Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 138

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

Peer review for Transformation of the Ottoman Empire

G'day all, please be aware that the Transformation of the Ottoman Empire article, which appears to be within this project's scope, has been listed for peer review. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Transformation of the Ottoman Empire/archive1. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion to determine further improvements to the article. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Round towers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Round towers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC notice

Here is a link to an RfC that relates to this WikiProject: Talk:Philip J. Cohen#RfC about the use of a blog as a source on Philip J. Cohen's book Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:Tanks

I just wanted to remind everyone that WP:Tanks still exists, and we still need members and help. Anyone who is proficient in armored vehicles is free to join us. We are in a dire need of members and would respect anyone that cares to join. We are related projects, after all, so someone is bound to be interested. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics lists

My list of missing topics about military military history and military units have been updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Skysmith. Just a quick query, how are the lists generated? Are they compiled through a tally of red links, or some other way? I only ask because I notice on User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Military Units there is Royal New Zealand Infantry; however, we already have an article on this topic at Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment. Thanks for your work. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Could these lists be useful for March Madness? For instance, could we award points for "killing red links" on these lists (as well as potentially the requested article lists that are maintained on the individual task forces)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of including the lists in the March Madness drive; it would add depth to the drive. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I have collected these list from various sources, including hardcopy dictionaries and nonfiction books. If there is alternative (or out of date) name for something, redirect would be appropriate. And as far as I am concerned, the more reasons to create more links and articles the better. So if somebody does want to use these link the March Madness, go ahead - Skysmith (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Having a quick look if there are any in my area, I see a couple have been generated by typos. War of Chioggio should be War of Chioggia, Battle of Spurs should be Battle of the Spurs. Do you want these notified on the article talk page or just here? Monstrelet (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments in the page itself are fine - Skysmith (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No notices of deletions here?

Is there not an Article alerts section in this Wikiproject? Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_4#Category:Aces_of_the_Deep. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: Yes there is - it's under the "automated lists" sub-section of the "resources" section of the project navigation bar at the top of this page. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Star fort

A very happy New Year to you all. I'm afraid I have reopened an old argument at Star fort, which I am convinced is the wrong title for this article. I have gathered as much evidence as I can and look forward to your comments at Talk:Star fort # Is star fort really the correct title for this article? which will be gratefully received, either for or against. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge on the topic, which I find to be decent and of high quality, I have added my 2¢ on this argument. Voting in favor of your decision to change the name of the fort from 'star fort' to 'bastion fort' or even possibly 'cavalier fort'. Star fort does not seems to be an appropriate name for something so blatantly obvious as to not be in a star shape. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 20:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
So what happens now, @Alansplodge:? UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Not too sure really. We seem to have two votes in favour, one against and one equivocal. Is this enough support to go ahead and change? Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I would say not, maybe a wider community AFC is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably would be best to start a Requested move discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll open a discussion up now. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What are we renaming this thing? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
LOL, I think that is what we need the RFC to decide.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I seriously need a name, I was thinking either bastion fort or, if not the first, a cavalier fort. In agreement. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
My money is on "bastion fort" which seems (with minor variations) to be widely used in published sources - see my list on the talk page. Alansplodge (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification of AfD Discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Dunn

Greetings all. There is a deletion discussion taking place HERE that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Authors of Germany and the Second World War

Hi, I've recently been adding articles on German historians who are also authors of this seminal work. The vast majority have de.wiki articles, but not here on en.wiki.

I'd like to invite interested editors to participate. This template may be helpful:

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A great idea. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added seven articles so far; additional contributions are welcome, especially to expand the articles as more sources are very likely to exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

RS and the truth question

I'm doing an article on the Gheluvelt Plateau 31 July – 31 August 1917 and wonder if anything has changed in the last few years about discrepancies between the RS and the facts? I'm describing events as recorded in the RS but don't know if I can be explicit that every hack that's written on it since 1948, has followed the wrong details in the Official History instead of the right ones (on the next page and in the appendices). Prior and Wilson get it right (for once) and J. P. Harris almost does (p. 357).Keith-264 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth is our keystone.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I know that but as I pointed out, there has been discussion about it by Wiki in the last few years, I'm asking if anything has come of it.Keith-264 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the latest policy on it, so this is also the outcome (it is still enforce).Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The actual policy page is Wikipedia:Verifiability. I believe the truth wording there was adjusted some in the past few years. However, Keith-264's comments above states multiple verifiable sources. This is really a matter of the sources disagreeing and there are various ways of handling that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; sadly not, all but P&W follow the wrong bit in the OH. I hope I can find a form of words that works but it's going to be difficult. So far I've described the verdict in the OH but put the contradictory info from the next page first. I think I can mention something in a Note that there are two findings though. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Battle of al-Bab - Syria

There is a discussion at Talk:Battle of al-Bab#Death reports about the inclusion of death reports, which are provided daily by the military and calculated as totals for this battle beginning November 6, 2016. A suggestion has been made to create a separate timeline article to get into that kind of detail. Would you please take a look at this and weigh in with your opinion. Thanks!—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification of AfD Discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward H. Ahrens

There is a deletion discussion taking place here that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. In particular, I can't remember whether having a warship named after you makes you notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Star Fort II

There is currently an ongoing discussion on Talk:Star fort relating to a name change. Anyone is free to contribute and vote on this issue. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alansplodge:, you haven't voted yet. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been busy - now done. Many thanks for your efforts on this. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion: Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service

Input would be appreciated:

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RFA Wave Baron

Does anyone have a copy of Rottman, Gordon L (2002). Korean War Order of Battle: United States, United Nations, and Communist Ground, Naval, and Air Forces, 1950-1953. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-275-97835-4.? I've created RFA Wave Baron (A242), which served in the Korean War and won a battle honour. The book should prove useful for filling in missing details covering that service. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan under Japanese rule - Previous administration in infobox

There is a dispute at Talk:Taiwan_under_Japanese_rule#Infobox_preceding_entity_-_Qing_vs._Republic_of_Formosa about the previous administration in the infobox - should it be Qing Empire or Republic of Formosa. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The question should be posted in WT:LAW instead, imo, because it has a lot to do with territorial sovereignty. But let's see how the discussion goes at here first. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Anglo-French War (1778–1783) distinct from American Revolutionary War

@XavierGreen: I reverted your edit on Battle of Providien (which you in turn reverted), but when I saw you've been making similar changes on other articles (with no edit summaries) I thought it best bring these edits to light for discussion here. I'm not an expert, I was only on the article to do copy editing, but it seems to me that it's misleading to describe these battles and military actions (Capture of St. Lucia, Battle of Guadeloupe (1779), Battle of the Mona Passage, Battle of Cape Spartel, Battle of Fort Royal, Action of 6 October 1779, Capture of Grenada (1779), Battle of the Saintes, Capture of Demerara and Essequibo, Action of 9 August 1780, Battle of San Fernando de Omoa, Capture of Montserrat) as being part of the American Revolutionary War rather than the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) or Anglo-Spanish War (1779). Again, I'm not an expert. Perhaps someone here could offer advice? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I added sources to the Battle of Providien article which clearly show it was part of the American Revolutionary War. In short American Revolutionary War and War of American Independence are the two most common names for the war. Virtually no source uses the term Anglo-French War, and likewise Anglo-Spanish war is not the most common term used. The French, Spanish, and Americans fought a united front against the British, all of the fighting was part of the same global war. In fact the article Anglo-French War is a content fork of France in the American Revolutionary War, and if you look at edit history of the page it was created by a POV pushing sockpuppet editor, [[1]] you can see the list of accounts here [[2]]. XavierGreen (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about article title at Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1895)

There is a discussion about the article title at Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895)#Rename_the_article_title. It could benefit from more input. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The question should have been posted in WT:LAW instead, in my opinion, because it has a lot to do with territorial sovereignty. But let's see how the discussion goes at here first. And I would like to briefly explain the background of this topic.

The reason that I proposed using "conquest" instead of "invasion" in the article title is because the regime (the Republic of Formosa) did not own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, which belonged to Japan. Therefore the use of "invasion" can mislead readers into believing that Japan invaded other people's territory.

The historical fact was that, China ceded the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to Japan. And before Japan went to Taiwan to take over Taiwan, the said regime formed, on Japanese territory Taiwan, in order to rebel against the takeover of Taiwan by Japan. The rebellious regime only existed for about 150 days and did not even manage to rule or administer Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "Japanese takeover of Taiwan" sounds more neutral than "Japanese conquest of Taiwan". But "takeover" also sounds a bit too peaceful and is not able to reflect the existence of a war. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Some more inputs would be appreciated. The current article title is just as illogical as "My invasion of my own land". --Matt Smith (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Civil War Year-by-Year: 1861

Hi all, I was interested in doing "year-by-year" articles on the American Civil War adding some more details on specific parts of the war by year, but I was wondering if I could get some feedback on the fact that 1861's events don't seem to fit neatly into 1861; the succession crisis prior to the beginning of the War at Fort Sumter truly began in November 1860 and everything after First Bull Run/Manassas kind of seems to be in a simmer until Fort Donnelson, which is in 1862. I don't feel like the main article goes into the timeline of the war enough, but I'm not sure at this point if a year-by-year approach is the best way to approach it. Would like your thoughts. South Nashua (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/GA1 Looking for some help...

Whiskey Rebellion was nominated for a WP:GA by a user who hasn't been participating in the Review so far. I cannot fix any of the issues that have come up with in my Review because that would, of course, be a WP:COI. Am hoping that a WikiProject Military history participant would be willing to step in and fix this article up so we can work together and I can then complete my Review.

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sloop-of-War Diligence

A Sloop-of-War named Diligence was driven ashore at Livorno in January 1836. Apparently not HMS Diligence; could this have been a Tuscan Navy vessel? Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Star Fort III: The Fort Awakens

I've opened up a final move discussion about moving Star Fort —> Bastion Fort. Let's just vote and get this thing over with. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but it should have been over with ages ago, as w in when we started to argue about how long it should be give.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox at 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis

I have serious concerns about the military conflict infobox being used at 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis. I realize there's talk of foreign intervention, but right now, it comes across as Wikipedia militarizing a political crisis. In particular, clumsy use of the infobox is suggesting that tens of thousands of refugees have died, when they have in fact fled the country. Please chime in at Talk:2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis#Inclusion of Mauritania as a Belligerent, and let's hope the article doesn't move firmly under this esteemed project's scope. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Football at the Military World Games

Hi. I add a request in the deletion review page about the Football at the 2011 Military World Games – Men's tournament. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious Editing at Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle

There has been a flurry of suspicious editing by new editors and IPs at the above article. I am going to protect the article for 24hrs but I don't know enough to know what's legitimate and what might be vandalism. If additional protection is required just ping me or drop me a line on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like an edit war between Indian and Pakistani nationalists.--Catlemur (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC source review for August Meyszner

If anyone has a couple of minutes, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/August Meyszner/archive1 already has three supports and an image review, and just needs a source review before it can be passed. Your assistance would be appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting stats plots of WP Military history

Hello all,

I am a PhD student from the University of Minnesota, and am doing some research project on the effects of member turnover in WikiProjects. I am doing some project-level analysis on the project performance, and find something interesting.

