for foreign civilians interned in the UK during WWII? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Internments contains Category:People interned in the Isle of Man during World War II which is usually what you want. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; in that case, I have created Category:Internments by the United Kingdom, which covers both WWII and the Northern Ireland conflict. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Sikandarabad - possible hoax

Gday - this article has been nominated for deletion and may be a hoax - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sikandarabad. Purported to be part of the Mughal Civil War (1752-1754). Personally I've got no idea but would be good if any our editors with an interest / some knowledge in this area checked it out. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)