Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 132

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

Can anyone identify this Australian Army special forces vehicle?

Anyone know what this is?

I photographed this vehicle at the Australian Defence Force Academy's open day, but didn't think to stop to find out what it actually is. Does anyone recognise the type? It was in the area advertising roles in the Army's special operations command, and is presumably some kind of SF reconnaissance vehicle. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Some kind of all terrain vehicle probably. I'd be guessing but I'd say it *might* be a two seat Polaris, like a heavily modified Ranger or a MRZR 2 (although I don't think its one of them), or something else in that class. Its a pluck though so I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Its not a Supacat variant as far as I can tell or a Tomcar (not sure if ADF is even doing trials with them anyway). Anotherclown (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Way off my normal range here but, based on internet visual comparison perhaps an ATV Prowler variant? Monstrelet (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a Prowler to me. See the LTATV variant. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you guys are right. Bin my uninformed drivel above (I was basing it on media reports of additional acquisitions of Polaris by SOCOMD [1], can't see anything which mentions Prowler. The ADM article mentions upcoming trials of Dragor (another Polaris variant) so there is clearly ongoing work being done in this area and I wonder if its part of that? Obviously as SF kit goes this is fairly basic but given the close hold that is usually placed on such projects I'm more than a little surprised that I can't find anything in open sources about it and it turns up on display at ADFA). Anotherclown (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot all - I've renamed the file to identify it as a Prowler Light Tactical All Terrain Vehicle (those photos look spot on). I was surprised by the large SOCOMD display at the open day, which included a serving commando to chat with and a Surveillance and Reconnaissance Vehicle to photograph. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The Vehicle is not a Prowler Light Tactical All Terrain Vehicle. It is in fact an Australian made Rough Terrain Vehicle designed and manufactured by Bale Defence Industries. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the project, for now there is very little information in the public domain regarding the vehicle.


WWII at sea question

Does anyone know of articles which might have maps of minefields around the UK, particularly in the English Channel 1939–1940? I can't find any, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Page 97 of the British official history (which is in the public domain, and online here has a map which seems to be exactly what you're looking for :) Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
'Tis true but I'm looking for a Wiki article.Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
What's the context? I note that Dover Command is a red link... Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I was toying with the idea of illustrating the Dover Barrage on the Boulogne and Calais '40 pages or perhaps elsewhere in the 1940 articles. The map's public domain now isn't it?Keith-264 (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

List of PT boats?

We seem to be missing an article list of PT boats to complement PT boat and List of PT boat bases. We have similar lists for List of Victory ships, List of Empire ships, List of Liberty ships, List of U-boats of Germany -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Buna–Gona

There is a discussion of Problems on the article's talk page following addition of flags re bias and length by 32dDivGuy.

Comments to date do not support the assertion of bias.

The issue of length was recognised and discussed well before the addition of the flag. The limited number of suggestions do not indicate a consensus on how to address this. More input is required at Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#Length. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD

The Vadne (ferry) article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Another pageless flag officer

Vincent R. Stewart, Lieutenant General, USMC, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has no page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What the heck; make that a stub.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Template submission

See Draft:Template:First PLA Da Jiang. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Anachronistic flags on civil war unit articles

I just noticed a potential problem and was wondering if there's anything on this in an MOS or at least general consensus about it: American Civil War state unit articles commonly use the modern State flag, ie 17th Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment. Problem is, most modern state flags were 20th century creations (ie the Michigan flag was only adopted in 1911). However, if you remove them, the B5 criteria would be called into question since that is often the only image on the article. Am I simply overthinking this? Gecko G (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It "shouldn't" affect B5 status as this refers to appropriate items such as images - if a flag is anachronistic then it is clearly not appropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, and the infobox also meets the requirement for B5. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
After re-reading the FAQ I see now the bit about an infobox alone being insufficient for B5 only refers to long articles.
Would it be appropriate to replace the state flags (of the future) with the National flag (Confederate or Union, as appropriate) or not since these were state raised units? Gecko G (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
G'day, my suggestion would be to replace the flag altogether with an image (photo or painting) of the regiment in action, or of a commander, or something similar. Of course, it might not be possible to find one, but if there is one, I think it would be more helpful to the reader than a large flag. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously such would be preferable, yes, but most of them wouldn't have any such photo/painting, hence the problem. Gecko G (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone give me an idea which medals these are?

Hello,

Please see these photographs: [2] and [3] and [4].

It is of a Syrian brigadier who once fought for the French. According to an article, he was decorated by Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. Can anyone give me an idea as to what medals these are? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The second pic looks like Alexei Sayle....Keith-264 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
In the third picture I can see the Syrian Order of Civil Merit, aka the Order of the Arrows. The picture's aren't clear enough to make out much more for certaint. Gecko G (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
In the first two, it looks like the second award on the chest is the Officer's degree of the French Legion of Honour, but I don't see it in the third. Gecko G (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Gecko G, do you know of a website where I can verify this? Especially the Legion of Honour stuff? And if there a different between Officer's degree of the French Legion of Honour and the plain Legion of Honour? For example, can I add Hrant Maloyan to this list: List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name?Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately the picture alone is likely not source enough to use. The only source I can find is an armenian one [5], and since I'm relying on auto-translation I'm not sure what the source exactly says nor if it's a reliable source: . There's also an indirect reference here, see the 2nd to last paragraph on the last page, it doesn't specifically link the two nor provide sources but perhaps Dr. Hayk could be tracked down and contacted about it?
As for the degree, as a foreigner living outside of France, I believe the requirements are more arbritrary as to what class is awarded.
cheers, Gecko G (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

AA gun control radars

Is there an expert in the house? To my mind - mostly from the images - Blue Cedar and Fire control radar Mark VII seem to be one and the same thing. Can someone confirm or deny this? Or point me to a suitable publication?

I also suspect that LGR-1 Radar might be already covered under a US designation. But that's for another day. Thanks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ZBD-97

This article has a wrong name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZBD-97, this page has the wrong title to start with.There is no ZBD-97, this name is a rumor when no one know the name of the vehicle while in development." ZBD-97" simply does not exist.So is "ZBD-08". Now there is no source referencing to ZBD-97, only ZBD-04 exists in Chinese sources.Because it is nature of the Chinese military o keep things secret, there is no official record to speak of. All media refer to this vehicle, as least in Chinese sources, as ZBD-04. English sources tends to be very unreliable about subject like this because no one translate those things seriously and Chinese military equipment does not get much attention. If you watch the military parade on September third 2015, you would notice the only IFV shown is the ZBD-04A, and in 2009, the only IFV shown is the ZBD-04. No where it is mentioned the existence of ZBD-97. As tradition,Chinese military only uses vehicles in service in parades. The only information that can be confirmed officially, is from the announcer during the airing of military parades or official Chinese government TV stations. Because of the scarcity of good English sources, and the inaccuracy of English sources, if you are not an Chinese speaker, you cannot obtain any accurate information about this vehicle, of course unless you are member of the intelligence community. Now one source I can provide is this "http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2015/0903/c398090-27543439.html" which is from an official communist party site that proves that ZBD-04a is the main IFV in service. Is it possible to change the name of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruble643 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Category for Members

I propose for Creation of Category for Members of this project.
Please Watch Full Conversation Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects#Category_request:_Category:WikiProject_Military_history_Members KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 11:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

  •  Note: I have provisionally declined the foregoing request because there didn't appear to be a compelling reason to create such a category for this WikiProject. If there is, feel free to discuss it here to gain consensus. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Every Project has Category for its members but this project doesn't have any KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 06:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
But what is its purpose? Your position is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
This is milhist. We do things differently here. Always have. That's what makes us a kick-ass project: we don't follwo the trends, we set them. Sure, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we don't necessarily need it here. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Ditto all of the subsequent to first editor. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Max Horton's post in 1940

Following Nick-D's noting that 'Dover Command' was redlinked, I've been researching Vice-Admiral, Dover, a post filled by Bertram Ramsay (1939-42) and Henry Pridham-Wippell (1942-1945). But at Kanalkampf we have a source saying that Max Horton, associated with Dover in June 1940, was complaining about fighter cover. Now it appears clear that Horton went from Flag Officer Submarines (User:Dormskirk could you do one of your wonderful lists of commanders for that one?) to C-in-C Western Approaches, but he only moved to C-in-C WA in 1942 or so. So how was he associated with Dover in 1940? Views appreciated. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I am on the case as regards the list. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi - List now completed and available at Flag Officer Submarines. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Insignia Image Information

This one is a little bit out of my depth. A user on General of the Armies is putting image info (svg file type, date image creation, etc) into the actual body of the article within the image caption. I was always of the understanding that such info should be on the image information page. Can a more experienced user comment? Thanks! -O.R.Comms 23:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we even have a reliable source that says this thing is real? I searched the Institute of Heraldry website and got nothing.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Army times reported and featured it in 2008. An insignia chart was issued showing 5 and 6 star general in honor of the new uniforms. When I recently re-wrote the article, I didn't go into the sources that Army Times themselves used, but I'm sure they were legit. -O.R.Comms 01:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
To answer the original question. File information doesn't usually go in the caption. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions says how to construct a caption, and while doesn't specifically say not to put file info, it isn't the sort of stuff that is said should be included. At most, if not of the original article, you would say a "artist's rendering of", or similar. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced draft articles

IP editors have been submitting article drafts at Category:Russian commanders of the Napoleonic Wars. If anyone is interested in rescuing them, check the history of the category page from 2013 onwards. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Good Topic candidate needs more reviews

Hi all, if you have the time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Italy/archive1 and post your thoughts? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

City walls

Does anyone want to help create/expand articles on city walls? There are articles on some city walls, such as the Walls of Constantinople, the Fortifications of Valletta, the Fortifications of Heraklion, the Walls of Nicosia, the Fortifications of London etc. However, many other cities which are/were surrounded by fortifications still don't have articles about their walls. Hopefully some members will be able to help out, since this is a task which would need a lot of work. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Films and WikiProject Military History

86.191.60.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is adding the WikiProject Military History banner to film articles. Are these additions appropriate? Thanks, Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @Erik II: We do cover depictions of military history in films - to an extent. As noted on our main page:
    • "Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose. (We generally cover only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable. A distinction is made between fictionalized depictions of historical warfare and purely invented depictions of fictional warfare; topics sufficiently divorced from actual history that a discussion of actual military history would no longer be relevant to them—such as futuristic warfare in Star Wars or fantasy battles in Lord of the Rings—are not considered to be within the project's scope. However, songs and music with long military associations—for example, It's a long way to Tipperary and Lili Marleen—are within our scope.)" Hope that helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I wanted to bring it up to make sure the WikiProject was okay with these banners being added. :) Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominations open in 2015 project coordinator election

Hi, everyone! The nomination period for the 2015 project coordinator election has now opened. We're looking to elect 11 coordinators to serve for the next year; with a number of incumbents planning to step down at the end of this term, this is a great opportunity for new folks to join the team. If you're interested, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on September 18. Kirill [talk] 01:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ján Gerthofer and

I declined the speedy deletion of Ján Gerthofer and Gustav Francsi as I have no idea if they meet the notability requirements. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Gustav Francsi apparently held the Knight's Cross so qualifies under WP:SOLDIER, I believe. It is a stub so could use more work, sources, etc. Hamish59 (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of established Commons links by obscure template:Subject bar?

We have long had a fairly stable style of linking to Commons (see WP:COMMONS) through the {{Commons category}} template.

There is also a template {{Subject bar}}. News to me too - I'd never heard of it until today. Seems it not too popular, it hit TfD for the second time recently Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_1#Template:Subject_bar, "A mere 1,477 transclusions in 4.8 million articles, in over four years, show that this template has failed to gain traction with the community;". Note also that this {{Subject bar}} template uses the Commons search mechanism (and its random return of synonyms) rather than linking simply and directly to a useful category.

There is now a push, at least on MILHIST topics, [6] [7] [8] to remove the existing Commons link template and replace it through the {{Subject bar}} style. I've no great aversion to {{Subject bar}} as a portal or navbox, it's yet more of that useless crud that accumulates at the bottom of pages rather than useful editing, but there is as yet no consensus to start removing the established, recognised and functional template.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting rid of Commons category seems a bit of a bogus way to promote a novelty no-one knows or cares about.Keith-264 (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The Commons category usually doesn't contribute much, as in most cases most or even all the available images are used in the article already. I tend to replace the {{Commons category}} with the subject bar when there are links to more than one project, like Wikinews, Wikiquote or Wikisource. I'm sure the {{Subject bar}} maintainers would be amenable to changing it to use the category rather than the search. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
If Commons "doesn't contribute much" (which I would dispute), then don't link it. The question here isn't if Commons should be linked, but how it should be linked.
At present, the standard Commons link box is recognisable to a large number of readers. This new navbox hides it away below a number of portal-like (i.e. subject navigation, orthogonal to Commons) links. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note that possible edit warring on this matter how now provoked a discussion on ANI -here.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Copying my comment here as well. I want to point out that I introduced the {{tl:subject bar}} to introduce the relevant portals to the article, which were missing until my addition. Since the subject bar aggregates both portal inclusion as well as reference to commons (among many other useful links), it is only natural to integrate into one common presentation paradigm. The term "obscure" is POV. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I've now looked at Douglas MacArthur, which I think uses it to advantage. I'm entirely comfortable with it as an addition, rather than a replacement. In the areas in which I edit the Commons Category template is frequently used in its inline format at an appropriate section of the article, which I think works better than the standard template placed at the end. For end placement, it's a tossup for me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely less cluttered to have all the portal/sister project links in one area, but having it all at the bottom of the page seems suboptimal, especially when the sister project/commons templates are usually above the navigation boxes. My only other gripe with the subject template is that it doesn't have the the eyecatching addition of the article name in bold to draw attention to it (e.g. Find out more about Article on...") -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
From the comments made so far, I draw the conclusion that the template, although not widely deployed (so far), can be used to aggregate links to portals, commons, quotations, etc. It is a legitimate convenient tool on Wiki and there is nothing inherently flawed with the template itself. Lack of knowledge about its existence is no reason to avoid its usage. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage in Douglas MacArthur really helps to avoid clutter within the main article. But the advantage in articles with few portal and sister project links is less clear. Pushing such links even further down, away from the main text, should be a last resort imo, if no other viable solution can be found to avoid clutter. In any case, it's a bit early to draw conclusions after just 3 days of discussion in a limited project forum. If the template is deemed helpful by its supporters, it should be announced and discussed on a VP forum anyway (maybe it was and I just missed it). GermanJoe (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Following the above I had a look at Douglas MacArthur and I have several comments. The first is why is it not collapsed like all the other clutter at the end of the page? As this template will usually be in the external links section there are a couple of relevant pieces of guidance in Wikipedia:External links:

I would be interested to here whether others think that the {{Subject bar}} in the Douglas MacArthur article meets this requirement and restriction. -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Subject bar makes sense when there are multiple external projects eg pictures, texts etc. And where those links (in the words of the template notes) "typically [sic] cause formatting issues because of their size and alignment" But I'd be wary of introducing something that is less familiar to average reader when not needed. Don't care for look of the subject bar layout to boot - too much bold.
Curiously as a side note, why do Commons give non-common names to the galleries - Panzer III in Wikipedia, Panzerkampfwagen III on commons? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Commons is dominated by Germans. Panzerkampfwagen is getting off lightly (Although note that {{Commons category}} can take a second parameter to hide this). That's why there's craziness like Media related to Driving cabs of watercraft at Wikimedia Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Really? That's news to me. Probably it's because I've never paid too much attention to the site-politics on Commons noticeboards, but I was under the impression that most contributors to Commons were from English-speaking countries. Wikischluss when? --benlisquareT•C•E 06:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed the one in SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901) and it looks horrible with all that empty space. Douglas MacArthur looks OK because that space is filled. So I think that we need to set a minimum number (5?) for when the template bar can be used. Not thrilled with the location at the very bottom of the article, but I can live with that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Need help with A-class review (mine)

If anyone has time, Runaway Scrape has been lingering at A-class review with no input for a month. Sure would appreciate some review comments. Thanks.— Maile (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:JCW needs help!