Some explanations about the variables:

group_article_productivity: this is the total number of edits on the articles claimed within the scope of the project.

project_art_comm: this is the total number of edits on the talk pages of articles claimed within the scope of the project.

project_coors: this is the total number of edits on the project page and project talk page.

project_user_comm: this is the total number of edits on the project members made on the user talk pages of each other.


The variables are aggregated by one month. We can see there is an obvious burst on project article productivity, project article communication, and project coordination around time interval 70th, which is around May, 2009. I don't know what happened at that time that caused that burst. I wonder if someone has been working on the project for a long time, and could recall that. Also, if you have any thought about this plot, please feel free to share to me :)

Bobo.03 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit before my time, but it may well have been one of the periodic "drives" we run to deal with assessment and other backlogs and sometimes to create content. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bobo.03: could you please post a version of that graph with calendar months on the X-axis? It's a bit tricky to interpret the results without this, especially as peaks and troughs in editing are heavily affected by regular events such as holiday periods and exam periods. As Peacemaker notes, this could also have been affected by one of the project's regular peak periods such as a drive (which, from memory, were pretty huge in this era). Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly very interesting stats, if also quite ominous (I'm surprised to see such a steep decline in project activity). Anotherclown (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
We had two drives in 2007/08, that may in turn have inspired other editors to join. It could also be that the articles tagged/assessed as part of the project caused a leap in the number of edits recorded since the MILHIST template and categories were now tracking them. A look through WP:2009 doesn't suggest anything of particular note, but 2009 was the year we rolled out the A-Class medals, and marked the second year we had our military historian of the year award. As for the sudden drop off, that's harder to pin down precisely, but around 2009 we implemented several site-wide changes that ended up choking off a lot of the things that used to make Wikipedia great. Among other things, this time saw the removal of page creation rights for anon (isp) editors, the tightening of notability and other guideline and policy pages, a marked drop in admin rights issued by rfa, and so forth. You can see this for yourself by comparing WP:2009 and prior years with WP:2010 and later years. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, on a hunch, I used the edit count tool on my account; I'm not really seeing anything in 2009 I contributed to, but others may have different luck. I'll look into this a little more when I get a moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion on the X-axis. I will try to generate some more precise dates. For now, just some quick clarification about the time. And also hope you find the plot interesting to help the project management and development. Thanks!

tcount 50 is around Oct 2005; tcount 100 is around Nov 2009; tcount 150 is around Dec 2013. Bobo.03 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


Firstly, it would be good to put a colour reference against your explanation in the talk page text, since the image is not suffciently resolved to see the labels in the image and the descriptions in the text at the same time.. Theses events are way BMT (before my time). Can I suggest that you run some staistical smoothing before you start making conclusions about links to bumps in the various plots - are they statistically significant bumps? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Evidence required for a living Spanish Civil War veteran, Eduard Vivancos

This is in reference to List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War. It concerns an Esperanto speaker and (at the time) anarchist named Eduardo Vivancos, who served with the Durruti Column/26th Division in the Spanish Civil War. He is 96 years old (born 1920) and presently living in Toronto, Canada. A local Esperanto society has interviewed him and someone from the society has asked me about adding him to the list of surviving veterans.

There are articles on him in the Esperanto Wikipedia as well as in Spanish and Catalan. Of course those Wikipedias have different notability standards than here in English, but for those languages he is notable for having been in the Spanish Civil War and for contributions to Esperanto. I do not propose creation of an article on him as I am not convinced he would pass WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER.

What would be considered a reliable source for his participation in the war? There are biographical articles about him that mention his involvement. If a reliable source can be found, are there any other barriers to inclusion in List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War? (Also posted on Talk:List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War.) Roches (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If an entry to a list can be referenced to a reliable source, then how is this different to a reference in any other article of a relevant person who does not meet the standard of having their own page? Go for it! Cinderella157 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Bir Hakeim

Req admin scrutiny.Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've put my two cents in but it would be good if others had a look so that a consensus might be able to be formed. As Keith has written admin oversight would also be helpful. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought you were admin? I'm letting go because I have a conflict of interest now. Keith-264 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin scrutiny? For a content dispute? Primergrey (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In general, an admin could protect the article to stop edit warring and encourage discussion. This looks to be needed for this article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The user is well past 3RR - I gave him a final warning since he's new. Parsecboy (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
But no such warning for Keith-264? Primergrey (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No, Keith has not violated 3RR. I count two reverts late on the 28th and one more yesterday, within the span of 24 hours - three reverts in 24 hours is within the letter of 3RR. And while it might still be edit-warring, Occi31000 is the disruptive editor here, not Keith.
Keith violated 3rr on the 26th, and to suggest that two can edit war and only one be disruptive is preposterous. Primergrey (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Blocks are not punishment. Keith was not the only editor reverting Occi31000, and the latter was clearly engaging in disruptive behavior (i.e., trying to push a POV that is not supported by the facts). Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
And since Occi31000 has reverted again, I've blocked him for 24 hours. Parsecboy (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You've already reverted him in this dispute. You appear to be very much INVOLVED. Primergrey (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to reread that policy. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Aren't admins the ones who give rulings about conduct? As for me, I backed out of it because of the conflict of interest I created. Thanks for the AGF.Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hard to AGF when a request for admin scrutiny is asked for by an edit-warring member of a project and a fellow member, an admin, takes the request, blocks one party (rightly), then reports back to his fellow member. Never once mentioning the edit warring on their part. Primergrey (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Primergrey, if you have a problem with how I handled the situation, you are free to take the issue to ANI. Otherwise, drop the veiled attacks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
So if I have a problem with an admin I can "take it to ANI", but if I need some admin clout at an article I'm edit warring at, I can ask at a project TP? Primergrey (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You are of course free to post wherever you like, as you have done at the VP page - that was simply a suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Primergrey Are you peddling a vendetta? You could have asked why I asked for scrutiny, before getting on your low horse. I reverted the edit several times because at first I assumed it was a mistake, then assumed that someone digging in his/her heels. I changed my approach and attempted to discuss it on the userpage but got nowhere so copied into the Bir Hakeim talk page for page watchers to see it. Several people joined in and did some reverts but then I decided that after changing my approach twice, I needed to avoid the risk of censure for revert frenzy. I asked for an outside opinion ("Req admin scrutiny") which created a conflict of interest so bowed out. I used the term admin because I thought that it was the right word, if I was wrong, put me right; Cinderella157 had been making a lot of constructive criticism lately and I find it a breath of fresh air. You wrote "Hard to AGF....", I suggest that you could try harder and easily emulate Cinders if you want to. As for admin bias in my favour, it would make a pleasant change but I prefer fair play. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have done a review of the article. As I read it, mobile allied forces (Brittish and Indian) operated in support of the fort and this is without considering the role of the Desert Air Force. To exclude allied belligerents other than the French from the campaign box is to take a very narrow view in my opinion. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Primergrey left a message on my talk page, seeking an outside opinion.

I see that Parsecboy reverted only after Occi31000's 3RR violation occurred, immediately issued a warning, and blocked the user when the disruptive behavior continued. Given this sequence of events (and the apparent absence of disagreement that the block itself was appropriate), I don't regard Parsecboy's intervention as problematic.

Likewise, I see nothing improper about Keith-264's request for admin scrutiny, though I suggest using the administrators' noticeboard when subject area expertise isn't required. —David Levy 18:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Also pls don't forget that it was not only Keith but myself also who suggested Admin review might be necessary. I did so because the involvement of a number of other editors and discussion on the talkpage had seemingly been unable to resolve the matter. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Overhauling - Battle of Massard Prairie & Action at Ashley's Station

I would like to suggest that both of the above articles need an overhaul. Both are unsectionated, and the second article is dependent on a single source for all of its details. The article on the Battle of Fort Smith is much better and could serve as a model for the overhaul. Graham1973 (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Graham1973: G'day, Graham, sorry for the delayed reply. Yes I agree that the two articles could be expanded along the lines you suggest. I also note, however, that the Fort Smith article has room for expansion, too. The lead could be expanded a bit more to summarise the entire article, while the Aftermath in particular is very short and could be expanded to discuss casualties and subsequent events in more detail. Anyway, thanks for your efforts. If you do choose to expand the articles further, you might consider peer review to help gain some more ideas and oversight. Also, you might consider listing them for re-assessment at WP:MHA once you have expanded them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Trove of Bulgarian MILHIST Sources

I stumbled upon a trove of quality Bulgarian MILHIST sources (including official histories) covering the Bulgarian War of Independence, Serbo-Bulgarian War, Balkan Wars and World War I (Macedonian Front, Romanian and Serbian Campaigns). I can barely understand anything but hopefuly someone else can find this useful.--Catlemur (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Ooh-er, I've put the link on AHF for any aficionados passing by.Keith-264 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Ace (military)

This article was created while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace was ongoing. The closer redirected that page to this one. I tagged the first line in this article as needing a citation and have thrice brought it up on the talk page. Can anybody source it? One of the key claims against the article submarine ace was that it was SYNTH and OR because no discussion of the concept beyond the briefest snippet here and there could be found, although the term itself is widely used in reliable sources. It is extremely ironic that the article to which that one was redirected appears to base its very definition on SYNTH and OR. Obviously, if historians can talk of air aces, U-boat aces and tank aces, there can be many different kinds of ace, and it isn't hard to see what these aces have in common. But that is textbook OR. All the quotes yet cited that seem to talk about aces in general (including the second sentence in the lead) are talking about flying aces only. So can anybody source the generic definition of an ace? Srnec (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This book at least gives some numerical definitions, but also provides a contrary opinion about the concept of tank and naval aces: [3]. Not sure if it helps or not. I'd argue that the lead should mention that "ace" status is generally tied to some sort of numerical score in relation to the destruction of enemy machines (of varying descriptions). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
What about going with the dictionary definition?
  • Ace (informal): a person who excels at a particular sport or other activity. "a motorcycle ace".
Thus, an ace (military) is someone who excels at the military profession. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If that were acceptable, we could have saved the submarine ace concept by the same method: a submarine ace is one who excels at submarine warfare. In fact, this was discussed explicitly in the deletion debate, where one user objected to a source on the grounds that it appeared to be relying simply on the OED definition of "ace". What this article needs is a source explicitly explaining how a term that originally applied only to fighter pilots came to be used of submarine and tank commanders. Interestingly, the source cited by AustralianRupert almost does so—but it does so only by accident while explicitly denying the broader use of the term! Srnec (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidates

Greetings all. There are a number of Featured Article Candidates related to this Wikiproject that could use more reviews, including:

I'd have a go myself (except for the one I nominated) but I lack the required skill & knowledge of the myriad policies & procedures around that level of reviewing! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Exemplo347. Have a go anyway, I believe that if you can nominate an article for FAC, you can no doubt make a contribution in reviewing other FACs. I'm sure the nominators will appreciate your input. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi all, I currently have Henry Morgan going through the FAC process at the moment. It has several "Supports" and is nearly finished, but one of the co-ordinators has requested a spot check on the sources (as it's my first FA). Is anyone able to pick up on this? I'm not sure if any of you wil have access to the sources, so I would be happy to email you scans of specific pages (or downloads of DNB pages) to make the process easier - just let me know the page/source and email me so I have your email address, and I'll ping them over. Many thanks if anyone is able to undertake this. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Trafalgar

We've got a situation where a new editor making reasonable edits in good faith is getting bitten. To prevent an edit war, I've opened a discussion at talk:Battle of Trafalgar#Loose or looser?. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Swedish Navy prefix

Should it be HMS or HSwMS? While expanding Arcturus (disambiguation), I found HMS used in 1.-class torpedo boat and the Swedish Wikipedia (e.g. HMS Arcturus (T110)) and HSwMS in List of Swedish Navy ships: A-B. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Clarityfiend, HMS (Hans or Hennes Majestäts Skepp) is the official designation. However they often use HSwMS while abroad to avoid confusion with the British HMS prefix. I would say that as the normal person thinks british navy upon seeing HMS, and as per what appears to be common practice, they should retain HSwMS on English wikipedia. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There are different citations cited throughout different pages, such as Swedish Navy, Her Majesty's Ship, etc., but they are all dead links, I am looking for a live one to state it. Ship prefix also states it, but without a citation. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
After a thorough discussion (I'll go look and see if I can find where), the conclusion was that HSwMS is used in English-language sources, including by the Swedish military, and that using HMS for Swedish ships would create unnecessary confusion with British ships. This is especially relevant as the United Kingdom and Sweden have used a lot of identical ship names. Manxruler (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I have been digging, per COMMONNAME it would make sense to have it be HSwMS, as that is its international name, and its NATO name. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That's what I suspected, but I wanted to make sure before I made extensive changes (e.g. 1.-class torpedo boat). Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Clarityfiend, It may be worthwhile to have an RFC to end the sporadic discussion. I'd happily write one up if you would like to proceed. Of course, as HSwMS has a sort of de facto convention, it's not critically necessary, but it could end future debates. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that'd be necessary, especially if Manxruler can find the previous discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe the closest to consensus was at [4]. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Found the 2012 discussion I recalled, which came to the conclusion that using HSwMS for Swedish ships is best. The Swedish military approves of HSwMS, and using HMS for Swedish ships only creates unnecessary confusion with British ships (and there are a whole lot of Swedish and British warships with the same names). Manxruler (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Just for reference, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_37#HMS.2FHSwMS_etcÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Finding sources

Many of you may already know about this, but if you do not, please feel free to utilize our Resource Exchange to receive access to non-free sources. The Resource Exchange allows you to post a request for a specific journal article, excerpt of a book, or other source. Volunteers who have access to these materials through research and educational institutions are able to provide digital copies of most sources. This is a great resource for when you find a helpful citation somewhere but are unable to locate a copy of the source itself. Let me know if you have any questions!

Please note that these resources are shared only for use creating or improving specific identified Wikipedia articles, and we cannot provide full book scans or excessive amounts of material beyond what is necessary to improve an article. ~ Rob13Talk 11:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Unit names in German or English?

Over at Norwegian Campaign order of battle an anonymous user is insisting on the use of the German name "11th Schützen-Brigade" in place of "German 11th Motorized Rifle Brigade". Now, my understanding of WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME is that unit names should be in English ("A name originally in a language other than English should be adapted by translating common terms (such as designations of size and type) and transliterating the remainder of the name.").

The link "Schützen" does lead to a World War II German word for "motorized or mechanized infantry", but the IP user insists on the 19th century term Schützen (military) being correct, arguing that seeing as we don't necessarily translate ranks, we shouldn't translate unit names either. What would be the correct term to use for such a unit? Manxruler (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd lean toward using the English translation unless it's a more commonly known unit type (eg: 2nd Panzer Division). In this case, "Motorized Rifle Brigade" would be appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Do both.Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
At first use I mean.Keith-264 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
What Keith said, although I'm indifferent to which one is used afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm indifferent too. I'd go with Schützen myself; "11th Schützen Brigade" is partly translated by translating number and type. But I don't think that Schützen is nearly as well known as Panzer or Panzergrenadier. The point is that like ranks, we lose a little information in translation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Does this apply to the naming of a unit in an article not primarily about that unit, though?
The way I understand WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME is that the translated name/original name combo mention is for articles about the units in question. I'm completely on board with mentioning both the translated and original names of a unit in an article about said unit, but if we're going to do that every time we mention units in other articles, that would become rather cumbersome quite quickly. Manxruler (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The above text by me was removed by 70.26. Reinstated by me now. Manxruler (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No, just the first time it's mentioned, not all the time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that, but still, that's potentially a lot of double naming in articles that mention more than a few units. Has this been done before? I can't remember seeing that anywhere, and looking at a few recent FA articles, I can't find that sort of system. Manxruler (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

From the same order of battle for Norway: Panzer-Abteilung 40 ... so this should be "panzer unit for special purpose deployment" (Panzer Abteilung zur besonderer Vervendung)? It all seems, in the end, pretty arbitrary to me, so why not stick with the REAL names? Can't go wrong doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2017

It was an accident as we both posted almost simultaneously. Lighten up, will you. Or is that "Aufhellen, werden Sie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, I personally prefer translating the unit names. Readers simply can't be expected to understand what terms like "Schützen" or "Panzer Abteilung" mean. Moreover, privileging German terms by not translating them isn't sensible given that we, of course, translate the names of units from languages which don't use Roman letters. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
There are occasions where I wouldn't translate because the translated name of the unit is misleading, but this is not such a case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I've used zur besonderer Vervendung (zbV) before now for the first go, to introduce the term and an abbreviation since zbV crops up enough to make it worthwhile. Since translated terms aren't always transliterations, putting the foreign term in at first use seems sensible as long as we don't make a fetish of it. Italian unit names are unwieldy but I settled on giving the number, type and name in blue at first mention then the name only as an abbreviation (Sibelle Division). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You have to bear in mind where the reader is coming from. If the chances are the book they are reading says something like Panzer-Abteilung 40, then that's why we should use (or at least have a redirect). The readers can't type in names in other scripts; but they may try to look up, say Kido Butai. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly in that readers should be able to search for units in other languages. This can be achieved by redirects, which I believe is commonly used by many article creators (at least I believe I do that relatively consistently). Manxruler (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Moreover, privileging German terms by not translating them isn't sensible given that we, of course, translate the names of units from languages which don't use Roman letters. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)" You certainly have to be careful about this, as critics have long pointed to a "Nazi fetish" in the historiography of World War Two. You know, not obvious stuff like out right worship, but showing favouritism by using German terminology (opposed to Russian or French) and giving false equivalence to arguments by Germans or Nazis (Rommel, Manstein, Carius) when, in fact, they were the losers. Big time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk)

Personally I'd go for the actual name every time as long as it's in the Roman alphabet. Not "privileging German terms", as I'd also do it for French, Italian, Spanish or any other language. The English translation can always be added in parentheses if it's deemed necessary. I don't see the need for an encyclopaedia to cater to the lowest common denominator and translations are frequently not wholly accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a really good idea, just use REAL names from each national language, where ever feasibly possible, and use translation where needed. Avoids favouritism, which can be insidious. You can add Guderian, Mellenthin, Luck and that most odious of Nazis, Rudel, to the list of Germans who are shown, in my opinion, unwarranted deference. But, all of them wrote bestsellers, in English. Go figger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, the guidelines do support the concept of translating unit names (and that we "...should follow the conventions employed by reputable historical works on the topic." when doing the translations) I think we should follow the guidelines. We are writing for our readers, after all, and words like "Schützen" will make no sense to most readers (I read German-language books frequently, and I had to break out my dictionaries to figure that one out). Manxruler (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
And Nazis don't really seem relevant to me. German unit names are after all translated, just like Russian and French unit names. Some words, like "Panzer", are commonly used in English, of course. Manxruler (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That's the crux of it; some words are not normally translated. This not restricted to German; it does occur with other languages too, particularly French: Zouave, Chausseur, Tirailleur etc. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. When the words are commonly used in English-language texts, they're not translated on Wikipedia. Manxruler (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add to this discussion that there seems to be a problem with the IP (70.26.44.231) which is the cause for this discussion. I have no idea what this person is up to, but besides the "Norwegian Order of Battle" article it is also very active on the Panzer-Abteilung 40 article. The problem is (s)he does not seem to understand that they are introducing multiple spelling errors (of the German words) into the article. I tried to correct the IP but (s)he just reverts and gets increasingly aggressive. This IP also introduced some badly formatted nonsense paragraphs which (s)he copied from some internet web-blogs and forums (achtungpanzer.com, feldgrau.com). Every attempt to somehow straighten that gets reverted. After a lot of tries the IP improved the formatting, but the sources are still bad, it is still directly copied from those webpages and there are still spelling errors. And now he is stalking my previously edited articles and messes them up by deleting material and stuff. -_- Dead Mary (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Pal, as you suggested, rudely, I have corrected the spelling. I have added useful information to the article which in 2 cases I have cited thrice. The formatting is absolutely fine, and the info therein is useful to the context of the article. Upon seeing other pages you boasted about on your page, it became clear to me that your forte is NOT writing in the English language, which you admit is not your first language. So I endeavored to improve those pages by editing out the superfluous and redundant verbiage and making them read more smoothly and elegantly. Less is more. As for the information from achtungpanzer.com and feldgrau.com, in my opinion very useful stuff which somebody must have taken time and trouble to make accessible, freely, to the world wide web, SHOW ME how it is in error or wrong. Don't bother. The answer is you can't. STOP taking OWNERSHIP of the articles you mentioned, they aren't yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I have semi protected the article for one week to prevent edit warring. Please discuss these changes rationally on the talk page and establish consensus for them before re-adding them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. But he has a new target now, he is currently deleting half of the Operation Arctic Fox article. Guess he is now going through every article I have ever written. :D Dead Mary (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come on Pal, you have to admit my edits greatly improve the readability of the article. Good grief, what is wrong with that? I put some effort and time in to making that article better. I'd figure "Thank you / merci / danke" would be the appropriate response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

work on the de Havilland Vampire

I've recently been going through one of the books in my possession, trying to better round out the history of the de Havilland Vampire, one of the first generation of jet aircraft to be produced and operated. Although I've been able to contribute a lot from this book, there's still a lot missing from this article in my opinion. Aside from the obvious in the form of the Citation Needed tags, I feel that the Operational History for the type still isn't up to scratch, which is where I felt that some here might find the topic appealing. Almost ten years ago, a editor pointed out on the talk page that the Vampire's extensive combat history on the Middle East, with operators such as Jordan and Egypt, was barely being touched on, and it hasn't come far in that time at all.