WP:JCW, a compilation of all |journal= parameters of citation templates has recently updated. Several military and military-related publications are heavily cited, and lack articles on them. Any help on writing those would be greatly appreciated (and we even have some guides at WP:JWG (journals) and WP:MWG (magazines), to help editors create these articles). I took the liberty of compiling a list, although I'm no expert on the topic, and I'm only basing myself on the titles of these publications. I could be missing a few, or include things not really related to the project, so feel free to edit the below list.

Note that for some of them, it might be preferable (e.g. if they fail WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG) to expand the articles on their publisher/associated societies with a section on the journal/magazine, and create a redirect to that section, rather than create a standalone article. But I leave that to MILHIST editors to decide. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I've done a few as redirects (AAJ, JAWM, and Wartime). Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
It does! Would it help to break it down by topic/nationality and puts lists up for the MILHIST taskforces? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
G'day, probably not as the task force pages themselves are a little neglected these days. It might pay to post some of these at Ships and Aviation Wikiprojects, though, if you haven't already. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

United States Camel Corps

I've been working on United States Camel Corps. It's carrying a number of hits on its assessment. I'd appreciate a review. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Prussian / German soldier cats

Could somebody with more knowledge than myself sort out the categorisation mess left by RayLimbach (talk · contribs) and HHubi (talk · contribs) (perhaps others)? They've invented a number of categories, most of which have too few members to justify their existence, and several are, I'm sure, duplicates of existing categories. I've done a few, but then realised that it was a symptom of a bigger problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Although unrelated, the cats created by Randelearcilla100 (talk · contribs), Randelearcilla200 (talk · contribs) and Randelearcilla300 (talk · contribs) (note similarity of names) could also do with checking over. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
G'day, I think it might be better for you to post this at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not that simple. For the first group, it's clear to me that the people creating pages like Max von Boehn (general) have guessed the cat names, and I think it highly likely that we already have cats covering those areas - but as a non-MILHIST editor, I have little idea what the incorrectly-created cats should be replaced by or merged to, and at CFD they don't really appreciate a merge nom without the name of the other cat. As for the second group, I believe that Randelearcilla100 etc. are socks of Randelearcilla (talk · contribs) but I don't have proof. If they are, most (if not all) of their new creations are speedyable under WP:CSD#G5. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI - just in case you didn't see it those accounts have now all been blocked as socks. Does the issue with the categories remain or has this been resolved? I'm prepared to have a look but I've no knowledge in this area so will only be able to look for obvious errors / hoaxes etc. BTW given that they were created by a sock puppet you may well be able to request speedy deletion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The Randelearcilla ones are now OK, I think. The cats on Max von Boehn (general) seem OK - none are redlinked or underpopulated. But the contribs of the user(s) that created that page and its original set of cats could do with going over. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I should of just checked myself. Per Wikipedia:Database_reports/Self-categorized_categories all the problematic PCA categories seem to have been deleted by the editors the cleaned up the Randelearcilla mess. I'll have a look at the other ones you mentioned but I'm probably out of my depth there. Apologies up front as I don't seem to have been much help here after all. Anotherclown (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I had a look at Max von Boehn (general) and Johannes von Eben and found a few things. Mostly minor though. I'd say this was the work of a relatively new editor that is just learning the ropes, nothing sinister that I could see). Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Image donation from the Swedish National Maritime Museums

A batch of images was recently uploaded to Commons under the category Category:Media_contributed_by_SMM:_2015-09. It contains a lot of material relating to maritime history. Might be useful in a wide range of articles.

Peter Isotalo 13:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for updating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)

Following a Request for Comment on the matter of ship article disambiguation, I have drafted an updated version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The proposed text can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. Your project is being notified because the proposal affects a large number of articles in your scope.

The most significant change to the guideline is that the only form of disambiguation for articles on ships is the year of launch, expressed in the format "(yyyy)". All other forms of disambiguation are depreciated, such as pennant/hull number, ship prefix, or ship type. Using ship prefixes in article titles for civilian/merchant ships is also depreciated, unless part of the ship's "common name". Examples have been updated as a result of the RFC and other recent discussions, and in some cases, elaborated on. A list of other changes can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update#Summary of changes for proposal.

Discussion and comments are welcomed at User talk:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. -- saberwyn 03:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are open for the Coordinator election!

G'day everyone, the nominations are now open for the coordinator election at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2015. Several of the serving coordinators are stepping down, so if you are interested, TomStar81 has provided a demo of how to nominate yourself and answer the questions. If serving coords haven't indicated whether they are intending to re-nominate, now would be a good time. Don't muck about, only five days until nominations close! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Assistance at Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve

Howdy, I may need some of y'all's assistance over at Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve. There is another editor who insists the the CJTF "is the public affairs release authority of United States Central Command" and nothing more. I am going to assume good faith with them, but it doesn't feel like good faith. EricSerge (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-organization of WikiProject Women

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women § Complete reorganization proposal

There currently is a discussion about the future organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-French War (1778–83)

Given we already have France in the American Revolutionary War, what is the point of this new article? Perhaps some project members would like to take a look. Srnec (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

US Navy renames

See WP:RM/C#September_11,_2015 for several USN renames that have showed up -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Identification of RN destroyer

I have a photo here that is captioned as being a destroyer on the Manchester Ship Canal in May 1912. I have no idea whether the caption is correct and so I'm unsure whether it would be ok to upload the thing (it came from someone's Facebook photo album and I have no idea where they got it from). I'm trying to identify the ship, whose name is at least partially visible on one of the lifebuoys. The letters make no sense when compared to our list of Royal Navy destroyers, although the uniforms look to be RN. I can find no mention of a destroyer on the canal using the British Newspaper Archive either.

Does anyone fancy taking a look at the photo to see if they can work it out? I'm happy to email it. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No promises, but I can take a stab at it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Happy to take a look as well. There's certainly nothing strictly implausible about a WWI-era destroyer on the canal - it would be well under a thousand tons and the canal can take much larger ships. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to add me to the list. I'm working on First World War ships a lot in real life. Ranger Steve Talk 17:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I am very grateful. I have sent emails to the three of you. If there is going to be any brainstorming going on then feel free to use my talk page if it would be inappropriate to use this page. Thanks again. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on Sitush's talk page, on the reasoning that not everyone who watches this page has seen the photo. Ranger Steve Talk 08:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

flags in Operation infoboxes

How often should flags appear in Operation infoboxes? I am currently having disputes with User:SyriaWarLato at Battle of Thường Đức and other places over whether or not flags need to feature in the Commanders and Strength sections in the Infobox as there were only 2 belligerents - North and South Vietnam so in my view flags only need to appear once in the Belligerents section. I would appreciate guidance on this issue. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just had a look and thought that it was a bit OTT, yet I remember doing it myself. Is there a policy?Keith-264 (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Fairly sure MOS:INFOBOXFLAG would be relevant (if that hasn't been mentioned already). My reading of that policy is that they should be used sparingly. Anotherclown (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Noted thanks, on that basis I believe that Battle of Thường Đức is overflagged. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

M19 Tank transporter

I would appreciate it if anyone familiar with military trucks could look at Talk: M19 Tank transporter section "11 Sep 2015" and the following section "Unsourced changes". Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I AM HAVING INFORMATION CHANGED AND DELETED WHILE I AM EDITING, WITH NO SOURCE OR DISCUSSION!!! Sammy D III (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That's probably the result of an edit conflict. It can happen... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Liar. You are doing that deliberately. The talk page and my talk page show that. People know that. The old school boy is picking on the impaired guy who was trying. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

infobox result

There's a ongoing discuss at Battle of Vittorio Veneto about if the victory was a Italian or a Allied one. It would great benefit from more opinions. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Nazi Grandchild

Comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Teege. Thank you! -O.R.Comms 23:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission - 17/09/15

See Draft:London_Eugene_Livingston_Steverson. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggest that the article title should be simply London Steverson if that's the "name most frequently used to refer to the subject in reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME).
Howver, I note that an article on this person was deleted in 2010 (WP:Articles for deletion/London Steverson. Perhaps he's become notable since then? Stanning (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, the history of that deletion nomination says there were a lot of issues besides notability. It's alleged COI, with one editor stating the article was "largely self-generated and self-serving and includes a host of inaccuracies". — Maile (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Than you. On another note, Draft:Henri du Couëdic needs a bit of cleanup before being accepted. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I did some formatting but it could really use some references. Are there any editors with access to sources about this French naval officer? Anotherclown (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Status of ITAR changes

In June the United States government published this: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf proposed change to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR were originally intended to control international distribution of military hardware. The proposed regulatory change may be intended to control distribution of information about improvised firearms. Crude firearms have long been assembled from parts not meeting US legal definitions of firearms. Materials science advances and expanded tool availability has improved opportunities for low-cost manufacturing techniques to construct more sophisticated firearms similar to those suitable for military use, and for which civilian manufacture, transfer, possession, and/or use may be legally restricted. Although the proposed regulations may have been intended to expand ITAR's regulatory reach to restrict distribution of instructions on how to manufacture improvised military firearms from materials not subject to weapons transfer limitations under previous regulatory definitions, concern has been expressed that the broader regulations proposed might be interpreted to apply to internet publication of information about a wider variety of subject matter related to other weaponry.

The comment period for the proposed regulatory change expired on 3 August 2015; and corresponding regulatory changes may now be implemented. Can someone recommend reliable sources for information about the ultimate fate of these proposed regulations? Thewellman (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Of the whole bunch of external links at the bottom of the ITAR article, the Export Law Blog looks like a good place to start. Their story about the U.S. government arrest of a Chinese professor at Temple for allegedly leaking details of a pocket heater to Chinese colleagues is hilarious. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Kwk 36 and 43 accuracy tables

Opinions needed on Talk:8.8 cm KwK 36. Thanks. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Need more eyes on these two articles, on going disruption

These edits[9][10] seems deceptive and disruptive. Need more eyes on these two articles for stopping the edit war. Not even a single source say that Egypt won the Libyan–Egyptian War, that's why it is misrepresentation to claim that it won a war, affected with ceasefire. MapSGV (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for WP Biography

I started a proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for all WP Biography articles here. This would first help split out the one or two drafts from the 100 or so articles at Category:NA-Class biography (military) articles so we can identify the draft articles more easily. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC at Rudolf Hess

I have opened a request for comment at the article Rudolf Hess. Interested participants may like to comment: Talk:Rudolf Hess#Request for comment: Maser's theory. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

I've just opened a requested move discussion at Talk:Frederick McNess. The only reason I haven't been bold and moved is that I don't have any of the listed books of VC winners to know if they have conflicting information. Nthep (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Frederick McNess listed at Requested moves

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WPMILHIST VC migration 06:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Frederick McNess to be moved to Fred McNess. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Criminal Use Images

Please see the discussion at Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Memorial plaque concerning whether or not to include an image of a memorial plaque for victims of criminal use in a firearm article. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

2 Intelligence Company

Expert eyes please. I made some edits to reduce image sizes and other MOS cleanup, which were all summarily reverted by the article's creator. 6 Intelligence Company and 3 Intelligence Company probably also need a look. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kanuk82: A general advisory to all interested; this article has a detailed list of all personnel killed in action, with bio details; probably the writer is unaware of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I will place a note on his talk page, advising him of this, and giving him the option of radically reducing his lists and potted bios of KIAs, wait a week or so, wait for him to swing the axe, and then do it myself if need be. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the careful and considered response. I will leave this in your more-than-capable hands.--ukexpat (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This article also doesn't need a detailed description of what Camp X was, given that this company's only involvement with it is to provide personnel for ceremonies at the site. The Camp X article should cover what it was. Nick-D (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Frederick McNess listed at Requested moves

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WPMILHIST VC migration 20:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Frederick McNess to be moved to Fred McNess. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

California Air National Guard part of the U.S. military?

Chuck Poochigian served the California Air National Guard. Does that mean he can still apply for the American military personnel of Armenian descent category? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The CA ANG is part of the United States Air Force, so yes, he can. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 28/09/15

See Draft:Kruchkov, Kozma Firsovich. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to process a Draft submission but should someone consider doing so, I note 1) grammar is a mess, looks to be translated without sufficient knowledge of English idiom, a google search through up the name "Kuzma Kryuchkov" as a different transliteration which appears in a fair number of google book listings. He does seem have been received as a bit of a literal poster boy for the cause. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blockade runner?

Judging by this edit, somebody who had a block slapped on has evaded it again... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for posting it here. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Beats edit warring with him. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

SS William Grayson

I just stumbled over this convoy ship article, that could use some cleanup, categories, etc. from a knowledgeable author. I did some minor cleanups, but more work could probably be done. Also, are lengthy convoy lists usually included in such articles? Is the article title OK? (pretty obvious by now, that I have no idea about that topic ;) ) GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm very dubious every single one of the 2710 Liberty ships needs a page. :) That said, if this one is to survive, shouldn't it have an italic pagetitle? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

Would someone please consider whether the unsourced changes by Special:Contributions/198.236.17.37 in several articles are reasonable. Their edit at Kirov-class battlecruiser was reverted as unsourced, and I'm wondering if all should be rolled back. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That's vandalism, not just "unsourced". Triple the number of SA-N-4s & AK-630s? 12 times as many 130mm? (I'm embarrassed I didn't rv & warn immediately...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/198.236.17.36 also a problem. Any more in a similar IP range, I wonder? Hamish59 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I've slapped vandal warnings on the latter for the Jaguar & Braunschweig edtis. I suppose there's no way to examine the edits in an IP range? And judging by the contribs, the latter should just be blocked for doing nothing but vandalizing. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Check out these throwaway accounts, making the same kinds of edits to the same pages: 1 and 2 - might be worth a trip to SPI to see if there are other sleepers out there. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I had to revert some edits on AFVs and rifles by our first contender, but that takes care of every edit that he's made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Midway

Battle of Midway is currently undergoing a FARC. A small group of volunteers has fixed up all the bits needing citations, clarifications and page numbers. I also wound up correcting some errors. It's one of the most written about naval battles of all time, so if some people could go over it and give it another look, that would be most appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Naval History and Heritage Command" in EL-section is dead since August 2015 (did they move their site?). An archive would be available here, if no other active URL is available. ("Midway Chronology 2" shows a timeout, but that may be temporary). GermanJoe (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: They changed literally their entire site, left no redirects, and as far as I can tell got rid of many pages. My entreaties to them went unanswered. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
However, that specific link is available without the web archive for me: [11] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed with the new link, thanks. Looks like only the link structure has slightly changed for this specific URL. GermanJoe (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, it's not exactly the same here—apologies. The DANFS entries, for instance, got entirely new URLs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor or owner?

This is about the article M19 Tank Transporter. I can not do "diffs", so it is long. I doubt it will matter.

At 13:52, 17 March 2014 I began editing an article, adding two sources. At 18:19 11 June 2014 I posted a first level source. At 06:45, 1 December 2014 I changed a first level source, posted by another person, which I was aware of and had been using.

As of 23:31, 10 September 2015 version I had posted three published sources, one first level source, and regularly used another first level source. At 17:37, 18 March 2014 I posted a section on the talk questioning some info already posted.