Sadly my book didn't cover much on this topic, and I do plan to seek out other literature in the future that could fill in more of the different nation's histories of using the type, but perhaps someone here already has a good source on hand that they could share, or could do their own searches. I'd like to bring the standard and scope of content on the article more in line with that of the Gloster Meteor if that is possible, it's a lofty goal if possible, but users have been able to make a substantial difference already in the last 12 months, so I'm sure improvements won't be impossible so long as editors are inclined to give it attention. Thanks Kyteto (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kyteto, funnily enough I recently had to go to a Vampire ref to get some info for a bio, Alan Rawlinson -- that was Watkins' History of the de Havilland Vampire (2013), which seemed to cover a fair bit on operational history in the RAF and in the service of other nations, including Australia (I note it's already in the reflist of the Vampire article). Beyond adding more from this book, I could flesh out the Australian section of the Vampire article with some other sources, although I'd be concerned that it would overbalance the article if the other countries' sections were not similarly enhanced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That sounds pretty promising - I wouldn't worry too much about overwhelming the page with Australian-specific history, if it did happen, it would then be reasonable to create a specific subarticle for it, like has been done in prior cases like Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service. Kyteto (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Blue-water navy

We are having an ongoing debate on the removal of the UK as a blue water navy in the article. Could anyone with more detailed information please chime in? Rhialto (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • This debate is merely based on one personal opinion with no appearing merit in the argument. The article lead sections defines A blue-water navy is a maritime force capable of operating globally; essentially across the deep waters of open oceans. A term more often used in the United Kingdom to describe such a force is a navy possessing maritime expeditionary capabilities. Those navies may be less powerful then decades ago but that doesn´t change their nature. And terrorism or the ability to counter such, which is not their primary objective, has nothing to do with that. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinking to named ships for which there is only an article for the whole class of ship

Is it appropriate to add a wikilink around a name of a ship to the article for the class of ship that it belongs to, where there is no article for the individual ship in question? e.g. wikilinking the destroyer Smyshlyonyi to Soobrazitelnyy-class destroyer. Alcherin (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that you wanted to change a redlink for a single ship into a blue link for that ship's class. Nothing wrong with redlinks, so I'd advise against doing that in general.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Piped links can be a surprise, i.e. easter egg if not done correctly. It helps to include a section label in link to point to the right target, in general. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd say it is more appropriate to have the ship name either not linked, or redlinked. However, I would also word the text so as to clearly label the class name of the ship, and have that class name link to the ship class article. Rhialto (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
What might be the best solution is to link to the ship name and then create a redirect from the ship to the class. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Captain American in popular culture

Maybe this isn't entirely within the average scope of this project, but there is currently discussion at Talk:Captain America#Reception or Cultural impact section regarding how the character has been used in various real-world situations. I think maybe some of you here might have access to some sources that comics' editors might not think of or have the same sort of quick access to. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

the Wikiproject Euro 10K

Adding template WPEUR10k template to the top of talk page in related articles, and entering the article on the related page here would help the project and contest. If you are working on such articles anyway.....auntieruth (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Map creation

I'd like to be able to create and edit maps, primarily national and sub-national (states/provinces) for use on both on WP and non-WP projects. Anyone have some suggestions about the best software or tools to do this, hopefully free or very inexpensively? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: You might want to look here. They list free software and have some tutorials on map making.--Catlemur (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Also WP:WikiProject Maps for conventions in style, colour, etc. GIMP/Photoshop is fine for png/jpg, and Inkscape for svg. (Hohum @) 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
G'day. FYI there is an Academy article on military map making that might be useful to you here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Creating maps. Anotherclown (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Surgeon General of the US Navy

I just placed a note on the Talk page for Surgeon General of the United States Navy. Would a project member be able to fix the problem I came across? Eagle4000 (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Article for deletion

I've nominated List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans for deletion. Comments welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Any opinions on Brécourt Manor Assault? Looks to me like another article that owes more to Band of Brothers than to wider sourcing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The article is based on the same material as the scenes in Band of Brothers. Nothing wrong with that, isn´t it? ... GELongstreet (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
      • The scenes may not be perfectly accurate for various reasons. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Of course not, but theither that nor the shrinking number of surviving veterans is a reason to delete it. I think it would be about impossible to get more information about that action than that information obtained from said veterans and whatever is already known from official documents. ... GELongstreet (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
          • The problem with the scenes in the miniseries is that they are the product of scriptwriters. if the Brécourt Manor article is based solely on written histories, it's a keeper. I suspect it owes too much to HBO. For example, the fate of Thomas Meehan III is unimportant to the battle.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
            • Meehan is only mentioned in the objective section which doubles as background section and background it is as it explains why Winters is in command of the company (or the respective part of it). And how do you come to the suspection that it borrows from the series? The notes don´t say so. It resembles the scene as it has the same detailed source material; Winters report as leading participant and Ambrose's work - who made it together with the other vets. It was a very small action with very few people in a very hectic environment and there most likely are no other detailed sources but Winters and Ambrose, as simple as that. This may leave place to question details and objetivity, yes, but I still can see nothing that speaks for deleting the article. ... GELongstreet (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
              • The comment on Meehan was about the Brécourt Manor page; the pending nomination is about the List page. No one on the list page in notable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
                • No objections to the list. All I said was about Brecourt. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Brisbane

There has been a slow boiling edit war going on there involving a contentious section that I have temporarily removed from the article pending talk page consensus. I was wondering if there are any editors here who would care to give a hand in sorting this out. Since I am dealing with this in my capacity as an admin I don't want to get involved in the underlying content dispute. Any assistance would be much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

CC: Boing! said Zebedee- Mr rnddude- Wayne

I'm keeping an eye on it too, again purely in an administrative capacity (and I don't know anything about the content even if I wanted to get involved in that). I support Ad Orientem's temporary removal of the disputed section, and it really would be great if we could get enough knowledgeable editors to reach a consensus on what that section should say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: - I find myself to be very knowledgeable about WWII, so I'll look into this to see if it's even accurate information in the first place. I'll report back with my findings when I'm done. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. There is an active discussion on the article's talk page. The main author of the disputed section should be able to join the discussion a little later today. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The first link has only one or two lines about the topic at hand. It's also a first person POV, so I'm not sure if it's even appropriate for use. (EC) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)
@Ad Orientem: - I've been scouring Google for sources and I've only found one source that actually backs up the claim of racial tension, and I am unsure of it's reliability. It's an obscure reference that has about two paragraphs, out of many, that actually describe the racial tension. Its reliability is questionable so I'll leave it up to you to look through. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)
The article Ad Orientem is unsure of in regards to reliability is I believe co-written by Jacqui Donegan who is a graduate of The Australian National University and Raymond Evans, an adjunct professor of history at Griffith University. I may be wrong so I'll have to check. Wayne (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Donegan is a historian who has previously written a paper on racism in Australia so the article is in her area of expertise. Wayne (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The book 'Yanks Down Under 1941–1945' Oxford University Press has a chapter mentioning the racial tensions that contrasts Australian attitudes of acceptance compared to American attitudes of rejection of African Americans. The book 'A Freedom Bought with Blood' UNC Press mentions a series of conflicts between American soldiers and African American soldiers in Brisbane over a 2 week period in March 1942. This government website also very briefly mentions that race relations contributed to major confrontations. Much of the information is not online, when I have time I'll look for more.. Wayne (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Destroyed settlements during the American Civil War

It would be worthwhile creating a category called "settlements destroyed during the American Civil War" (or something like that). I've created three articles about places completely destroyed during the war: Danville, Mississippi, Eunice, Arkansas, and Prentiss, Bolivar County, Mississippi. Other editors likely know of more places. Thank you for your input about this. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist organizations?

Do militarized terrorist organizations fall under the scope of our project? Not just ISIS or al-Qaeda, but other militants like Boko Haram and the IRA as well. I'm wondering because I was reading about the Provisional IRA, and there was no tag for our project despite the IRA being classified as a 'paramilitary terrorist cell'. I then proceeded to venture to the page on ISIS, which had no tag either, even though ISIS is a recognized militarized jihadist group. I think they should be included if not already. Because each group has been a belligerent in one or more wars. Food for thought. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

They're well within scope, according to my reading of 'What topics do we cover?' on the main page. If there are untagged articles, please consider adding the tags. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Who decides which violent organisations are terrorist and which ones aren't? Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Negative. I think it risks a flood of editors who have very different interests and will not help military historians. Rjensen (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I would thik the governments of the world would. I know that some of these group are designated, like ISIS, Boko Haram and the IRA. I know the KKK isn't so they wouldn't fall under our scope. Some of them are a grey area, like the Animal Liberation Front and Neo-Nazism. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Like the Harrods bombings or the November 2015 Paris Attacks. The Harrods was part of The Troubles and the Paris Attacks were part of the War on Terror. We cover the overall operations, why not the attacks that were part of the operations? They're very similar to battles in many senses. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The concept of terrorism exists to normalise state violence, by fabricating a fig-leaf of respectability for some violent organisations at the expense of others. Hmmm, that could make a good article....Keith-264 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The IRA always maintained that they were fighting a war. They also wanted to be treated as Prisoners of War by the British; so from that point of view they should be included.The joy of all things (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If they maintained that they were Gods and wanted to be treated as such, would we automatially add them to WikiProject Religion? Just because an organisation claims to be one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are. I think a review of how such organisations are described the mainstream literature, rather than by themselves, would remove any undue POV from the matter. - The Bounder (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Depends on which mainstream literature you are relying on. In the British press/books they would be terrorists, other places may be less quick to label them so.The joy of all things (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

They were at first, criminalising prisoners is what set off the hunger strikes.Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The term terrorist is being routinely used by states to describe violent non state actors. If you look at the Official History of the Greek Civil War (it was published at the time of the military junta), communist guerillas are described as bandits and terrorists, nowadays they are considered rebels. Similarly the British called EOKA members terrorists, now they are almost universally recognized as freedom fighters and representatives of the Cypriot people (because they won). Boko Haram is a bad example because they actually controlled and administered territory. The real question is urban guerilla campaigns, where the rebels make sporadic hit and run attacks/bombings without achieving much.--Catlemur (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
"universally recognized as freedom fighters": terrorists and freedom fighters are two halves of the same coin, it just depends on whether you support or oppose their aims as to what names you'll call them. - The Bounder (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The coin has three halves, terrorists, freedom fighters and states. The institutionalisation of emergency laws since the 1970s makes it hard to tell the difference. Keith-264 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I think both 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' violates NPOV. We should use the term 'militant group' or 'militants' instead to keep a neutral point of view. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
"Militant (group)" also violates NPOV! Getting the terminology settled in the first instance is not a straight-forward step! - The Bounder (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
How does 'militant group' violate NPOV? Genuinely curious. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a simple euphamism for terrorist, and carries the NPOV. See Militant#Mass media usage: the confusion in definiation is common, but it certainly isn't "neutral". - The Bounder (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Back to the question - are the activities of these organisations in or out of scope? It would seem consistent if actions taken against such groups are considered military operations within scope, the target/opposition should be within scope. Otherwise we could be accused of a POV position, disallowing the status of combatants to one side not the other. As to which organisations would qualify, should we not be guided by usual principles like peer-reviewed opinion, international law etc. I don't see why we should stop using usual wiki procedures because its a touchy subject.Monstrelet (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Monstrelet.--Catlemur (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

More hands on A-class reviews

I have two A-class review at the MILHIS A-class nominated around three months ago. Please follow the list:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Suleiman the Magnificent

I have nominated Suleiman the Magnificent for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Jabhat Fateh al-Sham#Requested move 29 January 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, SkyWarrior 17:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template"

So, having changed / added the necessary text to the 'class' element of the mihist banner, there doesn't actually seem to be a 'currently undergoing' link? -just the various 'associated task forces.' Apologies in advance if its bindingly obvious. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just noticed the thread above- this might be a dup. I'll try AustralianRupert's link. Stand by. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock?

Talk:Battle of the Mareth Line [5] Is this another manoeuvre by our Italian chauvinist?Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264:, can you add a diff to the original potential sockpuppeteer? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
User:AnnalesSchool possibly Keith-264 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264:, I've looked through the software and some of the old sockpuppet cases; most of the socks were originally from somewhere in England. Then he proceeded to IP hop to Sheffield, EN. Then there were a ton of them in Spain and one in... Japan? The possible IP is located in Paris, France, which could be an IP hop but I'm unsure. A CheckUser scan wouldn't hurt, because this user has a history of IP hopping and sockpuppetry with unregistered IPs. I'd say the use of CU is justified in this case. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
OK er, what's a CU? Can I do it?? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264: - I'm sorry; I assumed you were already familiar with CU. CheckUser is a tool used in sockpuppet cases to determine whether a person is a sock or not. I don't know how it works because you need to be authorized to use it as it gives out private, possibly personal information, but it's normally not required for a case as administrators and passing users can usually discern between socks and innocents. Also, by the way, I'm in DMs with a former sockpuppet and he said that he would make an account and wait 90 days. CU throws away all the data after 90 days, making it harder to catch someone. I don't know if it's necessary in this situation; you might want to consult an administrator and open a sockpuppet case. (See also: WP:CHK.) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Decisive? victory at Battle of Philippine Sea

An editor has removed "Decisive" from "Decisive victory" in the infobox of Battle of the Philippine Sea; the moniker has been there for 12 years. There's been a small discussion at Talk:Battle of the Philippine Sea#Decisive victory. I'd appreciate it if others would weigh in. Glrx (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thames Munition Works

Can you please help dig up interesting information or pictures related to the Thames Munition Works in London/Kent (UK)?

Everything I found online is cited in the Slade Green article, and summarised in the following Filling Factories Talk page: Talk:Filling_Factories_in_the_United_Kingdom#Thames_Munition_Works.2C_Slade_Green

I found Thames Ammunition Works – Slade Green/Erith, "A Tragedy that rocked the Nation", Slade Green Explosion Memorial, The rise and progress of the British explosives industry, The Battleship Builders Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships (p. 202), London: Bombed Blitzed and Blown Up: The British Capital Under Attack Since 1867 (p. 125) and Hugh Gorham Ticehurst. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Great stuff! I had seen the first couple of links before but not the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.16.231 (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I have now cited the extra information, but its not conclusive... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.16.231 (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Speculations

It seems to me that Thames Munition Works (later Thames Ammunition Works Ltd.) became part of Armstrongs-Vickers, and the site specialised in shells for Capital Ships. WW1 filling factory (NTWF Erith) was added adjacent to Thames Munition Works, and was a separate entity. It appears the NTWF Erith later became ill-fated W.V. Gilbert and had no direct business connection to Armstrongs-Vickers.

Cambridge University archives suggest that Thames Ammunitions Works Ltd. operated as an autonomous business within the Armstrongs-Vickers conglomerate. MBE honours are public data, and some of its engineers were sufficiently noted to receive MBEs. The site was built on River Darent, and according to one museum the company catalogue advertised shells featuring "Darent Thermite"; which implies to me that the site developed its own explosives or had some kind of R&D unit. Most of the information seems to be in paper archives that are split between various museums and Cambridge University. Not enough online to write a Wikipedia article with citations.

Armstrongs-Vickers ran into trouble around 1962 and the site closed, suggesting to me that Thames Munition Works was then a shrinking business. Perhaps there was no longer a demand for big warship shells, or perhaps its R&D unit wasn't very good, or perhaps explosives and suburbia don't mix? All speculation of course. There is no reason to think the engineers were not relocated to another company. The books suggested above provide just brief mentions that generate more speculation than they remove. Any more info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.16.231 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Old Maps and Battle plans of the American Civil war

As part of an image release from the British library we have a supply of old maps and plans from the US civil war. Anyone interested and knowledgeable about the topic is welcome to join the discussion at commons:User_talk:WereSpielChequers#BL_maps and tell us whether what we are looking at is treasure trove and would be used in lots of articles or dross and redundant to what you already have. Your advice may well influence the priority of this versus other subsets of this mass upload to Commons. ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if this photo of B-52, B-1 and B-2 deserves inclusion somewhere

link--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If it does, a 3000px wide version is here. (Hohum @) 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Similar in concept to File:B-1B B-2 and B-52.jpg. As for places it could go, Heavy bomber, Strategic bomber, and United States Air Force all seem like likely candidates. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If that image gets uploaded on Wikipedia or Commons, use an AF.mil, Dimoc.mil site so the licensing is clear and direct. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
With such a dark background it is not the best image, the subjects are not clear so as such it would be unlikely to add to any article here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
In case it wasn't obvious, I wasn't suggesting its inclusion for its technical photographic attributes, but if the caption is correct, it is the first time these three iconic planes are being deployed to an operation at the same time, which might be worthy of note in its own, and the fact that there is a photograph just adds nice icing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it does a better job of showing their relative size and shape than File:B-1B B-2 and B-52.jpg, which has a distracting background as well. Felsic2 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree - personally, I find File:B-1B B-2 and B-52.jpg to lack contrast between the aircraft and the background, especially with the B-2, whereas the gray aircraft are quite distinct from the green background in the other image. And while the photo isn't exactly the highest resolution, File:B-1B B-2 and B-52.jpg isn't any better. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The caption does not say this is the first time the three deployed to an operation at the same time, Just the first time in United States Pacific Command's area of responsibility. I believe they operated together in 1991 and again in 2003. (Full disclosure, My first flight as a Buff Driver was over 50 years ago). --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Romanian Sock

The person socking on Romanian Navy during World War I returned after the page protection expired.--Catlemur (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

rhetorical, why do people find this amusing? auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, please also see User_talk:Alcherin#Soviet-Romanian_naval_battles. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Citations in infoboxes and in leads

In the course of some GA reviews, I've encountered resistance to citations in info boxes (as in they shouldn't be there). In the past we've included the citations—even if the numbers are cited in the text—especially if there is some contention over the numbers. Could I have some guidance on this? I don't want to take them out if, at A class, or Featured, they will have to be added back in. I don't want to leave them in if they are no longer needed. It seems like unnecessary clutter. The same also applies for leads. Seems to me the lead should be straightforward text, unless there is something extraordinarily contentious or controversial. The rest should be backed up in the article itself. What is the consensus on this? auntieruth (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally not needed and not done as it should all be covered and properly RS cited in the body text. The only few times I have seen it (and thereby agreed with it) or done it myself in the GA articles I have been involved is when it is something controversial or something which has caused great discussion or debate and something extra, so to speak, is warranted. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Information in infoboxes (or leads) shouldn't contain anything not in the text and cited; it seems to me to be pointless routinely to duplicate the citations. I can't imagine why information in either place would be controversial but can see the point of someone adding them to forestall something worse. Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Depending on the article there are definitely times when I've put information into the infobox but left it out of the article as inclusion didn't help the prose. WP:LEADCITE already allows for citations in the lede but warns against them; I've never seen a similar essay or guideline about citations in the infobox. Additionally there are several articles about battles where the casualty numbers result in edit warring. I think it's more useful to keep a citation there so anyone that would revert can confirm what the correct number is. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
edit conflict - I agree it should not have anything extra which is not covered in detail in the body (which is RS cited); with that said, some articles which are on controversial subjects or contain what at least appears to some as controversial is when cites have been used. But generally it should not be needed, as you say, Keith. Kierzek (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes someone puts information in the infobox but not in the text. Citations are helpful in this case and when moving the data to the text to dispense with the ones in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I've previously always left out citations from lead and infobox, until I ran into a lot of resistance from other editors who wanted them there. Is it MH policy not to put them there, then? How about it sources differ? auntieruth (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken them out btw. What is the current thinking on flags? auntieruth (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXFLAG gives the guidance -- they seem acceptable in battle articles, but unnecessary in bios and unit histories. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Where sources differ over numbers, I put the range in because we're describing what sources write, not arbitrating between them. The occasions when citations are necessary seem rare to me but then don't I think that decisive is a synonym for big so what do I know?...Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The guidance is generally to leave citations out of the lead and infobox because both should summarise the main body of the article, which should be fully cited. One exception seems to be quotes in the lead, which, last time I checked, should always be cited even if the quote and the citation are repeated in the main body. Another exception that I've found to be acceptable because I've done it myself in ACR/FAC nominations, is when a useful bit of info just doesn't seem to fit chronologically in the main narrative, such as a nickname that a soldier received but no source states when; those I mention and cite only in the lead or infobox, and it's never been an issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done the same thing with pennant numbers, albeit with a link so readers can learn what one is if they don't already know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Generally I avoid them, especially with articles at ACR and FAC, as everything in the lead and infobox should be cited in the body, but there are numerous lower class articles that are subject to regular edit/POV warring where a couple of citations in the infobox can be useful to limit all but the most egregious warring. An example is the number of victims in the infobox in Jasenovac concentration camp, which is subject to almost weekly changes, I'm sure it would be much worse if there weren't citations there. Before an article gets to GA, having citations in the lead can resolve disputes until the article body is better developed and cited. An example of this would be Josip Broz Tito. Mind you, at GA I wouldn't expect a lot of citations in the lead or infobox, as everything should be cited in the body. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It is true that when listing numbers, such as troops involved (strength) in an operation or casualties and loss numbers, (Battle of Berlin, for example), that citing said range in the info box is helpful. As far as flags go, I believe they can be helpful for general readers in battle articles and military bios. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with avoiding footnotes in infoboxes, but in the area I work mostly in (USAF unit pages) I have added them in two areas: Start articles whose text does not include such things as unit commanders, mottos, decorations, specific mention of campaigns/battles in the text (although they are in the infobox or have been added), and I am doing a "drive-by" edit, without taking time to expand the article completely, just doing an "anticipatory" rescue by adding sources to articles tagged for a lack of footnotes (and these notes in the infobox should be deleted when the article is expanded to include the information); and information concerning insignia, which is rarely discussed in the article (nor do I think it should be as a rule). It seems to me that if an image is presented as a present or past insigne of the unit, it should be sourced. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree on use of citations for numbers in battles. Many medieval battles have uncertain numbers and they can vary widely in secondary sources. It is rarely practical (and perhaps not desireable) to subject numbers to detailed analysis in the text ( Battle of Agincourt being an exception here, because it is a subject of active academic debate) so something that stops random changes by passing editors based on the last book they read is useful. Info box numbers should match those in the text, though (the idea that the info box summarises the article rather than stands totally independent of it is a principle that baffles some editors)Monstrelet (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem with A-class review