At 00:56, 11 September 2015 a different editor, who had not been to the article in FIVE YEARS, restored text that I had deleted, including inaccurate info that I had questioned 4 months earlier, with no source and the edit summary “restor deleted info”,

At 12:34, 11 September 2015 I specifically posted: ”This is not vandalism, I am working here and have at least 5 references.” At 22:16, 11 September 2015 I explained very carefully the title of the article, and the first level source of the vehicle’s name. At 12 September 2015 I posted: “I wanted to make it US clear that it was not a semi.”

At 20:34, 12 September 2015 a different editor posted: “changed "truck-tractor" to "tractor trailer" based on it being a semi-trailer tractor & trailer combo.” At 02:20, 13 September 2015 I posted “the M20 is not a semi-tractor, it carries no load, and pulls a full trailer with a pintle hitch"

At 12:24, 13 September 2015 a different editor posted: “Since it's the tractor & not the combo being described in the infobox, its weight (as opposed to its towing capacity) is the issue, isn't it?”. …On "semi" as opposed to anything else, I'll confess ignorance & let it lie.” At that time I had already added an infobox on the trailer and repeatedly explained the names of the article and the vehicle.

At 13:16, 11 September 2015 the article was changed by a different editor with the summary: “correct evident confusion btw vehicle weight & trailer capacity”. The confusion was not by me, but by the different editor.

This stuff just kept going on. Anybody who wades through the talk page can see that I continued to add accurate, sourced information, and was interfered with at every edit. I tried to be polite, but was clearly upset.

At 21:24, 13 September 2015, I posted on this page: “I would appreciate it if”. No response by anybody. At 02:57, 16 September 2015: “I AM HAVING INFORMATION CHANGED AND DELETED WHILE I AM EDITING”. A different editor answered: “It can happen”. So I flipped out and called a different editor a Liar.

As I understand it, simple seniority does not mean that an editor has any authority to change accurate and sourced edits on their own opinion, with no consensus. I hope a different editor, who is currently involved in a heated discussion about deleting info without a consensus at a different article, might step back, think about his recent actions, and possibly adjust his actions. Sammy D III (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at the relevant talk page. I am seeing nothing particularly heavy. The conversations seems constructive and the tone appears colleagial. I would just relax on this. Terms like "seniority" and "authority" have no meaning here. Colleagues will edit simultaneously while your work. It is a fact of WP life. I would suggest you read WP:OWN. I would also suggest you attempt to communicate clearly your editing intentions on the Talk page before you make them, in order to gain consensus. Technical manuals are Wikipedia: Primary sources so I would be careful how you deploy them. WP:SOURCES may help. I suspect you have gathered info from material on the Lone Sentry site. Simon Irondome (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
A US Army technical manual on a US Army vehicle is not a good source? That is where much of my information comes from. Which of the three published sources is not reliable? Other than my Hall-Scott thing, only one post has been made on that talk page since 2008. Which of my edits was inaccurate or not sourced? What source has a different editor used? I am sorry, but I believe my good faith, well-sourced edits should not be removed without any reason or discussion. Asking for a consensus where nobody goes, where previous comments have not been addressed, seems unrealistic. Sammy D III (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus is a keystone of the entire project Sammy. Just because an article appears to be unvisited does not mean it is not on colleague's watchlists. It is always good form to start a discussion on a talkpage, even though it appears to be just tumbleweed city. Other editors may very well be watching. Please read the links I have provided. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
First, thank you for talking to me. I understand consensus. Wikiuser and I have made countless edits to that article without a consensus, none have ever been commented on. My Hall-Scott question has been there, unanswered, for months. There has not been any discussion on that page for years. If you had to wait for a consensus to make any edit, much of Wikipedia would still be in 2008. Should I delete every edit I have ever done?
My title isn't clear, I wasn't talking about one article, but Wikipedia in general. Parts of Triton have been deleted without consensus. This seems like a double standard. Some can delete with only their opinion, while others cannot post sourced content without having a previous consensus where nobody is. Deleted with no discussion by someone who has no source, no reason, and acknowledges his ignorance of the subject? If a couple of informed editors reached a consensus, of course, but that was not the case. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at the diffs on the M19 page, & don't see anything major or egregious. It's mostly formatting (unpiping something like beam axles). As for the rest, I'm seeing an over-sensitivity from Sammy D III which I've gotten a sense of from the very start. Since I was apparently the editor who trampled him in the edit conflict (& IDK how to avoid those...), I'll take the blame for that one. As for the rest...it looks like Sammy D wants to say I'm some kind of rogue. That, I object to. I also object to the implication I'm too stupid to know what's right & wrong. I maintain on Triton & this page, if consensus is I should be rv'd, so be it. I stand by my edits on both pages. I invite anyone to examine them & call me wrong. If anybody has a problem with "ownership", it's not me. And if Sammy D has a problem with how the M19 page was, or is, being edited by me, I suggest he should have raised it there, or with me, first, rather than bring it here. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a dispute between editors, there are other far more appropriate venues. No-one here has the power to do anything about this (unless they are admins themselves). 3O might be an option? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the page but as a point of information, we can check if a dormant page is being watched by clicking on "page information" in the toolbox down the left margin of the page. Click on and under "basic information" there is Number of page watchers. So although no-one has edited since 2006 say, unless there are no watchers, people will still get information of new edits in their watchlist, which may prompt them to revisit. It can be a bit of a surprise when you write on a dormant page and half-a-dozen editors appear out of nowhere. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator Elections Conclude

Our coordinator elections have officially concluded, with the results as follows:

  • Sturmvogel 66 34
  • AustralianRupert 30
  • Peacemaker67 28
  • Hawkeye7 26
  • TomStar81 26
  • Dank 25
  • Anotherclown 23
  • Auntieruth55 23
  • Nikkimaria 22
  • MisterBee1966 21

Congratulations to everyone who made the cut, and thanks to everyone who turned out to !vote! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Damn! I missed the bloody vote. The results look good however. Congrats to all! Simon Irondome (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everyone, cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to all of you, and best of luck with your duties in the coming year. It looks like we've got another great team. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross

Does it confer inherent notability? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Preiß. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Highest German award of WWII, I'd say so. I would consider the Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds to effectively be multiple awards. MisterBee1966? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
We have a preexisting ruling at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Brommann. The award is mentioned at WP:SOLDIER and {{Highest gallantry awards}}. Nevertheless a footnote states "Some awards, such as the Légion d'Honneur, are/were bestowed in different grades and/or have civil and military versions. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. (Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades)" points to a discussion dating back to 2011. Regarding the Knight's Cross, the award was presented to "recognise extreme battlefield bravery or outstanding military leadership". Until his death, Hitler personally looked into and decided on every nomination. This was true for every grade of the award. Further, the award is obsolete today and the group of recipients is therefore finite. Comparing the award to other nation's awards is comparing apples and oranges. If a comparison is made, it should be based on published sources made by historians and not us Wikipedia editors. Otherwise we run the risk of falling into the WP:OWN trap. Lastly, I prefer Wikipedia to be as inclusive as possible. Having said that, yes I do consider that the Knight's Cross established notability. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not unsympathetic to that view, which is why I didn't actually vote for deletion. But I think it does need discussion as to why according to WP:SOLDIER over 7,000 Germans are inherently notable for being decorated in that war as against far fewer Britons (just to take one national example with which I'm especially familiar). Of course, it's more than just the 181 Victoria Cross winners. It's also the George Cross and Empire Gallantry Medal winners, the winners of bars to the DSO, DCM, CGM and GM, and the senior officers awarded the CBE or higher grades of orders of chivalry, all of whom would be considered inherently notable under WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO and all of which would probably equate to the Knight's Cross in German terms (along with lower awards). But I can guarantee that will still add up to far fewer than 7,321, even if all the Commonwealth awards are taken into consideration as well. So in AfD we are arguing, based on WP:SOLDIER, "no, he's not notable because he only received the DCM [a second-level award]" but "yes, he is notable because he received the Knight's Cross", despite the fact they were in actual fact quite probably awarded for very similar actions. This is illogical and creates a systemic bias in favour of one nation compared to others simply because of the difference in the way their award systems were structured. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Are military awards (or civil awards for that matter) notable at all? It's a matter of opinion and I think not, just as I don't refer to public distinctions of rank like "Sir" or "Lord". If other people put them in so General Bufton Tufton is amended to Sir Bufton Tufton, OK but I want no part of it. Other people sometimes add lists of VC winners to an essay about a battle as well and I will leave it there and also cite it from the OH if needed to conform with Wiki citation practice but that's as far as my interest goes. Like the notable people criterion people sometimes add, I think it's either not encyclopaedic or an invidious distinction among the people who were there. Bearing in mind that much writing about foreign armies is in foreign languages, we're usually in an awkward position in even referring to medals, because we often can't include cited material about other countries'. That's my two penn'orth; regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as 'inherent notability' (at least in theory, I acknowledge that in practice, it is a shortcut: why say "Look at [all these sources on the subject]" when you can say "'inherently notable' due to X"). Remember that SOLDIER is an essay (not a policy or a guideline) is only intended as a yardstick of when a subject may be notable, by listing cases or criteria where a subject is likely to meet the Wikipedia notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable published sources independent of the subject". Getting the highest military award is a pretty good approximation for "a lot of people have written about the subject", but does not provide 'inherent notability' if there are few to no sources on the subject (Having not looked at the article or the deletion discussion, I would be looking for something additional to "appears in lists/books on Iron Cross recipients). Conversely, receiving a lower-tier award does not 'ban' a subject from having an article if they have a multitude of sources backing up their exploits. -- saberwyn 22:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Saberwyn is correct. The question we should be asking is is there likely to be enough published material on ever Knight's Cross recipient to sustain an article?. I know there is for Victoria Cross recipients; there have been multiple books published with the stories of the soldiers (some of them are sat on my shelf) and several of them have published books of their own. From what I've seen of Medal of Honor recipients, there is a similar wealth of potential source material, such that a reasonable biography of each soldier can be compiled. If that's true for Knight's Cross recipients (obviously much of the source material is likely to be in German, but that doesn't affect its reliability), then we probably should have an article about each recipient; if it's not, then we should evaluate each recipient on a case-by-case basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Saberwyn is correct, I agree. I would, however, point out that a Knight's Cross recipient, even of low rank, often meets WP:GNG, which is the standard for notability. SOLDIER provides an indication, GNG confirms one way or the other. A good example is Heinz Heuer, an Oberfeldwebel (a staff sergeant or similar) of Feldgendarmerie (military police). On face value, you would have thought he was way short of notable by rank, but his receipt of the Knight's Cross and status as the only military police recipient was more than enough to meet GNG. There are plenty of books in English and German with more than basic details about a large proportion of Knight's Cross recipients. My view would be that SOLDIER indicates they probably have enough and detailed enough sources, but the person creating (or saving) the article needs to make that case by producing sources. BTW, due to the "number of missions/kills" approach taken for awards of both the Knight's Cross and DFC, my view is that the Commonwealth award of DFC is equivalent to the Knight's Cross, that puts the numbers in much more similar territory. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

HMS Nonsuch (D107)

Just discovered the article HMS Nonsuch (D107). It is very clearly just a copy-paste job (without attribution) from the article Type 1936A-class destroyer. What should be done? I don't think this should be kept, and when an article is written on that ship, it should probably be at German destroyer Z38. Manxruler (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was a new-to-Wikipedia test edit at a first article. The user has no other edits. CSD A10 "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". — Maile (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Who should do that admin work, then? Manxruler (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Nonsuch (D107) is the discussion page. Add your comments there, and just let it go through the process. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Where's the archive for

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests please? Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no archive for the page other than the page history itself, since requests are removed once they've been addressed. Kirill [talk] 17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Specific input for article that was at A-class review

AustralianRupert previously gave a lot of helpful comments from A-class review at Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States.

I think the article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States still has some major issues = it reads more like a manual or guide and not encyclopedic, doesn't read like a descriptive encyclopedic article.

And I think the issues AustralianRupert already mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States of:

  1. WP:NOTGUIDE
  2. WP:EDITORIALIZING

I think these above issues are still the most obvious glaring areas where there could be significant improvements made.

Maybe someone from WP:MILHIST could leave some more specific comments about that, at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1 ?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Would be helpful if some WP:MILHIST experienced editors could look into above, please? — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Opinions please on USS Triton (SSRN-586) and the Mark 37 torpedo

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.

Repeated deletions of sourced content describing the torpedo, from the boat article. [12] [13] [14]. No real explanation, simply that "that's about the Mk37, not Triton".