I'm not getting the currently undergoing to show up....? auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ruth, is this re. Battle of Hochkirch? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian, yes, that's the one. the red tag currently undergoing doesn't pop out on the talk page....not sure what to do next. I even switched browsers. No go. auntieruth (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Delete, save then re-add? (The manual version of turning the computer off then back on again). – The Bounder (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
not working auntieruth (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ruth, I just went to the talk page, clicked [show] next to the MilHist project banner, then clicked [show] next to "Additional information..." and found the "currently undergoing" redlink, as expected -- are those the steps you went though? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes Ian, that's what I did, or tried to....The additional information never came down though. auntieruth (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: G'day Ruth, the link shows for me when I view the page. Potentially it is just a cache issue? If you follow this link, you should be able to create the subpage: [6]. If not, please let me know and I will try to create it for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Not a cache issue either. I've tried a couple of computers AND tried clearing the cache. I used your link. It should be okay now. auntieruth (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Standardized general information about the Knight's Cross in lead sections of articles on recipients.

While editing the article about Desiderius Hampel I was notified by Peacemaker67 that it would be controversial to remove general information about the Knight's Cross from the lead section, even though the information has no relation to the subject of the article. The sentence in question is The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a low-ranking soldier for a single act of extreme battlefield bravery. That sentence is used in numerous lists, e.g. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (O). Variants of it read The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded to recognise extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership or which was awarded to recognize extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership by Nazi Germany during World War II. It has been somewhat routinely placed in the lead section of many biographical articles. Quite often the lead section consists of only one other sentence, even if there is more defining information on the subject presented in the article. I consider that practice to be faulty for three reasons.

  • First, it has been established by historiographical research (Roman Töppel, Jens Westemeier) that the award of a KC depended on several variables, including favoritism. As Westemeier sums up, in spite of the official provisions subjective criteria prevailed. (Himmlers Krieger, 2014, p. 356).
  • Second, it is thus against WP:NPOV to assume as fact that the KC was awarded for "successful military leadership" and so forth. Not only is this language peppered with Peacock words to be avoided according to WP:INTRO. It - normally - goes without saying that the sources, upon which these "extreme" assessments are based, are biased.
  • Third, according to WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the article's "most important contents". The official provisions of the KC might be featured in articles about the KC, but a broad standard sentence without specific details as to why the KC was awarded to the subject of the article makes no sense. Instead it is used to purvey a certain positive image.

So I am looking for input of the MilHistProject if that is the idea.--Assayer (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As you have presented it, it does sound like a lot of text to be put in a lead. I presume this text is used when the reason for the award is not specified. Would it be better as a Note with the actual text in the Notes section of the article ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I argue that this text is not in line with WP:IMPARTIAL and superflous, because there is also always a wikilink to Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, where any interested reader will find the same information (and wording) in the lead section. Since it is often argued that soldiers of Nazi Germany should be treated neutral, i.e. not differently from other nation's soldiers, I checked upon several Medal of Honor-, Hero of the Soviet Union- and Pour le Mérite-recipients and didn't find "general information" such as with the KC-recipients. I do not think that there is something important missing from those articles, but neither do I see a reason why the "extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership" of German WW II-soldiers should be emphasized. Thus those sentences should be removed entirely.--Assayer (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You've left out the fact that we have many Featured Articles on Victoria Cross recipients, and most if not all of their leads include words to the effect that the VC is the highest decoration for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" that can be awarded to members of the British and Commonwealth armed forces. Given that these FAs have generally gone through ACR as well, I think we can say that a great many in the MilHist and general WP community don't see such a description as NPOV or peacock, but as reasonable and helpful to the reader. So I don't think we can say that German soldiers are being portrayed in an unusually favourable way by including such a description. There may be room to tweak the precise wording of the Knight's Cross description that's generally employed, but I don't think there's a good case to remove it entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Ian Rose. I was going to raise examples of bios of VC and MoH recipients as well as recipients of other awards like the Legion of Merit (US) and knighthoods etc. The basic information about what the award was for is intrinsic to mentioning it. You don't just say he was awarded the VC, you say what the award was, for those that don't know. It is basic encyclopaedic information. Also, whether you are aware of it or not, all military and other awards are subject to various "political" restrictions, personal influences/preferences of nominating officers and others in the chain of command, approving officers etc, not just the KC. In Australia, the final "end of war list" of decorations for a battle that occurred in 1966 were only sorted out last year, and the final report made it clear that the recipients that were upgraded were originally "hard done by" via the chain of command, for a range of reasons. I'm happy to discuss the exact wording of the sentence that says what the purpose of the award was, but removal of it completely is contrary to the encyclopaedic purpose of WP. I also question why you think "extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership" of German WWII soldiers shouldn't be emphasised, where we do emphasise it with soldiers of other armies. That would create significant systemic bias on en WP. Is German bravery or leadership "unworthy" of being mentioned on WP for some reason? Or do you think it is all made up? If so, on what basis? There is a lot of narrow, "black and white" thinking behind this campaign against the KC on en WP. There were plenty of alleged and actual war criminals in the German Army and Waffen-SS, but I am sure that some of those who were convicted war criminals also fought bravely or led skilfully. The two aren't mutually exclusive. We compare and contrast the good and bad in biographical articles, we don't just eliminate the good because of the bad. Of course there are also those that didn't commit war crimes, what of them? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
We all know that Wikipedia is not to 100 percent consistent and that two wrongs don't make a right. I am not targeting KC recipients in particular, if that's what you think, but happen to work on German military history. I think it is fair to say that such a general phrase being used in biographical articles is not the common standard. Since we are talking about a sort of standard phrase, I would rather suspect that its use stems from personal preferences of individual authors. The article of Desiderius Hampel, for example, existed for years without that sentence, until Peacemaker67 added it about two months ago.[7] The articles on the VC recipients actually reinforce my point, because many of those have been "migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference with permission." That website's POV has been described in 2001 as "a sobering tribute to the men who have won the highest decoration for gallantry that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces. [...] The story of each act of bravery is detailed online and the matter-of-fact prose serves only to emphasize the courage of the men who fought." (The Telegraph, 2001)
There is a basic misunderstanding in Peacemaker67's argument: We are not talking about "extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership" of German WWII soldiers, but we are talking about how we are presenting the fact that someone has received a KC in his biographical article. As Peacemaker himself rightly explains all military and other awards are subject to various "political" restrictions, personal influences/preferences of nominating officers and others in the chain of command, approving officers etc, In other words, we may all agree, that bravery exists and is exhibited with or without being honored by a military award. We cannot assume, however, that each and every award is awarded for bravery or exceptional leadership skills. But by the use of weasel words and peacock terms that is excactly what is suggested to the reader: First sentence: Hampel has received a KC. Second sentence: A KC was awarded for skilled leadership of his troops in battle. Reader's conclusion: Hampel has exhibited skilled leadership in battle. Why else would he have received a KC? There are no RS for such a conclusion, though. As a matter of fact, we don't know if he received a KC after all, let alone for what reasons, but that's another issue. So neither Is German bravery or leadership "unworthy" of being mentioned on WP for some reason, nor do I think it is all made up , but I demand RS for such claims, not a carte blanche based upon the KC. That would be "white thinking", so to speak, and the award of a KC is not a RS by itself. (I can offer a number of examples, if needed.)
Wikipedia is based on hypertext and uses internal links to guide the reader to the information he desires or needs for a deeper understanding of the topic. Those who don't know what a certain award was can find these information by following the link to the article on the award. They do not need an explanation in each and every article of each and every recipient. That's the whole idea behind internal links. As soon as you read more than one of those articles that also becomes repetitive and tedious, btw. Thus individual articles need not to be stuffed with broad and vague information, but they need specific information based upon RS.--Assayer (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Since this discussion has stalled, I would like to determine, if there are still objections to remove those standard phrases from individual biographical articles. So far only Ian Rose and Peacemaker67 have chosen to participate. If opinion persists, that it is essential to say what the award was and since both contributors have agreed that There may be room to tweak the precise wording of the Knight's Cross description, I would then suggest to use the first, defining sentence of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross article instead: the Knight's Cross (Ritterkreuz), and its variants were the highest awards in the military and paramilitary forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. That would not only be more neutral and factually more accurate, it would also be more precise, because there were numerous other orders and awards for bravery and skilled leadership in Nazi Germany, like the Iron Cross or the German Cross or even a mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht, but only one "highest award".--Assayer (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

l wouldn't say it has stalled, there may be any number of reasons why others haven't commented. But I'd be happy with the suggested wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in the specific discussion on this page; I figured there were enough experienced editors who focus more on this subject who would comment. With that said, I think the suggested wording is acceptable. Kierzek (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The new wording sounds uncontroversial, but I'd suggest leaving this open a little longer to see if MisterBee1966, as the prime editor of the KC series, has any comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree, good suggestion. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

US Army branches

Not exactly my area here, but the article names of US Army branches are quite inconsistent. Some names start with "United States Army", while others end with "(United States Army)" and others do not use the phrase. I think it would be more accurate to start these with "United States Army".

List of branches

--21lima (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree - I'm a big fan of standardization.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Add United States Army Coast Artillery Corps--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I tacked it on the end, so it is out of order. --21lima (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I know nothing about the designations within the US army, but (for example) is "Infantry Branch" a proper noun within the US army? (if not it should be "Infantry branch, wherever the "United States Army" is placed). In all (my) ignorance, would it make a difference within Wiki title policy if there no formal entity called the "United States Army Infantry B/branch"?
I'll also add that one or two - such as the Finance Corps - open with the words "The United States Army Finance Corps is..." (bolding as per the article), which suggests a de facto acceptance of the suggestion. - The Bounder (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I was musing over that as well. Some of these are obviously referred to as corps (Ordnance, Finance...) but others are not so defined. List of United States Army careers tacks "branch" to the end of everything. My opinion would be to use corps where it is obviously used (United States Army Ordnance Corps) and nothing for the others (United States Army Infantry). --21lima (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Because Armor, Air Defense Artillery, Aviation, Engineers, Field Artillery, Infantry and Special Forces are Combat Arms Branches. Only the Corps of Engineers styles itself as a corps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment, leaning toward Disagree I'd say standardization is generally good, but the articles' references to the branches should be accurate and based on RSs. The names are not consistent in official documents defining the "corps" (not to mention those that don't have "corps" in their names). They may be Foo Corps, Corps of Foo, Army Corps of Foo or United States Army Corps of Foo, ad infinitum. I guess the discussion should be whether standardization overrides RS. Perhaps the best way to recognize this is by using a category to include these variations under one umbrella. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
These are all branches of the US Army, so I don't see the need for separate categories. There is only one United States Army Corps of Foo, which is the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

The best list I can find is from The Institue of Heraldty. The one oddity is Medical Department which has several corps under it.

I updated the list with specific proposals. --21lima (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
United States Army Electronic Warfare is missing. Perhaps because it has no article. It's the newest corps, formed in January 2009. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This and others like it might be helpful. I picked MI because it was my branch and because its the one branch I know officially went through a name change during my service. The Army Intelligence and Security (AIS) Branch was created in 1962. Sometime in the 70s, AIS was re-designated as the Military Intelligence (MI) Branch.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The whole proposal seems to ignore that the official names of the branches doesn't start with United States Army. They are simply 'Air Defense Artillery Branch' (part of the United States Army) and should probably go with a modification of our standard disambiguator. Especially note that USACAPOC is not a branch -- it's a military formation. US Army Civil Affairs is at Civil_affairs#US_military_civil_affairs. I've fixed the mistake in the table above. Also yes Jim in Georgia is exactly right; the CMH lineage publications, with The Institute of Heraldry (TIOH) are the gold standard sources for actual formal names, not, repeat not, unit websites, which can get things quite wrong (witness "9th Infantry Regiment" at Fort Lewis for some years, when the unit/formation was actually 1st Brigade, 9th Infantry Division, or 11th Aviation Regiment in Germany, when the unit in question was 11th Aviation Group). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Category for discussion: Personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht & two more

Category:Military personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht has been nominated for discussion. The entry can be found here:

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding
K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Operation Léa

Can you please provide input on Talk:Operation Léa as to whether or not this operation was a Viet Minh strategic victory. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles on crusader armies

See the new articles at Category:Armies of the First Crusade. They could all use a little attention from experienced editors, if any are interested. I think, as a whole, they are notable topics with sufficient academic coverage. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lucky Bastard Club

Do you know anything about the World War Two lucky bastard club? By Wikipedia's standards, is it notable? Dante2326 (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Dante

@Dante2326: Undoubtedly. Just online, there's these books and these news items. Get with the program, corporal! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dante2326, two things: a. they said yes, and b. they responded exactly in the way I said someone would respond. Now get to work with those book hits, and generate content--and look at other, similar articles, to study tone, structure, etc. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, thank you so much for your help. Dr Aaij (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.Dante2326 (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Dante

Nacht und Nebel

An editor has changed the title of this article to "Nacht und Nebel Erlass" with no apparent discussion. Is this a valid move? Britmax (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to think so as the most common name is simply Nacht und Nebel.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sturmvogel is correct as to the most common used name; and there are other changes from what Obenritter wrote/added that should be looked into. Kierzek (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is now back at Nacht und Nebel, but all comments on the future name of the article are welcome at the relevant talk page thread. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Flanders weather data for November-December 1917

Does anyone know of a source which has daily weather reports for Ypres from 10 November to 4 December (or thereabouts) please?Keith-264 (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Medal for Humane Action

Is there a phaleristics expert in the house? The colours on the medal ribbon for the Medal for Humane Action don't seem to match those on the medal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Institute of Heraldry - Medal for Humane Action page also shows two different blue colours. The text clearly states "teal blue", which is a "a medium-saturated, blue-green color, similar to medium green and dark cyan" according to our article. However, all the photographs I can find on Google (see [8] [9] [10] [11]) show a sort of blue-grey colour. Who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been bold and corrected the images to be consistent, and more in line with the evidence. Used this image as a .mil reference source. The heraldry site seems to have used the simple gif-for-web definition of teal, probably in error. (Hohum @) 21:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
THnks Hohum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Assigning Task Forces

I hope I haven't made a mess of things. I've gong through the backlog of articles that needed a task force assigned and assigned what seemed like the appropriate task force. I should have asked long ago what was the appropriate task force for redirects and disambiguation pages. What should I have used? I'm happy to go back through the list I worked on and reassign if I assigned the wrong task force(s). Thank you.--Trilotat (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day, there are no specific task forces for redirects and dabs that I'm aware of. They are simply placed into the task forces that they would fall under if they were articles, e.g. country or time period specific etc. For instance 32nd Battalion. Thanks for your efforts in this area. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Milhist March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Operation Jupiter

Our article on the Quebec Conference, 1943, says: "It was agreed that Overlord would commence on May 1, 1944, but this was subsequently disregarded and a later date was finalised. However, Overlord was not the only option; for example, Operation Jupiter remained a strong possibility had the Germans proved too powerful on the French coast". Now "Operation Jupiter" is linked to Operation Jupiter (1944), an article about British breakout from the Caen area a month after D-Day and so couldn't possibly be an alternative to Overlord as it could not have happened without Overlord. We have a disambiguation page called Operation Jupiter which also lists "in 1942, a failed Soviet offensive against the Rzhev salient" which is wikilinked to our Operation Mars page.

A bit of Googling finds that another Operation Jupiter was a scheme devised by Churchill in 1942 to capture the north of Norway, which consumed a large amount of staff time and was rubbished by just about everybody, but later became a useful deception plan. I thought that a stub article would be possible, but what to call it? Operation Jupiter (1942) would cause confusion with the Soviet one. Any suggestions? Alansplodge (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Noway and Operation Jupiter (1942–1944)?Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Or something like "Operation Jupiter (Norway)". -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That sounds good. I believe that the Soviet Jupiter was a follow on offensive to Mars, if it had been successful, BTW.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    Is this the same as Project Plough? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting, but apparently Plough was intended to be an airborne operation whereas Jupiter was an amphibious one, the shipping was to be disguised as an Arctic convoy. The relationship between the two plans might need some research. Keeping it as simple as possible, I may go for Operation Jupiter (Norway) if I have time tomorrow. Thanks for your input everyone. Alansplodge (talk)
This will be a great topic for an article Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Now done, but further contributions more than welcome. I still haven't unravelled the Jupiter / Plough connection, but I've had enough for now. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Raqqa's strategy ?

Hey, the current Raqqa campaign seems to use a recurring pattern to move straight, then create a large isolated ISIS pocket which it then nearly peacefully subdues. It reminds me of a WW2 strategy, in Western Europe, where Americans main forces where purposefully avoiding towns and major cities, which included fortress and nazi troups with correct firepower, leaving them lightly behind the frontline on US side, and where ultimatums and negociations allowed minimal fights and nazi surrenders.

Does anyone knows the name of this (these?) strategies/tactics ?

Please message me if you know. Yug (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Island-hopping is what I think that you're referring to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66: Leapfrogging (strategy) (aka Island-hopping) seems to be quite naval... I think there is a more 'army' term. --Yug (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If I were writing an OPORD, I'd use the terms "bypass", "isolate" and "reduce" etc... Not sure if that helps at all, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
An anonymous user contacted me with :
Raqqa operational technique
Not sure there is a strictly defined term for it, although "bypass and reduction" are both terms used by the U.S. forces for such actions. In the Second World War, the U.S. tank force had an unofficial "rule" of Haul Ass and Bypass for positions strongly defended by the enemy. The term "reduction" can be found in lines like, "The result of the attack on 5 August proved that the reduction of St. Malo would take some time", found at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Breakout/USA-E-Breakout-21.html
Hopefully a bit helpful.
Cheers
Oh thanks Anonymous, that's a good lead. --Yug (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
It converge with your statement ;) --Yug (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Griffin

Jacob Griffin has just been created via AFC. Would someone from WP:MILHIST mind taking a look at it and assessing it. The article's creator also asked about adding a photo to the article at WP:THQ#how do I add a photo from Wikimedia to my Wikipedia article?. Perhaps someone could help them out with the photo as well? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Old merger List of British military equipment of World War II

Hello all! If someone with some knowledge or interest in the topic could take a look at finally completing the merger of List of British military equipment of World War II and List of World War II weapons of the United Kingdom that would be very much appreciated! Happy editing!! Ajpolino (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if the rationale was different between the lists but both the List of World War II weapons of the United Kingdom and List of British military equipment of World War II include non-British equipment where as you would have thought the "British military equipment" would not include foreign stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
since there has been no serious discussion that I can see since tag applied, it looks like the merger suggestion has withered on the vine. Removing the tags would be a completion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there some intended difference between the articles? Pardon my ignorance, but it seems like those titles cover the same topic. Even if there has been no discussion in a long while, perhaps a merge is still in order? Ajpolino (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
OK I read "weapons of the United Kingdom" as any weapon used by the UK and "British military equipment" as British-produced equipment which is not the same which why the inclusion of American weapons in the British military equipment confused me but I would expect them in the "weapons of the United Kingdom". Whatever my confusion they need to have a clear inclusion criteria unless I am the only one with a dizzy brain. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree that they ought to merge somehow. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps List of British military equipment of World War II (LoBmeoWWII) could be a higher level list and the individual sections could be replaced with links to other lists - as at the moment with List_of_British_military_equipment_of_World_War_II#Navy_ships_and_war_vessels and #Aircraft. Less of a merge and more of a prune of the duplicated content in LoBmeoWWII. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Western Front (World War I)

I have nominated Western Front (World War I) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Name, split and mergers related to Szabla

It is time to tackle this mess, or at least discuss it. Please see Talk:Szabla#Name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible edit by now deceased BLP subject

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Susan Ahn Cuddy#BLP . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help to restore content of military personnel infoboxes that has been deleted in Nazi-hunt