I'm no expert on US torpedoes, but AIUI, the use of the Mk 37 on Triton is significant. This was a break with WWII practice and a move from air bubble-launched free-running turbine-driven gyro-controlled torpedoes in favour of ASW swim-out electric torpedoes using two-phase passive then acoustic homing, and for these to be used as the primary (in this case only) weapon. This is significant. It's so significant that it should be explained within one article, not by having to navigate across articles.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Your thoughts sound reasonable, but I don't see any attempt to discuss this on Talk:USS Triton (SSRN-586). Now that we are aware of the dispute, perhaps opening a new section there would be helpful in resolving this. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that it's a significant change, but why is it important to the Triton? She wasn't any sort of hunter-killer submarine, not at her gigantic size. So she's arguably one of the subs to which the change is least important. It should be discussed in some detail on the torpedo's article, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
That's the gist of my objection. The change is about the Mk 37, not about Triton. Yes, the swim-out tube is significant; IDK where that belongs, but my feeling is, it fits better with the Mk37 than Triton (absent its own page, or more detail at torpedo tube). Yes, the change to wakeless & homing is significant; that's not about Triton, either. So why insist on it being on Triton's page? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. I've started a section for discussion...)
I raised this here to garner new eyeballs who weren't already watching the Triton page. I'm not the one advocating the change, so why can't Trekphiler put forward their case on Talk:?
Not a hunter-killer? Well after the radar role (or even during), just what else was she? (Which is something of a theme for Triton's career) This was a self-contained self-defence capability against other submarines, not an attack capability against surface ships. Hence the Mk 37. In the early '60s though, this was one of the US' most capable SSKs, despite the size. She carried a sonar fitment in excess of almost any other boat (a fleet largely of rebuilt WWII GUPPYs). The Soviets had noisy boats with poor sonar that would still have had trouble finding even Triton. If this "wasn't any sort of hunter-killer" (broadly true by original intent), then it's significant that she was armed with such a strongly ASW torpedo that was of no use against the terrifying Sverdlov threat (Was this a thing in the US? It paralysed the RN with fear for years). The Mk 37 description needs expansion to clarify its capabilities, not just trainspottering a dry description. For another thing, were they even the wire-guided model at this time?
To understand these issues and a real understanding of Triton requires description not only of Triton herself, but of the context in which she was built. That includes the role, the threat, the rest of the new nuclear fleet at this time, and the weaponry chosen. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If you'd bothered to look, you'd notice I didn't delete ref to the FY56 building program, tho I should have. Your desire for "context" is outside the bounds of the ship's page & belongs, IDK, on the USN page, or somewhere.
As for what "real understanding requires", I maintain it doesn't require intimate details of the weapons she carried or the Navy building program; that's what the links are for, & why there are linked pages under them. Otherwise, we'd be adding definitions of torpedo & conning tower & who knows what; would you defend that?
By appearances, you've become attached to these adds. Maybe you need to let it go. And maybe you should have taken this to Triton's talk page first, instead of whining about what I'm doing (or not doing). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
What "adds"? I'm not even trying to change anything here, you're the one knocking out blocks of stable, sourced content from a GA and your only reasoning is to start blaming other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
My only reasoning? Clearly, you haven't bothered to read anything I've written, here, in the edit summaries, or on Triton's talk page. Which somehow doesn't surprise me. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As Trekphiler says, he was not responsible for that removal of content from that article. I was. I have long been convinced that that article, as with most articles here written by User:Marcd30319, is bulging with irrelevant details which should be at the linked articles. It's simply not how this encyclopedia works. Articles should focus on the point, not sketch in huge amounts of background. The links are here exactly so that people can with one click read about an associated subject. These articles have a very high degree of repetition. So concentrate your ire on me for that one, User:Andy Dingley, not Trekphiler. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Neither of these changes are good, because they remove context for why Triton was built, and why it took the form it did. WP articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not simply a Top Trumps list of which is biggest. Both of these aspects could bear improvement, but both should remain in principle.
The FY 56 construction was the first "mass production" of nuclear submarines as part of developing a fleet, rather than untried proofs of the propulsion concept. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Having been mentioned in, although not invited to, this discussion, I am the individual who is most responsible for upgrading this article above the cut-and-paste of public domain content lifted verbatim from the U.S. Navy's online Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Triton was a unique and historic ship, and this article required a great deal of research, effort, and detail to capture this uniqueness and historical importance within the context of its era. In fact, a WikiProject Ships Barnstar from TomStar81 was bestowed to me in 2010 for being the first person on the English Wikipedia to have successfully guided a nuclear power fast attack submarine article to A-class status. This was no small accomplishment. If find comments suggesting my contributions to Wikipedia as "bulging with irrelevant details" to be contrary to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, as well as being very unwelcoming and very unfortunate. As a senior technical writer with a degree in history and extensive private and public sector experience, proper content management is a worthwhile goal as well as constructive criticism. I do strongly caution against a "my way or the highway" approach taken by some as a mean of back-door ownership. This strikes me as being anti-encyclopedic. Marcd30319 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Great thanks Marc it's good you've said your piece. That was the reason I marked up your username when I brought this up. I thought this matter needs discussion. While you and I disgree (greatly) on style, no-one can fault the volume of work you've done on a subject that might otherwise have remained uncovered. I do remain annoyed with the way you present things, but in truth, I tend also to think that you deserve more barnstars than you have already. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a fundamental disconnect here where some people think articles should be self-contained and others disagree, thinking that readers should have to click through to other articles. Both approaches can find support in WP:PERFECT, so can we agree to leave this article alone and work on others that are lacking key information? You're fighting the wrong battle, folks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you also Ed. You're reminding me of the contempt I feel for people who spend all their time arguing on talkpages rather than writing stuff. Your words have a great deal of truth in them. I will pursue this matter no further. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well said, ED17! And many thanks to Buckshot06, too!Marcd30319 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Buckshot06 and Marcd30319. You both do great work, and I'm glad to see that we can all walk away intact. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ...and Trekphiler blanks it all again... 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"...and Trekphiler blanks it all again..." I rv'd a restoration I maintain is unwarranted. I don't appreciate accusations of edit warring over one lousy edit, just because you happen not to like it. And you're so certain of your righteousness, & my guilt for everything wrong with the page, you can't even be bothered to look at the history. So what else is new? You've proven to be irrational about any edit I've made before, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:32 & 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted Trekphiler's last reversion because a consensus had been reached (see ed17 above) to leave this article alone and to work on other articles that lack key information. In fact, I expressly re-wrote the reverted text to enhance its contextual relevance to the article. I hope we can move on as this article has hitherto been remarkable stable article. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Guys, this really is a content dispute, and as such should really be conducted on a relevant article talkpage rather than here. That way it won't be hard to find if it comes up again in future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Consensus? I don't see a request to stop arguing as "consensus". Moreover, IIRC, the "consensus" edit was the one after the off-topic material was removed, not the one before it. However, since I expect to be in the minority (as usual), you may have whatever the hell you want at Triton' page, for I won't be editing it ever again. I am sick of accusations of edit warring. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:19, 6 October 2015 (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.

American Revolutionary War Content Fork Article - Anglo-French War (1778–83)

I wanted to make editors aware that it appears a content fork has been created to the American Revolutionary War article, entitled Anglo-French War (1778–83).XavierGreen (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 01/10/15

See Draft:Jemima Warner. Thank you as always, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Focus, I've read Draft:Jemima Warner. I suggest a couple of things:
  1. Put your citations in the draft itself, not simply at the end of it. You've done this for a few, but not all of your paragraphs. Where you obtained your information for a particular statement is/might be important, especially if someone wants to find it.
  2. There should be a Military Person box on this. you can find these on Infoboxes
  3. The lead paragraph could be a bit longer, a bit more detailed.
  4. the Legacy section uses some "unencyclopedic" words
  5. One of your sources actually says the Rebecca Grief, not Jemima Warner, was the first of the casualties. This is the same one that says Jemima married again. I'd be interested in why this is discounted, and your other sources are considered "right".

It was actually not unusual for women to accompany their husbands in the military. Holly Mayer's book, Belonging to the Army documents the vast train of men and woman that accompanied the early modern army. auntieruth (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

rfc on Battle of Britain.

I call interested parties to the following rfc. (Hohum @) 18:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Britain

Disambiguation links for MILHIST

Hi! We have a contest over at WP:DPL to fix disambiguation links. These are links asking you whether the Battle of Farmington was in Mississippi (1862) or Tennessee (1863). We have a tool (Dab solver) that makes it simple to update these links, accessible from the FIX links. The Military History project has 2,800 articles in this month's challenge.

Don't be afraid to create redirects or make redlinks for notable subjects, Wikipedia is far from being comprehensive. WP:The Daily Disambig shows the overall project's progress. Cheers, — Dispenser 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Military history Showcase

Military history Showcase is an outdated list that was manually updated by the person who created it. It hasn't been updated since 2012, and GAs have a section but no individual listings. Is there a chance this could be revamped and automated with bots? — Maile (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue-water navies again

I may be mistaken, but I believe there was a consensus either here or at WT:SHIPS that we would not use blue-, green- or brown-water navy in the type field of infboxes on navy articles. User:Deepanshu DEL has been adding these to several navy articles, anlog with an IP that is presumably also this user, even after I've reverted additions. Does anyone know what the guideline or discussion on this is? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thread you're looking for. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! - BilCat (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of merging recently created content fork

France in the American Revolutionary War has been the subject of two recent move requests (Requested move 29 January 2015, Requested move 20 August 2015), both of which have failed. Perhaps frustrated by the failure to move, but undeterred from purpose, new User:AdjectivesAreBad chose to build the created redirect into its own article. France in the ARW is a legitimate topic, has existed since 2005, and deserves improvement. Newly created Anglo-French War (1778–83) is a clear content fork, and should be deleted and redirected (or perhaps merged) to the France in the American Revolutionary War pagespace. I encourage interested editors to visit the merge discussion here. BusterD (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ANZAC War Memorial

Someone has been changing "ANZAC" to "Anzac" and did a cut and paste move to "Anzac" (since reverted). See talk:ANZAC War Memorial and the request for text reversion to ANZAC -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

978th Military Police Company

I've just seen this article crop up 978th Military Police Company

Are military companies notable enough for individual articles? Gavbadger (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC) - Edited again for spelling Gavbadger (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If and only if they receive coverage in reliable secondary sources. WP:GNG has more. In this case I don't see any sources at all, so I doubt this particular case is notable enough for its own article. It should probably be nominated for deletion (not speedy deletion though). Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Will do, thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree, an article for a company-sized sub-unit would be rare due to the GNG need to have multiple reliable sources independent of the subject with enough detail. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/722nd_Ordnance_Company_(United_States) and later discussions, including regarding 575th Sigs Company, separate non-combat companies are not considered notable. They should actually all be listed for deletion. The 507th Maint Company due to all its mentions meets GNG though. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Total Confederate forces at Malvern Hill

Some sources list the actively engaged Confederate troops, which may have been around 35,000 (I need to research whether sources agree); on the other hand, other sources list the troops at hand, which was a number closer to 55,000. Question to MilHist experts: which figure goes in the infobox, in the summary paragraphs, etc.? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That IP that I reverted reversed the outcome before changing the numbers. Are you the IP?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope, not me. If other facts were disturbed, then it might be vandalism, but it would be odd if a vandal accidentally hit precisely on a gray area. Anyhow, I'll keep thinking about this. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submissions 05/10/15

Draft:SEEK IGLOO, Draft:436th Operations Support Squadron (436 OSS) and Draft:Francis C. Harrington. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I have doubts whether any Operations Support Squadron has notability independent of the Operations Group it is assigned to. This article talks about the squadron "airlifting" lots of things, which were actually airlifted by the airlift squadrons of the 436th Operations Group and its reserve affiliate group. Footnote three, which supports almost all the narrative in the article, links to the accomplishment of the 436th Airlift Wing, not the squadron. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lockheed AC-130

As you may have heard, an U.S. AC-130 bombed an MSF hospital recently. An editor assumed that that implied the USAF was responsible for the attack. Could somebody confirm whether the USAF is the only branch of the U.S. military which flies AC-130s, at least in Afghanistan? Even if you do know, is it WP:OR to make the inference? FourViolas (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@FourViolas: The only operators of the AC-130 and its variants are the US Air Force, so if it was an AC-130 on a US directed airstrike, it would've been an Air Force bird. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! And this is obvious enough (to knowledgeable people) that it isn't OR? My search for "kunduz hospital "air force"" only pulls up WP so far. FourViolas (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@FourViolas:Wouldn't be OR since the only operators are the USAF, so in the absence of proof to the contrary it can be reasonably inferred that this is a USAF flub-up. If that article had a rating at or above B then it could be an issue, but I don't see that as an issue at present since the article is still developing. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

infobox service record

OperationsV Corps Observation Group
Western Front, France: 12 June-11 November 1918[1]
  • Sorties: 417
  • Combat missions: 279
  • Killed: 3
  • Wounded: 5
  • Missing: 1
  • Aircraft lost: 5 [2]
Victories
  • Enemy Aircraft shot down: 3[3]
  • Enemy Balloons shot down: 0[3]
  • Total Enemy Aircraft Destroyed: 3[3]


Service record
Operations:
  • V Corps Observation Group
    Western Front, France: 12 June-11 November 1918[4]
    • Sorties: 417
    • Combat missions: 279
    • Killed: 3
    • Wounded: 5
    • Missing: 1
    • Aircraft lost: 5 [2]
Victories:
  • Enemy Aircraft shot down: 3[3]
  • Enemy Balloons shot down: 0[3]
  • Total Enemy Aircraft Destroyed: 3[3]

References

  1. ^ Series "H", Section "O", Volume 29, Weekly Statistical Reports of Air Service Activities, October 1918-May 1919. Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, 1917–1919, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Gorrell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d e f Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, Series M, Volume 38, Compilation of Confirmed Victories and Losses of the AEF Air Service as of May 26, 1919
  4. ^ Series "H", Section "O", Volume 29, Weekly Statistical Reports of Air Service Activities, October 1918-May 1919. Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, 1917–1919, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

{{Infobox service record}} has a ship mode and a non-ship mode. The parameter |is_ship=yes forces the template to use <td>...</td> instead of <th>...</th> for the line-item headings. I have just implemented a change to ship infoboxen that allows generic unordered lists to render without the bullet points. The reasons for this are described at WT:SHIPS.

I have tweaked {{infobox service record/sandbox}} so that it has two sections: a ships section and a non-ships section. I don't think that I've broken anything as can be seen in the sandbox rendering at top of this discussion. The second version of that (with tweaks) is rendered in a ship infobox with |is_ship=yes (from 99th Aero Squadron).

It is my intention to update the live version of {{infobox service record}} from the sandbox. Before I do so, are there questions? Comments?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the live template from the sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Abu'l-Aswar Shavur ibn Fadl needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Abu'l-Aswar Shavur ibn Fadl; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Rolling Thunder needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Rolling Thunder; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)

Greetings. I am curious whether the Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) article is eligible for GA status since the battle is ongoing.--Catlemur (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The GAC review is happening at Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)/GA1, and Catlemur is asking this question as the reviewer.
Yeah, I can see how one might think that, but I think it is theoretically possible as long as it is up-to-date on the main aspects at the time it is reviewed (and meets all the other criteria, obviously). Whether it is a good idea (given the scope for a current event article to deteriorate quickly if it isn't updated other criteria aren't maintained) is another thing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

ANZAC War Memorial move discussion

Recently ANZAC War Memorial was cut & pasted here to the Anzac Memorial by a new editor A Martin (talk · contribs), who appears to have some connection with the memorial. This was reverted, and a discussion on the issue has been started here.

Prior to the move, A Martin (among other modifications) changed all mentions of "ANZAC" to "Anzac" here. With the summary:

"ANZAC corrected to Anzac", the previous summary was:
"Correction of errors based on consultation with Brad Manera, Anzac Memorial Head Curator. Addition of information about upcoming Anzac Memorial Centenary Project."

Back in February another new editor Aliakhim (talk · contribs) changed all mentions of "ANZAC War Memorial" to "ANZAC Memorial" i.e. removed all appearances of "War" from the name text, here. With the summary:

"The official name of this building is the ANZAC Memorial, not ANZAC War Memorial. It is a memorial to the men, or 'Anzacs' of the first AIF, not the war more generally."

Thus the text has changed from "ANZAC War Memorial" to "Anzac Memorial", just this year, while the page name has been "ANZAC War Memorial" since 07:30, 31 August 2004‎ when the page was created, over 11 years.
♦ Just mentioning this here for input from interested parties. For my part, I think It has always been commonly referred to as the "ANZAC War Memorial", ANZAC being an acronym. The Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) seems to agree with me, at least on one page.[15]. 220 of Borg 14:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
♦ Using lower case for New Zealand, i.e., "Anzac" seems to belittle New Zealand's contribution. It should defintiely be all upper case, i.e., "ANZAC" Sliven2000 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Scottish Army In World War I: kicking around AFC for three years: valid topic or no?

This was first submitted in 2012, and the originator recently returned to AFC to resubmit it. Is this fundamentally a valid article, or is "Scottish" a non-definitive subcategory of the UK Army so far as WWI goes? Any help on either approving this article, or definitively stating that it's not a valid standalone topic, would be useful. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I could see List of Scottish regiments participating in World War I being a viable list, but not the rest of it. Scottish units weren't like the Bavarian Army operating under a separate command, but integrated within the British Army; the prose section of this is basically "list of notable British army officers who served in the 1910s with connections to Scotland". ‑ iridescent 05:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Not a separate Army. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not a separate Army in WW1 or today, but I suspect we will need Scottish Army articles in the near future... Sliven2000 (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Any Japanese or Chinese reading editors about?

I've created the SS Kuroshio Maru article, which is about a tanker with a rather colourful history. It's lacking in details of her construction, which I suspect that Japanese souces will be able to provide (I'm about ja-minus 3). Chinese sources will likely be able to provide further detail re her requisitoning by Hong Kong in 1951 and the fallout therefrom. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging User:Cla68. You might want to contact him directly as I'm not sure how many people pay attention to pings any more. ‑ iridescent 18:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Mjroots, there aren't very many sources in English that go into the details of Japanese logistics ships of WWII. Books like The World's Merchant Fleets, 1939: The Particulars and Wartime Fates of 6,000 Ships by Roger Jordan and The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II by Mark Parillo are hit-and-miss, especially since the latter book may not apply since Kuroshio was a militarized tanker. There are a number of Japanese sources, such as the periodical Maru Special, that give information like this on Japanese ships, but I don't think that journal has published any of its content online. There are two online forums where experts on Imperial Japan reside and may be able to help you out: Tully's Prop 'n' Turret, the discussion forum for CombinedFleet.com, which is already used as a source in the article, and J-Aircraft forum, which despite its name is a discussion board about anything related to the Imperial Japanese military. Finally, Pacific Wrecks might have some info or the regulars there might know where to steer you. They specialize in studying the movement of Japanese forces around the Pacific during the war. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Davidships, we now have a fuller description. Turns out she was misnamed in Lloyd's Register. Cla68, those books certainly sound interesting. Will see what I can do to get my hands on a copy. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I bagged a copy of Jordan's book on a well-known internet auction site for a very reasonable price. Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Audie Murphy plane crash article should be renamed

Discussion has been moved to Talk:Audie Murphy plane crash — Maile (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Audie Murphy plane crash was just created by Samf4u. It was not Murphy's plane, and he wasn't the only passenger who died. I suggest a renaming of the article, but I don't know what. Any suggestions? — Maile (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Assuming we really need the page (I would lean to a merge with Audie Murphy), I think "Aero Commander 680 Super crash" fits the general syntax of crash page names.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
First off, if you read the article you'd know that the plane was owned by Colorado Aviation which was a subsidiary of Telestar. Murphy was the Director of Telestar. Second, change the name to anything you want, I don't care, but merging w/the Audie Murphy article is out of the question. At 70K the article is large. Adding another 11K would be a little much. Please see WP:AS. Samf4u (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I would agree on not merging with the Audie Murphy article. It made it to FA like it is, and there was a lot of editing back and forth over that section. I'm happy to leave the Audie Murphy article alone. I don't even want to mess with editing with the plane crash article, since it seems well done. I just question the name of it. But as with all things at Wikipedia, that's really up to a consensus. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
If it is any help, and in a similar vein, I would have searched for Lynyrd Skynyrd air crash, but it turns out that crash is at 1977 Convair CV-300 crash. Perhaps something similar could be done with the title of Murphy's crash article? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The correct title would be "1971 Colorado Aviation Aero Commander 680 crash", per the naming convention for aircrash articles. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Grey of Heton notability

Can any military history people comment on the notability of the soldier/feudal baron Sir Thomas Grey of Heaton who was in the thick of the Scottish Wars of Independance? He is unusual for a number of things:

  1. He had an unusually long career despite being in "the thick of it" holding commands such as Norham Castle for much of his career
  2. His experiences were documented by his son Thomas Grey (chronicler) whose Scalacronica provides a rare and one of the most important sources for our knowledge of the wars
  3. He had an extraordinary escape at the Siege of Stirling Castle where he first rescued Henry de Beaumont from being catapulted by a siege engine only to be shot in the head by a bolt fired from a Springald, being proclaimed dead and then re-awakening at his own funeral!
  4. Being one of the cavalry leaders on the first day of the Battle of Bannockburn who rose to a challenge of his manhood/chaivalry and launched into a suicidal charge on the Scottish, i.e. he was one of the hot-headed leaders who are often held responsible for the disastrous English defeat
  5. He was a central figure in the story of the Chivalric Knight of Norham Castle which provided inspiration for the "Marmion" poem of Sir Walter Scott and Bishop Percy's Hermit of Warkworth story
  6. He is ancestor to a long line of Baronets, Members of Parliament, etc

The current advice on Notability of Military Personnel seems very geared to modern people, i.e. How can you compare bravery awards like V.C.s to medieval feudal rewards of knighthoods and land or modern ranks such as "Flag-Officer" to Knights or Castle Keepers?

What do people think? Is he worth his own article? Thanks Sliven2000 (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The notability guideline is a good rule of thumb, but fundamentally, if the sources are there, go for it. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Sir Thomas was of fairly minor rank but did hold significant border commands - Norham was one of the key castles on the border. The "Marmion incident" adds to his notability in the lore of arms. His career is documented. Clifford Roger's book Soldiers Lives through History: the Middle Ages (2007) devotes an entire chapter to his career as a case study of the professional soldier of the Middle Ages. So, yes, compared with some people who have wikipages, I think he is eminently noteable. Go for it seconded Monstrelet (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew & Monstrelet. I just don't want to spend time creating something only for it to be deleted! Some of the notability guidelines are straightforward, e.g. National Politicians, Army Heads, etc but there are a whole load more that are very "fuzzy". I think Sir Thomas Grey falls under several fuzzy ones as well as there being quite a lot of info on him which has "general" historical interest as well. I think overall though there is one thing he is most noteable for, although it probably wouldn't be what he wanted to be remembered for, i.e. he was one of the hot-headed leaders that cost the English the Battle of Bannockburn. Sliven2000 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
He would have said he was one of the cautious ones,only launching his mad charge when taunted by his commander for cowardice. However, I look forward to the new page (and I'll vote against deletion if needs be) Monstrelet (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Remember that SOLDIER is an essay (not a policy or a guideline) and is only intended as a yardstick of when a subject may be notable, by listing cases or criteria where a subject is likely to meet the Wikipedia notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable published sources independent of the subject". Failing to meet any of the listed cases is completely irrelevant if you have sufficient information about the subject drawn from multiple reliable published sources for an article (as appears to be the case here), because you meet WP:N. Equally, if there are no sources discussing the subject, it doesn't matter how many of the examples at SOLDIER are met, it doesn't belong here. -- saberwyn 07:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Monstrelet & Saberwyn. One Tho Grey article coming up... Sliven2000 (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Operation Wotan

I'm not a subject matter-expert, but I looked around for some sources and I'm inclined to agree with users Angusmclellan and Pyutk that the operation is, at a minimum, inaccurately described, and more likely entirely fictional - I can't find any other references, and the article includes information from the linked alternate history timeline which is clearly inconsistent with other articles about what Kesselring and Kleist were doing at this time - and yet it's linked from the main Battle of Moscow, WW2 articles all over the place, and has been translated into Russian and Chinese. Can someone confirm and AfD? Willhsmit (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of World War II appears to be speculative.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I put it up at afd for input. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Chanced to see this in passing, curious enough to look at it. Don't know anything about the subject, not sure about the article, but I do note that it was created by User:Brandmeister (old) which will automatically have received an afd notice but which hasn't been active since 2010, so this post pings Brandmeister which I take it is the current instance. Apologies if Brandmeister already knows by other means. Stanning (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt this article is anything more than a hoax. Despite there cant be found anything about it besides a book of one of this What if... authors its highly doubtful that anybody within the german military thought it possible to deploy a whole army group over hundreds of kilometers within weeks to attack Moscow, especially as the army group was bound with Crimea. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jamesnewman1976/sandbox - Navesink Mortar Battery

Dear military history experts: This draft article will soon be deleted as stale unless someone decides to improve it. It has the feel of pre-published text, but I haven't found any copyvio. The references need to be fixed up by someone who understands what this draft is about.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hotcat has deleted an article!

I added a category to the USS Thatcher (DD-514) article using Hotcat and it had the effect of reducing the articl to a title only. Reverted the edit and it's still the same. HELP!!!! Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#Why do all pages look blank?, coincidence your edit was concurrent with a database error most likely. Nthep (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Phew! Glad it wasn't me! Thanks for the cat fix. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 14/10/15

See Draft:Regiment of Principe. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

wikibabble: Person data is deprecated (translation: the person data template is no longer to be used)

Ok, so an editor and I have been going back and forth on the person data for Alexander Henning von Kleist (the nephew, not the field marshal). He keeps deleting it, saying it's deprecated, which means nothing to me. Apparently there was a massive discussion about this, and the template of person data is no longer needed or wanted. Would have been nice to know. Mr. B, did you know this? You write a lot of biographies too. Anyway, I waded through the the argument from last May in the Village Pump, and as far as I can tell, Wikipedia is part way through implementing it, but obviously not all the notifications telling us NOT to use it have gone out. Anyway, apparently we are to stop. So those of us writing/editing bios should take not. auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I stopped when they started deleting them off my bios. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The decision can be found here. I should have cross-posted a notice about it. The bottom line is that it has been superseded by WikiData. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Should the Wikidata link be in place before deleting person data?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see an actual decision in the lengthy discussion that Hawkeye pointed to, but the practical outcome is that the information in persondata can now go in Wikidata where it's properly structured and validated, so persondata can be deleted when its information had been put in WD, but AFAIK there's no automatic transfer and deletion yet.
What I do is this: having created a WP bio article, go to Wikidata, create a corresponding new item (having previously searched to make sure that there isn't an entry for that person already, e.g. if another wiki has a article on that person), populate it with what you know, including "instance of human" (WD isn't only for people), and link it to the WP article. Then the WD link appears automatically beside the WP article. For an existing article, if there's no WD link, do the same. Stanning (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

English carrack Holigost

I've created the English carrack Holigost article. A bit outside my area of comfort so corrections, expansion etc is appreciated as always. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above, we need an article on the gad. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
According to Rodger's The Safeguard of the Sea, the ship was actually named Holy Ghost of the Tower. This is confirmed by 1, 2, and 3. It's also sometimes referred to as just Holy Ghost, as in here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I've no objection to a move to a better title. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Rodger is a pretty solid historian of the period, so I'd be inclined to go with the name he uses. Should I just move the page or do you think a WP:RM is warranted? Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't know that you'll find much on "gad",, Friel in Henry V's Navy: The Sea-Road to Agincourt and Conquest 1413-1422 describes it as "long sharpened iron spear". And it's usage is covered in a single paragraph of about 9 lines. More a dictionary definition? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Could be worth an entry at Glossary of nautical terms, at least as a start until someone can put together something more substantive. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: no need for a RM. As long as the longer name is referenced that'll be fine. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The "of the Tower" part only signifies she was a royal ship, and would be used to ditinguish her from other ships of the same name. Where it was obvious which ship was being referred to, it was probably dropped anyway, so the title is fine. On the gad, there is some stuff on the subject in the reports on the Mary Rose, as gads were recovered there. I'll check the detailed ref when I have time this evening.Monstrelet (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh right, now that you say it, I remember that. Probably good enough to just add Holy Ghost as an alternate spelling in the lead. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

October-November backlog reduction drive starts today (15 Oct)

Just a reminder that the October-November 2015 backlog reduction drive has now started. Pls sign up here if you are willing to volunteer a bit of time to help out. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sign up now for the October-November backlog reduction drive!

It's BAAAAACK! This time round, the coordinators have decided on a general backlog reduction drive over a six-week period to reduce the backlog of military history articles needing attention and military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. Every player wins a prize, and by reducing the backlog, you'll be simultaneously helping our WikiProject achieve its 15% B-Class milestone target! It all kicks off on 15 October, and runs to the end of November. Do a little or do a lot, it all helps! Sign up here! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) for the WikiProject Military history coordinator team

I've been dabbling while I'm laid up but am running out of obvious candidates suitable for my sources (Great War, Western Front 1914-1945, North Africa etc) as there aren't many left on the list under Battle of... but if anyone notices likely articles under other titles like ... offensive, ... of or Great War air and naval operations, please let me know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Will do! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
In the past I've fellow-traveller-ed and joined in with denting the lists though without signing up. That's not treading on any toes is it? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No, not at all. If more people did that sort of thing on a regular basis there'd be no need for this sort of thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC List of military occupations

There is an RFC here that you may be interested in.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

help needed for Florent Groberg, new Medal of Honor recipient

The Florent Groberg article was just started and I am trying to improve it. He will be awarded the Medal of Honor next month. I have NO IDEA how to do the Awards & Achievements section with the medals and ribbons! Can someone help me? Is there a guide for this somewhere? Thanks you! —МандичкаYO 😜 11:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • OK an IP did it, but they left no explanation... is there a guide somewhere to doing these? Thanks!—МандичкаYO 😜 12:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, I don't think there is a guide for this (although I could be wrong). To be honest, there are competing views within the project about the necessity for such sections...I personally don't add them in, but equally I don't remove them if they are already there (so long as they are referenced adequately). This is the main concern, IMO. Anyway, thank you for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 12/10/15

Draft:Sam Shephard GC. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The move of this article to the main space was declined on the grounds of notability but I would have thought that a GC winner was inherently notable? Cinderella157 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
My doubt precisely. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as 'inherent notability' (at least in theory, I acknowledge that in practice, it is a shortcut: why say "Look at [all these sources on the subject]" when you can say "'inherently notable' due to X"). Wikipedia's inclusion guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable published sources independent of the subject", which I am not certain are met for the draft in its current incarnation.
The sources cited are: 1) a relatively short article from the time of the incident, 2) a local news article about the man who died, 3) and 5), London Gazette entries for the medal and the later promotion (which you can find for any medal or promotion regardless of significance), 4) the website for the association he became a part of, which doesn't actually say anything about the subject, 6) a brief news article that is not about the subject, does not support most of the claims made in that sentence, and does not provide enough context to verify that the "S Shephard" listed in the team lists is the same as the subject of the article, and 7), a link to a Getty Images groupshot being used to cite the medals the subject wears. In its current form, I think the draft falls shy of the notability inclusion criteria, and probably runs foul of WP:BLP1E. -- saberwyn 07:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Sam Shephard I am of the view that earning the GC made him notable and meets criteria #1 of WP:SOLDIER. We have no problem with Kim Hughes (GC) so why do now the notability concerns? There is a redlink at List of George Cross recipients waiting for Sam Shephard. I am tempted to start the article from the redlink but will wait for it to come out of draft. Gbawden (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course a GC recipient is notable. Anyone who claims they aren't clearly has no knowledge whatsoever of the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Accepted draft. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyprus Emergency edit war

An edit war on a little-followed (but still quite important) page has broken out and outside feedback would be appreciated - see Talk:Cyprus Emergency. —Brigade Piron (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've now protected the page for three weeks after resetting to last stable version. I've also encouraged all participants to go back to the reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Watchlisted, thanks. Britain's "small wars" (of which Cyprus was one) are one of my areas of interest. I'll keep an eye on things and see if I can add anything useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why no article?

I have also posted this on WP:BIOGRAPHY

I don't do biographical articles (nowhere close to being up to speed on the conventions), but while editing 508th Aerospace Sustainment Wing, I looked to add a Wikilink to a notable commander, Gerald W. Johnson, and was amazed to find there was no Wikipedia Article on him. I'd argue he is more notable than any of the Gerald W. Johnsons who have articles about them, and Gerald W. Johnson (military officer) would be superflouous. I'd suggest that someone who works in the area of military bios might give this a shot. His official USAF biography [16] would be a good place to start. Reasons:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineagegeek (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have enough to create a stub right there, if you have references, so why not WP:BEBOLD and create a stub, and you've already posted an expansion request right here. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No article probably because a lot of topics from 1945 to roughly the Gulf War of 1991 have only partial coverage. He sounds like he was truly notable during the Cold War / Vietnam War, and there are many article "gaps" for that period. If you add an article, it would be one step to closing the "gap". 83.25.106.78 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Stubbed. Help, particularly with bio formats is appreciated. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
G'day, I had a go at adding something of a lead and made a couple of tweaks. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Frogman

The article on combat divers is in need of assistance per the RFC here.   — C M B J   05:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with List of events named massacres

I've started a discussion on talkpage about a recent massive ip insertion of events not commonly named massacres to the list. Does anyone here have an opinion one way or the other? BusterD (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The main issue I see is adding ramage killings or mass shootings on the massacres list page with no (or insufficient) supporting references for them being 'massacres'. These should be added somewhere else, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Map making question

Does anyone remember the address for the Wikimappers? I'm struggling to find a map of Cyrenaica good enough for Sommenblume and I'm also finding it hard to discover Wikilinks to place names, because they've changed so much since 1940. Any suggestions appreciated. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop? -- saberwyn 07:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
That's it, thanks. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion to Quality Award

I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.

The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: If WP:MILHIST members know of anyone who should receive the Award from their quality contributions related to WikiProject Military history, please be bold and award them via the instructions, or post to Wikipedia talk:Deletion to Quality Award. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC Battle of Britain

Some fresh input on what the sources say about the subject would be welcome at this RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems the existing conversation is meandering about without getting anywhere and is sooo long not many people are going to bother reading it all...Sliven2000 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The converssation is shorter than many RfCs. I think we should leave the decision on whether and how to participate to the project members. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The conversation is a complete waste of time, since Martin Hogbin has before & continues to refuse to acknowledge the position he's advancing has no actual support in the sources he's claiming do, nor would it be anything more than a tiny minority view even if it did. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This rfc has gone nowhere within this project. Outside arbitration/refereeing is exactly what you need. Sliven2000 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We need some fresh opinion on what the sources say. They are on the RfC page for all to see. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be ample participation on the RfC. The majority of it does not appear to support the assertions of the proposer. Seeking outside arbitration won't change the views of the majority of reliable sources on the subject, especially those which examine the Battle of Britain in a wider context. Intothatdarkness 17:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Pacific Theater of Operations

There was no 'Pacific Theater of Operations' in World War II. The two commands, South West Pacific Area and Pacific Ocean Areas (command) reported separately and equally to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This article is about a 'Theater' command which did not exist. It appears to be a misguided counterpart created to match European Theater of Operations United States Army. I have redirected the article for now to Pacific War, and intend to list for deletion. Any comments appreciated before this goes ahead. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Twentieth Air Force was a third independent command in the Pacific. I'd keep the redirect, rather than deleting it. The fact that Pacific theater of operations, has always been a redirect to Pacific War (since 2007) with no relation to the capitalized version tends to confirm the theory that creation of the article was in the belief it was a command. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks LG - good argument. But the reason I would prefer to have the capitalised version deleted (and salted, honestly) is that someday someone's going to come along and recreate it, making the same error!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Pacific Theatre is another page, the information of which on this topic, seems to mildly confuse the matter. "Asiatic-Pacific Theater" is used by the U.S. Army Center of Military History -- see CMH. The term appears used by the USN as well. As far as I could see, "Asiatic-Pacific Theater" does not have a Wikipedia article (although the campaign medal for it does). And then, there is the article for the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II. A lot of "Pacific Theaters" out there. 83.21.88.179 (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Copied from talkpage edit by @JMOprof:: "All - this article was erased. I brought it back. It maybe be badly titled, but the scholarship is solid. As a small example, there is a WW2 medal for serving in the "Asiatic-Pacific theater", members who served in any of the 4 operating areas are eligible. Another example: The US Army history is of the Asiatic-Pacific theater. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)"
No it wasn't erased. But the title is incorrect. You may not have been aware I started a talkpage thread at WT:MILHIST after I redirected it. But if the title for the threater is 'Asiatic-Pacific theater' rather than 'Pacific Theater of Operations,' it should be at Asiatic-Pacific theater, which ties it to the list of U.S. Army theaters, with their associated histories, medals, etc, rather than a non-existent 'Pacific Theater of Operations'. 83.21.88.179 makes my point exactly, we need to consolidate all these pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Suggest we move the page to Asiatic-Pacific Theater, at the very least. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi All - Thanks to Buckshot06 for the info. I think re-titling is the perfect fix. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 13:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
That means we need to write a short article saying exactly what the 'Asiatic-Pacific Theater' was. I will raise A-P Theater from a redirect, write something, and then redirect PTO and the lowercase pto of ww2 to it. References for the Asiatic-Pacific Theater would be appreciated. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Buckshot06 - I can help. Does the contents of PTO get moved over somehow? user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 13:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The answer to that question is determined by WP:CONSENSUS. It is my strong view that an imaginary, misleading, title that has accumulated a bunch of listcruft because the U.S. armed forces often use the term 'X Theatre of Operations,' is thoroughly misleading; we are CREATING misleading information which then gets disseminated across the entire internet!! So in my view not a single piece of information should be copied across that does not have a well-referenced source linking it to Asiatic-Pacific Theater - note, *not* 'Theater of Operations', that term was not used. You may have another view, and others may wish to comment... Buckshot06 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure deleting the page is ideal, but I tend to agree, keep what's sourced, under whatever rubric. The Pacific Theatre may not have been official, but it has gained more than a little popular currency. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The US divided the world into three theaters: the Asiatic-Pacific Theater, the American Theater, and the European-African-Middle Eastern Theater. None were actual commands. Renaming the page sounds like the right thing to do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your understandable frustration, Buckshot, comes because the nomenclature of 1944 is not consistent with the military glossary of 2015. Theater of operations is, literally, a term of art, with a given definition (at the end here). As such, everyone from the public affairs officers to the commanding generals, and all the majors and colonels in between, have too loosely taken to using it. Does the Wiki editor write in the framework of 1944, or of today? One answer is not more correct than the other. The PTO article is fully satisfactory to the modern meaning. After all, Okinawa et. al. are not going to leave the Pacific.

theater of operations
a land or sea area, and the airspace above it, established to employ one’s forces to neutralize a strategic threat to the national or alliance/coalition interests in regional or general conflict; it is a part of the theater (of war); normally, the nation’s highest leadership and the respective theater (of war) commander would designate a part of the theater as the theater of operations in the case of a major regional conflict or national emergency and general war; the theater of operations can also be established in the case of a major counterinsurgency effort.—Glossary of Operational Terms

The PTO page is basically a list-plus. So, if it were my chore, I'd start with a "Find and Replace" of Pacific Theater of Operations with Asiatic-Pacific Theater. Otherwise, I'd look at sites like the already cited US Army's [World War II - Asiatic-Pacific Theater Campaigns - U.S. Army Center of Military History], and US Navy's [World War II-Asiatic-Pacific Theater], and The Institute of Hearldry's [Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal], compared to the existing Wiki scholarship, with a view toward reconciliations. Keep the baby and the bathwater separate. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 13:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No complaints. ☺ Thanks to all. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 15:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou JMOprof. I was aware of the fact that the problem is caused by retrospective use of a current doctrinal term. This is where my objection to retaining the term even as a redirect comes in: it creates confusion because of that back-projection. The DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms brings all kinds of late 20th and early 21st Century shades of meaning to terminology. It's a bit like describing Nelson's force sortieing from (was it Gibraltar?) towards Trafalgar as a 'Task Force'. No one would use such terminology because it was never used at the time. It's being backwards-anachronistic. Events should always be described using the correct military terminology of the time, because they link to the doctrine of the time, which avoids confusion with current doctrine. So I disagree with your first point. Second, an injunction to WP:SOFIXIT is always appropriate, though help would be much appreciated. What I do, when I have to do this, is use the 'what links here' function at the side of the page. Thirdly, yes, I found both the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy Asiatic-Pacific Theater pages yesterday. I'll have to clean out the external links sections. Many thanks for your robust contributions to solving this matter!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 21/10/15

Draft:1-109th Field Artillery. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the Creation Indian Military Task Force

I propose for the Creation of Indian Military Task Force. Since Indian Military is one of the world's most powerful and largest military in the World KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 05:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at the South Asian military history task force? Hamish59 (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

War related disabilities

I was searching for an article similar to de:Kriegsversehrte or fr:Invalide de guerre but couldn't find anything here on this topic. I found an article on Posttraumatic stress disorder and Treatments for combat-related PTSD but nothing generic. Looking at Category:Military medicine I think we may be missing something here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Locator maps

I found out how to put more than one location in a locator map (wahey!) but need to find out how to get a locator map of Cyrenaica only, because the Libya map gets too crowded. I've left a request at the map place as suggested above but does anyone here know? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting on the mapsters but have squeezed a few more locations into Cyrenaica, by numbering them and adding a key. Opinions? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Primary source upload question

An associate has copied a British intelligence summary with a translation of the German Operation Skorpion operation order and a typed pdf. Does anyone know where I can upload them (ahem!), wikidata perhaps? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've managed it, all I have to do now is wait for the copyright police. Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you'll want to copy the files from Commons to Wikisource. You can type up a transcript so it'll be searchable too. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mannerheim

What should be the article title of Finnish Marshal Mannerheim? Please give your view at Talk:Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim#Requested move 24 October 2015. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability (revisited)

On The class the stars fell on, ten of the generals are red-linked and eighteen are not linked at all. The page is in today's main page DYK. None of the red/un linked names rang a bell. Ain't life fun?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

FLCs

These are the only two FLCs for the project at the moment. Please help review if anyone has time. I was going to list under a separate thread later, but with the above comment, this seems like a good place. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

This project has been one of the best at fixing disambiguation link issues brought up here. Bearing that in mind, here are disambiguation pages relevant to military history that appear in the top 1000 pages for incoming links:

Any help fixing the links pointing to these pages would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Done the links for Battle of Changsha. Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Where is the page listing this "top 1000 pages for incoming links"? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
This month and main page. Hamish59 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
G'day, I've done what I could for the Basuto War link. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
This page has a conflict I can't resolve with the dab page. It says there's an 1850-2 Basuto War, which isn't one of the choices... Is there a third? Or is this a misprint? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
There are two possibilities. Either the dates are wrong, or there's a missing war. If the dates are wrong, they should be fixed; if not, then a redlink should be created for the missing article (e.g. Basuto War (1850-52)), and the link changed to that. bd2412 T 03:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think there may indeed be a missing article article here, as there were definitely military engagements in the region in the early 1850s (cf. http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol096ds.html). Having said that, I'm not sure whether these engagements were actually part of a single war, or what the correct name of that war might be. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Kirill's got it: there's another war (or continuation) that somebody (who put it in) knows about, but one that didn't get redlinked or dab'd. I'd have redlinked it myself if I had the vaguest clue which the right answer was. ;p Better not to screw it up, I figured. :) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Based on a quick Google search, this looks to be the "Eighth Kaffir War" (in modern sensibilities, the Eighth Xhosa War). bd2412 T 23:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Devers

Could someone identify Jacob Devers' service medals for me? You can find a colour image here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on here this image, from the top down, left to right respectively:

With regards to the Legion of Honor award, this one is a little tricky there are a lot red only awards, however I feel that this is the most likely candidate here given the US service order for awards. I can not locate a medal meeting the criteria for the last award pictured, the closest I could get was the Luxembourg War Cross, which I know to be incorrect because the pattern does not match the one on the uniform. Sorry to stalled out before finishing, but you may have better luck with an actual member of the military looking at the images instead of just a service brat. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction - you can hover over the awards here and get their names. That last medal in the image is apparently the Netherlands Bronze Lion Medal, which we have no article for and hence the reason why I could not find it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Just the Bronze Lion.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Jacob L. Devers#Awards and decorations contains the ones for which I have sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the page Jacob L. Devers#Awards and decorations. I am convinced that the all-red one is the British Order of the Bath, and I have no evidence of an Netherlands award.

Polish October Article

Going through the unassessed the "Cold War" articles and found Polish October. Which turns out to be a "Good Article" from 2007. Going through the article a few paragraphs are unreferenced. It has a couple of "citations needed" and one "dubious – discuss" templates. Should it be re-assessed since it's been a few years since it was assessed as a "Good Article" in 2007 and those templates added in December 2012? Adamdaley (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the several unreferenced paragraphs, dubious tag and two citation needed tags, plus the three dead links would justify doing an individual WP:GAR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

I've locked the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article for a week due to an apparent edit war. A bit of a hot topic, so fresh eyes on the article by those experience in Polish/Russian military topics would be appreciated. The protection may be lifted early by any other admin once it has become apparent that the issue is settled. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to encourage all users experienced in Polish/Russian military and political topics to take a fresh look at mentioned by Mjroots 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article and its talk page where discussion is taking place. Thank you guys. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I extended the lock a further ten days last night. Fresh input sought please. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submissions 29/10/15

See Draft:623d Air Control Flight and Draft:David Dunnels White. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing

Hi all, a new editor has repeatedly attempted to remove allegations of racial bias in the Rape during the liberation of France article. If others could look into the situation, that would be helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a discussion on the article's talk page? It seems an odd thing to dispute given that there's no doubt that African American soldiers were subjected to widespread racist treatment. Nick-D (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the edit summaries, there's a dispute over the quality of the source's evidence or reasoning... So, thx for the suggestion. There's now a section to discuss it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D visiting London

When I last visited London a few years ago I enjoyed meeting some of the UK MILHIST regulars. I'm going to be back in London in early November, and if any members of this project would like to meet, I'm planning on attending the regular London meetup on Sunday 8 November. I don't see the names of any members of this project there at the moment, and it would be nice to put some faces to editor names! Nick-D (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll be there—thanks for drawing my attention to this, Nick. I look forward to meeting you face to face and having a drink or two. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent - I'm looking forward to meeting you in person Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Order of the Cloud and Banner

The Order of the Cloud and Banner is an award granted by the ROC (now Taiwan). Among the recipients is Ralph P. Cousins. My problem is that my source (Cullum IX) doesn't specify the rank of the award and I'd like to nail that down, along with some other things, before I submit the page for review. Does anyone know of a source, even in Chinese, that lists recipients of the award?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User insisting Russia won World War I

Could someone lend me a hand explaining to a persistent user that Russia surrendered before the allied victory in World War I here? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Surveillance blimp‎

Should I not have started surveillance blimp‎? Is it over my head? Get it? Over my head? :) Seriously, please PROD it or something...whatever you see fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Twitter is abuzz with a broken-loose blimp floating across the Northeast, but I believe the experts here can determine whether your article needs to be reined in ;). Seriously, thanks for bringing this to our notice.. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha. Not bad. :) Aloft out loud. Thank you, Buckshot06. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Needs more historical coverage, and non-US coverage, surveillance with blimps is decades old. AWACS concepts with blimps is also decades old, it goes back through WWI, with blimps spotting, spying, surveilling, and reconning... -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The Metropolitan Police (London) and NYPD have operated surveillance blimps, which is not the JLENS and not AWACS. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
See Observation balloon. The JLENS is surely a modern version of what's described there? Stanning (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Merge surveillance blimp‎ into observation balloon then? JLENS isn't the only modern one out there. AWACS concepts have been proposed through the 80's and 90's -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Map ref question

Template:Infobox military operation I'm trying this template in here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 but I'm not sure how to fill in the map reference section because it took place over hundreds of miles. Any suggestions? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Chilarai article

This is confusing for me. This is a living person all because of the "Bir Chilaray Divas" and "Bir Chilaray Award"? But the main part of the article of the person is dead right? Adamdaley (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Long dead, so I'd say not a BLP. That's my two cents anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Capture of the Anne

Hello, I would like to know if some of you have a recent reference that would contradict Cardona Bonet's 1990 book. This source quotes Sloat's correspondence and his own personal diary for the most part, only depending on the colonial (Spanish) authority when discussing the events that took place after the engagement (since the American personnel recruited was not involved in the land search and instead remained with the captured ship, sorting its inventory and preparing it for transportation to a nearby island). However, there is at least one user that seems concerned that the book may be "overly dependent" on colonial sources because it was printed in Spanish, so I would like to know if yours contradict the current narrative or if they provide anything worth including. Thanks for your time.- Caribbean~H.Q. 11:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to obtain, (or just read) a bibliography document (Handbook for RML > 17.72 inch gun, 1887, HMSO publications) referenced in the Wiki article “100 ton > gun”.

HMSO and its retail outlet have no record of this document.

I would appreciate any leads that would help me access this document.

Thanks, in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.32.186 (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

High explosive

A user called Chris the speller is insisting that "high explosive" should be "high-explosive". I haven't a single military source that supports this, so I have reverted the changes. I have invited them to present sources here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Used by themselves, no hyphen. Used as a compound adjective, forex high-explosive shell, hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Sturmvogel 66, you nailed it. Punctuation of compound modifiers is part of the English language, and we don't need the permission of military sources to use proper punctuation, spelling, capitalization, etc. It's not a military issue, it's a language issue. Chris the speller yack 04:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me be clear I'm getting it. It's "high explosive" as opposed to "black powder" (as the filler), but "Torpex high-explosive warhead"? (TBH, IDK which I'd use in the second case.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The Commonwealth Style Guide says not. Do we have an WP:ENGVAR issue here? Can someone fetch Dank? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
So the abbreviation is "HE" for high explosive and "H-E shells" for high-explosive shells? Keith-264 (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen it abbreviated "H-E". I'd certainly never do it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Who needs stealth bombers, when their instruction manuals never get past the first draft? ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW my Macquarie dictionary uses "high explosive" without the hyphen so maybe it is an ENGVAR issue. Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it may vary according to whether it is being used as a noun (e.g. "he passed across the high explosive") or an adjective (e.g. "he passed across the high-explosive warhead"). Hchc2009 (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Orthography would be difficult even if we were attempting it for only one variant of English, and hyphens are the worst. In this age of self-publishing and 24-hour deadline publishing, hyphen usage is shrinking fast. FWIW, Chris is very smart about what works on Wikipedia, in general, so I'd go with Hchc and Sturmvogel on this one: hyphenate it in front of a noun, otherwise don't. That's probably the spelling that's least likely to get changed on Wikipedia, all things considered, and there's value in not getting reverted, even though many sources never hyphenate it. Bottom line: hyphen usage is completely inconsistent, there are no RSs on this issue to save us, and don't worry about it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
That's right, Hchc2009, as Sturmvogel 66 also wrote above. The hyphenation changes that Hawkeye7 reverted (49 of them) were all cases where "high explosive" was used as a compound adjective ("high-explosive shell" or "high-explosive warhead"). In no case was the compound noun "high explosive" changed ("it was filled with 200 pounds of high explosive"). See Collins dictionary (British), which has "high-explosive shell", so no, it's not an ENGVAR issue. And I'm not pulling the hyphenation out of thin air: the article High-explosive anti-tank warhead has had the hyphen since December 2012. One of its sources observes this distinction ("high-explosive weapon" and "the particular type of high explosive or chemical used as a filler") Chris the speller yack 14:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Chris is correct. It's supposed to be hyphenated when being used as a compound adjective. Other MilHist examples are "30-round box magazine" or "large-caliber rifle". The MOS has a section on it, which someone may have already linked. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thx to Chris & Faceless for clearing that up for me. Looks like my reflexive use would have been okay. :) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
From the Commonwealth Style Guide: A hyphen is not used in a compound consisting of a present or past participle preceded by a comparative or superlative eg better known writers, least visited countries, more advanced classes Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Clearly not applicable, then: explosive is not a participle (those would be exploding and exploded), and high is not a comparative (higher) or superlative (highest). BTW, although adjectival high-explosive should be so hyphenated, I wouldn‘t in the abbreviation: HE munitions.—Odysseus1479 21:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, as long as it does this, I could care less how its spelled :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be settled. I think it is not too soon for Hawkeye7 to restore the changes I made to the 49 articles that he objected to. Chris the speller yack 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, 4:30 am is definitely too soon for me. I think we're all with Tom on this one. Anyhow, I have made the changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 top 1000 disambiguation links

There are five disambiguation pages relevant to military history that appear in the top 1000 pages for incoming links listed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/November 2015:

  1. Battle of Sarrin: 12 links
  2. Sudanese Civil War: 7 links
  3. Afghan civil war: 6 links
  4. Dano-Swedish war: 6 links
  5. Gothic War: 6 links

As always, any help in fixing these errors is appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Norfolk (SSN-714)

She is listed as being part of the Reserve Fleet, but in the notes it states she is "undergoing nuclear deactivation". Does anyone know how far through this process she is? Far enough to de-list her from the reserve? (I can't check the NVR). I want to avoid what happened with the Enterprise (CVN-65)... she was listed as being in reserve even after she was irreversibly cut-up and ripped apart. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 09:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:NVR still has her listed as "In Commission, in Reserve (Stand Down), commencement of inactivation availability" with the last update date given as January 5, 2015, if that helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thanks Tom. I appreciate the reply, but in a way it doesn't help. The last update was 10 months ago, so who knows how far she is through the inactivation process. I guess we're stuck keeping her in reserve until we find out she's already been chopped up in Brownsville, Texas. I wish the Navy would a better job of keeping their public info up-to-date. Bah... end rant. Thanks again. Cheers. - theWOLFchild 10:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me the origin of why the U.S. Navy calls a period where a ship is not available for active service or battle, an 'availability?' I understand that it's probably 'availability [for maintenance]' but still it really makes no sense. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it's an "available ship" to assign as crew to that is not at sea or in the midst of a blue-gold rotation. Some sort of administrative dumping ground for crews on paper only. I think... (or, may be not) - theWOLFchild 23:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that Brownsville will be Norfolk's destination. Rather, she will end her days in the Ship-Submarine Recycling Program.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, monk. Of course, you're right. (but again my concern is whether they're actually past the state of being physically able to be recalled into service or not, so we don't have to maintain them on the bah-zillion or so "us-navy-ships-lists" that we seem to have. - theWOLFchild 23:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Bah-ha! whaddy'a know? I just happened to have a look at that page and I found the answer to my Norfolk question, in about 30 seconds. Thanks again, mr. monk! - theWOLFchild 23:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Cyberweapon"

The usage, topic, and naming of Cyberweapon is under discussion, see talk:cyberweapon -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Fortified Position of Liège

The first pic on the page looks like a green and black broken window rather than a diagram, is this my laptop or a general problem? Thanks Keith-264 (talk)

Just a guess: Perhaps it's a rendering problem with the SVG image file, which may be explained if you're using an old browser version. Interestingly enough, I see such a broken image in the Preview function when hovering over the link to the page (in Google Chrome), but when opening the page in question, the image looks OK to me (a map of the surrounding area of Liège). I tested with three different browsers (Chrome 46, IE 11, Opera 33); and for me, only Chrome shows the Preview at all, but all of them correctly displays the page itself. Fred Johansen (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Browser specific, I believe. It looks correct to me on IE 11. But if I bring it up on Firefox 41.0.2, which is the latest browser update, I get something that looks exactly as described by Keith-264 - it looks like the map is on a pane of green glass, and somebody shattered it leaving it mostly black nothingness with fragments of the green around the edges. I get nothing on a hover over with either IE 11 or Firefox 41.0.2. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks okay to me in Chrome. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
|I have Seamonkey. It's OK when I click on to the commons page. Keith-264 (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Broken pane of glass on my Mac's Firefox. And the same with Safari.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Broken pane, too, on IE (IDK what edition :( ). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I had a fiddle with the size but it's the same at 300px. Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Open the image link, it's fine, tho. Go figure. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
If I remove the 300px, it looks okay, with the 300px it looks awkward MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I just took the 300px out and left the |thumb| but it's still a broken window. I wondered if it was something arcane, like a missing full stop or space.... Keith-264 (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
[[File:Map of Liege defences (en).svg]] is the problem. It opens a link to a good image, but the file operator itself is wonky somehow. I tried it on another page, with everything but this deleted, & it's still bad. Maybe it needs a re-upload? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
[[File:Festungsring Luettich Karte.png]] does this one look all right? It isn't as good but doesn't break up in my browser.Keith-264 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Fine in mine, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Threat Vector"

The usage of Threat Vector is under discussion at talk:Threat Vector (novel).

Do we have an article that covers the concept of threat vectors? (I suppose some targetting or detection article...) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Military history of Italy during World War II

Military history of Italy during World War II Does anyone remember the process earlier this year when lots of articles with Italian military operations in them were weeded of tendentious interpolations by someone who used chicanery to push POV? I wonder if this one was overlooked? Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There are some huge Notes that ought to be weeded down or included as article text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of recipient categories

Proposals to delete categories for recipients of the Order of the October Revolution and multiple awards of the Order of Lenin. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

US Naval Vessel Register

Does anyone know why the NVR is offline? It appears to have been this way for some time now. This could be a problem. Actually, it already is, but if this is long-term or even permanent, than this is a very serious problem. - theWOLFchild 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that this is the page you were looking for, I had no trouble getting to it and it seems to be up and running just fine. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It appears offline for me as well. Perhaps a location based issue? (I am in the UK).Nigel Ish (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am referring to nvr.navy.mil. It's not working for me, and now it seems for other as well. @TomStar81: - do you mind saying what country you're in? - theWOLFchild 14:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Tom lives in the US. It works for me just fine as well (I'm also a Yank). Seems as though non-US users can't access it for some reason. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Not working from Canada, either. The page I get suggests a temporary problem, tho, not a 404. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've sent a message to the navy (at navy.mil) advising them of this and requesting info. Hopefully I'll get a response in a few days. If and when I do, I'll post something here letting everyone know. - theWOLFchild 20:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question, yes, I do live in the US (although If I go six miles south I'd be in Mexico :) Not sure why everyone else is having the problem, I read through the site's privacy policies and disclaimers and there is nothing in there about censorship or unavailability of service. Sorry for the inconvience. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. (no need to apologize, it's not your fault). I called a friend in Toronto, just 50km/31mi from the US border, he can't access the site either. I really hope this is temporary, otherwise it will be a pain-in-the-ass for editors trying to maintain USN articles from outside the lower 48 states. - theWOLFchild 15:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


Update: I have been in contact with an IT admin from NavSea Systems Command. They say they've have similar problems in the past, and it turned out to be a server issue. They're now looking into it. (hopefully it'll be resolved soon). - theWOLFchild 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: couldn't have done it without MilHist!!

We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 02/11/15

See Draft:The PEI CEF Gunners 1914-1918. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Now Canadian Expeditionary Force artillery from Prince Edward Island. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Piano burning

Piano burning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about piano burning as a tradition in in the RAF and USAF as well as its role in performance art. One of your members, Dodger67, suggested that it might be good to post this here to get some more eyes on the article. Basically, an IP has been repeatedly editing the article, but not very constructively. See Special:Contributions/216.3.207.34. I get that he thinks (and wants to emphasise) that the stories about its origins as an air force tradition, are probably myths, although the tradition itself is real, and I have tried to accommodate his previous edits, even though the article had already made this fairly clear. The article now mentions this specifically 4 times and consistently describes the origin stories as "legends". But he just can't let go. Over the last 48 hours, he has been repeatedly adding editorialising which has to be toned down, places his own assertions before existing references which do not support what he's saying and have to be moved, and deletes material that makes the article incoherent and/or poorly punctuated, including material about its role in the arts. (The latest deletion and editorialising was reverted by Dodger67.) I'd appreciate it if some members could have a look. Voceditenore (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The class the stars fell on

Would somebody like to drop in on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The class the stars fell on/archive2? It got an enormous number of hits at DYK, so I'm sure it would be a popular featured list, but it needs some reviewers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanity check

I've been cleaning up problems, some of which are my fault, at Garlin Murl Conner.

Conner performed in a manner which some consider worthy of the Medal of Honor. During the campaign to get his DSC upgraded, a lot of comments were made about how many medals, particularly the Purple Heart (seven), he was awarded. This image (monochrome), which I haven't been able to source or I'd upload, seems to show:

Combat Infantryman Badge
Something hidden (His Distinguished Service Cross?), Silver Star with three OLC, Bronze Star
Something partially hidden (Purple Heart (at least one)?), Good Conduct Medal, American Defense Service Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal (with an indeterminate number of devices, one of which should be an arrowhead)

Conner's gravemarker, which appears to be a VA-provided type, claims the DSC, SS with three OLC, and PH with two OLC; in theory, evidence had to be provided for awards to appear on a marker.

Comments, please. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In that linked picture I don't see either of the one's you call hidden (the DSC nor the PH). It does almost look like there is something before the GCM (and if that row has 4, then the top row would have 3 for that alignment), but it's odd to wear ribbons in such a way that it is 90%+ covered by the lapel. The possible thing before the GCM could just be a bit of the mounting sticking out. The other picture at findagrave of him getting his DSC does appear to show the PH, however it does not appear to show the ADSM. Gecko G (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I should have commented on the four-in-a-row arrangement. In my career, the only people I saw wear them that way were flag officers who needed vertical space. I just noticed a few minutes ago that he's not wearing a ribbon for the World War II Victory Medal; it's possible the War was still on.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Piloting TWL WP:Research help in Reference Sections

Hi WikiProject Military History,

At The Wikipedia Library, we have been thinking a lot about how readers and editors use Wikipedia in research processes. One thing we know: there is a growing consensus in the libraries and educational communities that Wikipedia has a place as a starting point for research. In response to this, we developed a portal at WP:Research help, to communicate a more consistent and community-informed discussion of how to use Wikipedia in research.

I am posting here, because we would like to link to this portal in article reference sections. We believe that the portal will help Wikipedia readers better understand how our community works, and in turn, how to contribute by adding research to articles -- and we think the readers who have research questions will be most effectively communicated to through reference sections. Moreover, we hope that this page will help less experienced editors realize a) how important research is for Wikipedia and b) how many community-supported tools there are to support that research, including the Wikipedia Library’s programs. For a more thorough discussion of our motivations and plan, we have outlined a project proposal at Wikipedia:Research help/Proposal.

Since this project has strong support for research and community engagement as well as a large and interested readership, we hope to pilot a link to this research portal in reference sections on a set of project articles. See the demo below for a sense of how this would look. We’d greatly appreciate your thoughts and input on this idea, including feedback on the demo below. Would you want WikiProject Military History articles to to participate in this pilot?

Cheers, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Demo

This is the main demo we’re favouring, but there are other options outlined at Wikipedia:Research_help/Demo. We would welcome feedback, tweaks or additional demos. Currently, we hope to use templates to add the formatted links, though eventually we will likely test popups or other ways to create entry points.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean pellentesque, nulla a tempus aliquam, enim nulla posuere purus, id ullamcorper dolor eros et diam. Suspendisse id volutpat orci, at gravida dui. Donec porta felis quis leo tincidunt, porttitor vulputate quam fermentum. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas.[1]

References

Using Wikipedia for research Learn about researching with Wikipedia
  1. Tomlinson, E; Davis, SS (December 1976). "Increased uptake of an anionic drug by mucous membrane, upon formation of ion-association species with quaternary ammonium salts [proceedings]". The Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology. 28 Suppl: 75P.

What do we plan to do with the pilot?

We plan to collect the following information during the pilot:

A successful pilot will include positive feedback from the editor community, constructive feedback and demonstrated interest/need in the Google form, and increased pageviews on community resources and tools that are linked on the Research Help portal. Subsequent the pilot, we will go through the steps described here.

Polling

Would you support WikiProject Military History articles being part of a 2-3 month pilot, where each reference section will have a template linking to WP:Research Help?

Support

  1. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. I think I got an email about this awhile back that I forgot to respond to. Regardless, support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. In some areas Wikipedia still has a credibility issue (i.e. some people still make the mistake of thinking that it is). To remedy this more needs to be done to highlight the way it should and should not be used. So yes this seems like a possible solution to me. Support. Anotherclown (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Good idea. Support per Anotherclown. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Seems a good idea. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support! TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. Sure. Sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. Not sure I get it, but other respected editors seem to, and that's good enough for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  12. Yes, I think this would be a good idea. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  13. A positive link to learning. Yes, of course. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  14. I'm for it, too. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • I was initially confused by what exactly y'all were asking us to do. So, basically, y'all want to add a prominent link to your research portal at the head of a few articles' bibliography or notes section. And then you'll measure clickthroughs, right? I was kinda thrown by the printer's nonsense above the cite until I figured out that that stood for the article main body. I don't see any problems with what you're asking although I'm curious what articles will be used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I was going to say the same thing, and thanks to Sturm for decoding. I suggest that the template is used on Milhist FAs that are going to be TFAs during the pilot, that will ensure a high level of exposure for the template, and give people a sense of the standard of WP articles that might be used as references. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Peacemaker67 and Sturmvogel 66: Our initial thought is trying the whole swath of articles from the project that have reference sections: we want people who are using Wikipedia for research, to think beyond whats already on the page (especially when the articles of middling quality, and someone using Wikipedia in a research process, could conceivably come back and fix the research on the article). Now I realize that testing it on all Milhist articles w/ reference sections might be too much, and would happy to just add them to a task force of articles (for example everything to do with the Great War and Majestic Titan projects, for instance, which both would have a range of users/readers, and qualities). We are also working towards a pilot through WP:WikiProject Medicine, to compare and contrast impact in two different type of researcher-favored topics (hard science/health w. a very established prof. audience v. humanities/social science, with a popular researcher tendency). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know how suitable how Majestic Titan would be as even the start-class articles are actually already pretty well researched; we just need time, energy and enthusiasm to buckle down and write the damn things. But WWI or WWII ought to be good subjects as they have an exceedingly wide range of ratings and the popularity of their subjects ought to get a lot of page views. My question, though, is if y'all want to add the template to FA-class articles, which ought to be pretty thoroughly researched already?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      • {{ping|Sturmvogel 66{{ look again—there's sections on reliability, article quality (such as what a FA is), and how to find offline sources. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      (edit conflict) Took a look through task forces, I really like the idea of starting with those two task forces: WWI and WWII, thats about 50,000 articles.
      As for the FAs, a big part of the value of WP:Research help, is that it highlights two questions of readers of well researched articles: "How did the information get here?" and "How do I access the sources in the article?". I think there might be a test somewhere down the road, to see whether less researched or more researched article get more click through (my instinct is the more researched or the shorter the article, the more people will click through, because the more likely they will look at reference sections). The pilot though is going to stay focused on the two differently readerly audiences (Med v. MilHist), and the feedback on the information itself: we can do some experiments to figure out design of the link, where on the page, and which pages it has the best impact during the beta stage. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Astinson (WMF): I assume this will be a transcluded template, right? Has one been created yet? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    Created the template this morning, with the targeted redirects built in: Template:Research help. I plan on asking someone with AWB or a bot to add it above {{reflist}} and/or <references/>. If someone would like to volunteer for doing that on MILHIST articles or Medicine articles, I am looking for a coordinator/volunteer. Cheers, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Astinson (WMF): I don't have the time to coordinate or volunteer, unfortunately, but there's this! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    and this Buckshot06 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Astinson (WMF): I think this is a great idea. For the Template:Research help for MILHIST articles in the "Do you work in cultural heritage?' section, can PMML be mentioned by name with a clickable link to PMML's catalog? We've been adding photographs of all the historic books published before 1972 (that is when ISBNs match to book covers) to our catalog. PMML has been adding individual photos to Wikipedia, but haven't had luck in getting a bot to add them in mass. I can also ask our Library interns to add the finalized template as they edit MILHIST and GLAM Pritzker articles. I just need to know when to start them on that. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @TeriEmbrey: We are trying to keep this particular portal as generic and generalized as possible for right now: the current technical infrastructure doesn't support customization by topic, without a proliferation of different pages that would be unmaintable. Having targeted topical work is something to consider when we get better software workflows/recommendations -> I am imagining this is something that will come out of the work by @Harej: at WP:WikiProject X. TWL is advising on a project that should allow frequently used source, and I am imagining more targeted Library support of topical areas (I would recommend following this, if you are interested). In the meantime, what you are asking/talking about might be a bit more suited for @JohnMarkOckerbloom:'s Wikipedia:Forward_to_Libraries. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Lost Man-of-War

According to Lloyd's List, a 64-gun Man-of-War named St. Janeiro was lost at Ramsgate on 2 March 1763. Was she a Spanish ship? Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This seems to indicate the ship was a British vessel (though states she was a 60-gun ship). The book indicates captured foreign vessels like Téméraire with "(taken)", so it's probably safe to assume that St. Janeiro was not a formerly Spanish ship. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: does that make her HMS St. Janeiro then? Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I would think it would be renamed if put into service with the RN. Could also explain the discrepancy in the number of guns. If she was taken as a prize as put into service, she could have had a refit that might've added or removed 4 guns, with some being swapped for different sizes. - theWOLFchild 22:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If you go down a few pages in the Naval Chronology to p125, the § marker is glossed as "Spanish". I don't know why some are marked (taken) and some not. Perhaps only those actually taken into RN service rather than disposed of or lost after being taken? Andrew Gray (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I've created a wikilink and added the appropriate flag at List of shipwrecks in 1763#2 March. Thanks for you help. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:User-Class military history articles

Hi I noticed that this project is likely the only project that is actively using Category:User-Class military history articles (see Category:User-Class articles). Most pages there are drafts and other projects move the user pages automatically into the NA and then manually categorizes these as draft class. I wonder if this project would consider doing the same as Category:Draft-Class military history articles is fairly light still (although I did make Category:Draft-Class military history articles by task force which can be expanded for all the task forces. I think people who would be interested in reviewing and working on drafts by a particular subject shouldn't need to go in two places for basically the same thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should treat user-space drafts and draft-space drafts the same way. If I'm not mistaken, the convention is that drafts in individuals' user space shouldn't be edited by other users without an invitation; I suspect that many users wouldn't really appreciate us putting their user-space draft pages on a list of things to be reviewed. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I use sandboxes to work undisturbed and would like it to stay that way.Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

I consider that the posting of articles on MHA should only be done if the editor posting them has improved the articles in question themselves. IMO it is not a place to post articles you "found" on the Stub list, which could be assessed by the "finder". This has arisen twice recently, and I'm interested in the opinions of others, so that the issue can be clarified. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Concur.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You already have my opinion...requestor should have "skin in the game" and made improvements on the article. Cheers Cuprum17 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: (less Sturm) - can I get an idea of where you all stand on this issue? Perhaps we can develop a consensus on its purpose. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me, its late here (or early, depending on how you look at it) and the brain isn't firing on all cylinders: What exactly is MHA again? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe it refers to this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. I agree, however if the "finder" is unsure and is asking for a second opinion, I would consider this a fair request as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, assessment(s). I concur that the articles should only be listed if they have been improved, or if they have not received an assessment yet and an editor wants an honest opinion on where the article currently stands. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
G'day, all, I think largely the page should be to list articles that one has worked on to be re-assessed by an uninvolved party. That is its main reason for existing. However, I feel that there could be capacity for someone to list an article that they are not sure of. I hasten to add that it should be a rare thing to maintain the functionality of the page (it shouldn't become a clean up category in its own right), and I would say that an editor should briefly outline why they are listing it if they don't feel comfortable doing it themselves, or if they are asking for a second opinion. There may be fair dinkum reasons why someone doesn't feel able to assess an article in rare situations. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I would think that it depends on the article, some can get becalmed and forgotten so asking for an assessment is a practical way to develop them when they get stumbled on, particularly when they aren't our field. That said, I wouldn't think that it happens all that often and I agree with OzR that we should be cautious about giving the appearance of buck-passing. Not that I ask for article reviews as a way of getting them copy-edited, obviously....Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
If an editor cannot assess an article that he hasn't worked on, and wants to post it in MHA, then perhaps a note to that effect would be sufficient, as in, I cannot decide if this coverage is sufficient, would someone else weigh in on this. Not "found in"... whatever. There are 46000 articles in the stub section; if they don't have task forces, I usually get to them as I plow through that section; Hamish has been doing a lot of those now too. I was also scolded for not giving a "stub" sufficient attention before rating it as "start" (told I was lazy). So, that said, it seems to me that the stubs are the least of our worries, but definitely there should skin in the game, as someone said earlier. If someone hasn't worked on the article to improve it, then don't post it on MHA. If they have, fine. I'll happily look at it. auntieruth (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the requirement for "skin in the game" needs to be having made an improvement against at least one of the B-Class criteria, not just tweaking an existing infobox, adding/removing some spaces on headers, and deleting the person data. Three such articles were posted today, and I have made a comment that the editor who posted them has not made any improvements against the B-Class criteria. I really think we need to avoid clagging up MHA with stuff editors can do themselves. Long-time editors should not be bringing obvious Start or C-Class articles to MHA (unless they have improved it against a B-Class criteria as part of a drive, of course). Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I must correct Auntieruth55 concerning the "Stub" section I am doing. The "Stub" section I am doing contains roughly 7,460 articles in the "???" section. Down some 200–300 articles. As for the "Other" section they are also down by several hundred as well. But I cannot say how many down exactly. It is down to roughly 3,581 both at the moment of this post. Adamdaley (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
There are 16,894 Stubs roughly to my calculation. Adamdaley (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The stub articles are the one's I'm going through at the moment. Adamdaley (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to wording

I propose changing the wording on the MHA page to:

  • Sounds good. This captures how I think about this topic MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I've no issues with the proposed wording. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing submissions from the page

I may have missed this, but:

  • Who's responsible for removing a request?
    • A coordinator?
    • Any editor?
    • Any editor except the submitter?
  • How long should an assessed article remain on the list?

Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day. The practice has been that once articles have been assessed, they can be removed by anyone (this is sometimes a coord, but doesn't have to be). If you mean ones that haven't been assessed yet, there really hasn't been a practice for that, as it hasn't happened very often (except by accident when removed assessed ones). No reason they can't remain there until assessed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I was trying not to be too wordy, but, yes, I was referring to articles that have been assessed. I'd suggest that pending assessment requests should be removed only by the requester; otherwise, arguments could ensue. Sometimes, a friendly note on the submitter's talk that the submission ain't ready for prime time could help that along.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
:I have in the past had to look at the history to see what happened to an article that I posted, but I have removed articles as well. I sympathize with those who have removed my posted articles when the list gets too long, though. As a starting point for a consensus, I'd suggest that articles that were assessed four or five days ago can be removed by anyone. Whoever posted the article for assessment can remove it immediately. Seems to me that anyone who leaves an article up for days after it has been assessed had forgotten about it or done whatever they wanted with it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't quite understand this thread. If you post an article for assessment, haven't you already watchlisted it? So you know when the assessment has occurred, because the talk page has been edited. Am I missing something? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There are more than one variable. If I think I've improved a page but the assessor disagrees, that would generate an edit on the assessment page but not necessarily on the article talk page. If the assessment does change the rating, which results in a change, and editor(s) make unrelated edits to the talk page, if I go to page diff rather than page hist, then I'll see the unrelated edit(s) (unless I dig). The flow may be more transparent to editors with tens of thousands of edits -- as compared to my still trivial 3500. I'm here pretty much every day but others may check on things less frequently. Maybe the answer lies in pinging the submitter? And maybe I'm pole vaulting over ant hills? <grin> I would think that most people who are project members understand watchlisting.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

template:Gundisp

{{Gundisp}} has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

New maps server

People here will be interested in User:Yurik's announcement of a new map server at WP:VPT#New maps service for Wikipedia. The team is also trying to collect some information about what features would be most useful to you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 11/11/15

See Draft:John Vere Hopgood. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Decorations template

Does anybody here know if a template exists for a person's awards/decorations, so we don't have to list the ribbons in a long list, something to show them in a similar way to how they'd be worn? If not, would people be supportive a template that does this or something similar? Kharkiv07 (T) 22:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few editors who don't care for "ribbon farms", so I don't know how much take-up there would be for such a template. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
But if they're going to exist in a long list where it only takes up a portion of the left hand side of the page, it seems anybody would agree that some sort of organization would be preferred... Kharkiv07 (T) 23:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If you insist on including the ribbons (which IMHO are not needed), then some sort of organisation would be required. If you have a look at the Dwight D. Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur articles you'll see how it has been done in a couple of FAs. Neither uses a visual depiction of how they look when worn. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I forget to include a link to an article that does use the ribbon farm as worn, just so you can see the syntax. Daniel Keighran. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ITN Nomination: Florent Grobrg

Florent Groberg has been nominated for an WP:INTHENEWS item for being awarded the Medal of Honor. Please voice your support or opposition to this item on the candidate page. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Pages copied from Pakistan–United States skirmishes

A newish editor has created multiple pages that are simply copied from Pakistan–United States skirmishes,

I advised them with a template that such copying requires attribution. [18] in regards to the Lowara Madi incident. They appear to have ignored this and simply blanked the page.[19] Just advising this WikiProject. Ping @RichardOSmith: & @Adog104: who are involved via the speedy delete nomination. 220 of Borg 08:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that at the time of writing the dated articles are nominated for speedy deletion but not yet deleted. They do not seem to add anything to what we already have and introduce a bunch of problems:
  • They are content forks
  • In isolation they are very short articles without context
  • They have largely meaningless names
  • They are possibly not notable enough events to sustain individual articles
RichardOSmith (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I observed the copying of the article and marked it like the previous editors have. Compared all the pages and they all seem very much the same with little to no improvements. When I added my db, the author simply ignored and disregard all speedy's and deleted them by blanking the pages. Adog104 Talk to me 19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
They have made one response at Talk:13 May 2007 incident-[20] I have advised the editor there of this discussion and invited them here. [21]. 220 of Borg 03:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey to everyone discussing this subject, and my apologies for any inconveniences I may have caused. I was simply trying to create a campaignbox and article for each of the skirmishes between Afghanistan and Pakistan listed on the main article of the Afghanistan-Pakistan skirmishes. The Wiki information listed seemed legitimate, and considering it was connected to the article I didn't think there was anything against it. Amerijuanican (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Continued to add another of today on November the 12th, 2015. @RichardOSmith: and @220 of Borg: 25 August 2015 incident. Should it be marked? Adog104 Talk to me 23:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Amerijuanican, you seem to have ignored the detailed template that I placed on your page about WP:Copying from other pages. You merely blanked it, a behaviour that while allowed, seems rather rude and non-collaborative, especially when you don't appear to have followed the recommended procedure/s required to provide attribution:
"At minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page – that is, the page into which the material is copied – stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page, e.g., copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution." from WP:Copying within Wikipedia.
• The pages are simply copied, in other words they are other editors work. (See WP:Content fork)
• The reason the incidents were on one page, is that they are likely not notable enough for their own pages. (as pointed out by RichardOSmith) If you were able to expand them, then maybe there would be a point to separate articles, but you haven't.
• You have placed "Main page" templates on the source page/s, which lead to essentially the same content.
• As also pointed out by RichardOSmith "They have largely meaningless names" (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events))
This all seems to be a waste of your time, and now a waste of other editors time as we have tried to assist you, and are now discussing it here.
All this for no new content, just moving it around. I don't see the point. 220 of Borg 04:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Right then, well I've ceased all of my edits of or relating to the Afghanistan-Pakistan skirmishes immediately to avoid any further tension among editors. Truthfully, I've lost interest in the subject anyway. Through consensus, delete whatever you all feel is necessary. Amerijuanican (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Military operators - lists of aircraft

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists#Military operator lists — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_132&oldid=1143388110"