Hey folks,

as always our dear User:K.e.coffman is on his Nazi-hunt by simply deleting stuff. Now he is doing so by deleting infobox content - places of birth and death, service in World War I, list of battles, service in pre-Wehrmacht armed forces and the foregoing German countries etc. This content is perfetly following the infobox parameters and has not been contested for correctness - saying it to be non-notable is wrong, otherwise there wouldn´t be the respecive entry in the template and it would be non-notable for non-Wehrmacht soldiers, too (which it isn´t becaues it is important). Recently User:ÄDA - DÄP has joined him in some of this (though I generally have no problem with his overall work, he´s just trying to clean up). I´m trying to restore this stuff as it belongs there and has been deleted for a personal agenda and nothing else; but I´m just one slow-working person that also has other stuff to do. If some of you with a little spare time or AWB etc. could help me I´d appreciate it. ... GELongstreet (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to be careful that any information re-added to the infobox is cited somewhere, either in the infobox itself or elsewhere in the article - your changes to Dietrich Kraiss and Curt von Jesser re-added unsourced information, which really needs a source to be readded. The infobox clearout appears less a case of a "Nazi-hunt" and more applying proper standards about sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Most infobox stuff in stub articles isn´t sourced on its own as long as there is no dispute about the content. Everywhere. As I said I´m only one person, but if you want to source every line you are welcome to do so. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for unsourced content. The act of removing unsourced information challenges it, so it should NOT be reinstated without a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The first line of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid ... I see it as valid. I never said that the articles couldn´t or shouldn´t be improved. I said they shouldn´t fall to a deletionist personal agenda which, if you follow the tracks for just a second, they clearly do. ... GELongstreet (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Unless I am much mistaken, I have removed only data from the infoboxes regarding prior service in other military formations which are not relevant to the notability of the person in question. Should I have accidentally removed relevant information, please let me know, and I will cease and persist to do so. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said before I´v generally no objection to your work; but in this case think that every of those services deserves to be there. Not just the (mostly) final one in the Wehrmacht. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The primary issue with this is an ongoing and basic misunderstanding of how notability applies on en WP. Not everything in an article has to be notable in and of itself, or go to the notability of the subject. Once the notability of the subject of the article has been established (ie why they are notable, why we have an article on them), then all relevant detail on the person should be included, so long as it can be reliably sourced. That includes date/place of birth and death, what wars they fought in etc, not just the war for which they are notable. If (as is often the case), a WWII general served in WWI (usually at a much lower rank), that is information that should be in the infobox and in the article, as it is relevant biographical information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course all information should be recorded. In the article, not the infobox. The infobox is for a summary. In the case at hand - Hans Cramer - it is redundant to list the Deutsches Heer or Reichswehr because it is clear from the years of service that Cramer served in the army throughout his career. For the same reason it is only necessary to list the Knight's Cross, because that implies he was awarded both classes of the Iron Cross, too. Cramer did not change country, allegiance, or branch/service, there was only a change in names - and size. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Then mention of what wars he was involved in is part of the summary. It is common practice to include both world wars and the fronts they served on in each war in the infobox. The Knight's Cross did not exist in WWI, so whether an individual received the Iron Cross in WWI is relevant to the summary in the infobox, as are other awards from WWI, especially Austrian awards where applicable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
All service is listed in the infobox, not just that which goes to notability. The infobox is a summary of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Response

No issues with material being in the infobox, if it's covered and cited in the article. In all instances that the OP requested help with, the material was not cited in the article. This sometimes results in almost comical situations where the infobox is twice as long as the article, including the references. See, for example, before GELongstreet's edit and after, which also includes a non-existing battle.

Since I was called out by the OP by name, I'd like also to express my concern about this latest installment of "anti-Nazi" shaming. Most people (and I hope, almost all) are anti-Nazi, as Nazism came to represent genocide, war of conquest and annihilation, mass enslavement of populations of the occupied territories, war crimes authorised at the highest levels, etc. etc. I find such pejorative references ("Nazi-hunt") to be troubling. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I consider myself anti-Nazi, too, and share your hope that most others are the same. I in no way focus on that but this is my personal decision that I´m as free to chose as you are in yours. However my trouble is with deleting history - I think that burning the books is not the way to go. And that you´re going that way far too much. ... GELongstreet (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
How does the present situation relate to book burning? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's see. You take birth and death places and service in different armed forces and wars and delete those, saying that it´s either not sourced, not written in the article itself or simply not notable - which there are very different opinions about and the non-notability is not agreed on as some others have written above. Kinda like you did with the respective medals&awards sections before - whose existence countered your "comical situation" of infoboxes longer than articles. One could have improved many of those articles with a fraction of that effort that you put into deleting but it doesn´t happen. Guess it´s pretty clear that I´m no wiki-deletionist. You´re doing that on a pretty large scale and interestingly it seems that this happens almost only to German WW2 soldiers. That´s why I say Nazi-hunt. I know that the creation of many of those stubs were a rather ambiguous thing and know that they´re far from good. But in my opinion you´re not making them better, you´re making them worse by deleting important information and making what stands there practically wrong. I think the lack of acknowlegement to previous armed forces and services is unwarranted and ill-placed for articles about military history in general and in this infobox in particular. I think you´re, basically, limiting it to "He was a Nazi-soldier, that´s all that needs to be in the article." As you´re doing so and delete anything beside the Wehrmacht service, I call it the equivalent of burning books. Savy? ... GELongstreet (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I find it curious that the editor wants another contributor to source the material (One could have improved many of those articles with a fraction of that effort that you put into deleting...), while making no effort to do it himself. Yes, the problem seems to be localised to German WWII personnel, because one editor started 2000 stubs on Wehrmacht personnel based on unknown sources, while another created 500 articles on the Waffen-SS using various fan pages. The fact that these pages exist does not make it anyone's obligation to cite the content that the original contributors did not. We are all volunteers here.
These subjects are indeed notable as "Nazi soldiers", per GELongstreet, because it was during WWII that they were generals, commanded divisions, or met any other criteria of WP:SOLDIER. The rest is "uncited intricate detail unrelated to subject's notability", as I put it. Please see WP:BURDEN: the onus of providing citations is on those who wish to retain material that has been challenged. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe all of us should work to improve articles: including npov wording, grammar, structure and also add RS citations when we can. I also believe that service history should be mentioned in the info box. I agree that RS citing is important and when not present, sentences can be removed or changed, depending on the circumstances. With that said, when removing or deleting, discernment should be used and there should be no rush to do it. Kierzek (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

General comment

The matter of uncited materials comes up periodically. The result is usually the same; please see diffs of responses to several WP:3O requests:

Much of this material is a throwback to the times when Wikipedia content was routinely based on non RS web sites, such as AxisHistory, AchtungPanzer!, Aces of the Luftwaffe, and various Waffen-SS fan pages, often uncited at all. Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards have been significantly tightened since then. A consensus has also developed that many subjects lack sufficient RS to build NPOV articles, and these articles are being redirected to lists (see: Notability in Knight's Cross winner articles).

Overall, this is nothing more than routine quality improvements for such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Reddit stuff / Continuing on AN/I

Just posting here to inform you that @ K.e.coffman Deleted the the SS honor dagger page turned it into a redirect to a page with no actual information of the original or anything mentioning it. I added it back and plan to dig up some more sources to fix up the article proper at a later date. As I've told GELongstreet, he has been encouraging some folks to go around and mess with articles on Reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.13.183.111 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Also tagging User:K.e.coffman as he is concerned and User:Hawkeye7 as his talk page is linked there on reddit. ... GELongstreet (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
And the discussion is partially shifted to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doxing_by_Special:Contributions.2F144.13.183.111 ... GELongstreet (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Opinions requested for rename of Diver (United States Navy)

at Talk:Diver (United States Navy) Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

List of surviving veterans of World War II‎

I'm not sure what the List of surviving veterans of World War II‎ page is accomplishing. It's a page which will eventually reach a content count of zero. It's not necessarily inclusive and probably never will be. There was a discussion about deleting the article but it was conducted at the the article's talk page rather than at AfD. I don't think it has previously been discussed here or at AfD. Is it worth taking this to AfD?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not so sure. This seems to be a list of "notable" surviving veterans. It seems inevitable that the last survivor will have been an underage rating, private or airman, someone highly unlikely to have been notable except for surviving longest after the war. That was the case with WWI, and I see no reason to think it will be any different with WWII. In my hometown, a state capital, 150 WWII veterans marched on ANZAC Day last year. Of them, maybe two would meet WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Another RfC discussion at Talk:Cold War II

I started another RfC discussion, Talk:Cold War II#RfC: "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

World War II / WWII / WW2 / Second World War ?

Is there any styleguide etc. in place for the naming of this conflict, in its article and in other articles' links to it?

This is in relation to some recent (month or two back) changes I noticed to standardise links on World War II, per the article name (sorry, can't find these offhand) and changes in the last couple of days as Todayis03032017 (talk · contribs) disagrees, User talk:Andy Dingley#Good Sir.

I have no strong opinion either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

it varies between articles. I think the only expectation is that it be consistent within a single article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, consistency within an article is a must a but there's also a national ties aspect. You wouldn't expect to see "Second World War' in a US military article, but you would in a Commonwealth one (although "World War II" is used in a fair bit of later Australian military literature and I've found is also acceptable there). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, where there is a national tie the national usage seems OK but I have used both. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The formal names World War II or Second World War should be used and used consistently in a given article, depending on consensus as to which one and also whether the article is written in British or American English can also be a factor. However, in the end, as noted, both are okay to use; you just want consistency and consensus of the editors for a given article. Kierzek (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
World War II is also quite widely used in the UK, although I am certain that Second World War is correct for British English, after all, we don't have a Boer War II :-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I've got a lot of British books that use WWII, so no strong national ties. Consistency of usage is the only thing that really matters.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Although there is now a more relaxed approach to language, even in supposedly academic circles, Second World War is more formally correct than WWII, which is more of an American interloper. "Good" British works sometimes use WWII now, (although I'm not entirely sure why). – The Bounder (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
But not the author of these books! Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If one may note, User:Todayis03032017 for the most part was editing articles for a level of consistency i.e. if they mentioned both terms, then one would be removed in favor of the other (along the generally accepted national lines as already noted above). The only level of disagreement one had with Andy, was the revision of two edits that removed a level of article consistency back to a state of mixed form. To further note, "disagreement" would be a tad harsh of a description to say the least. Todayis03032017 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Philip Henson: needs inline citations

This is a well-referenced, fairly well-written Start Class article with zero inline citations. Needs someone familiar with the material to fix it. Tapered (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

1-33rdar.org is dead

It's used as an external link in several articles. The site is dead. It needs to be replaced with archive.org links. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Fort Huachuca et al

If anyone knows someone who knows someone, the Fort Huachuca security certificate is bad/obsolete/something. This restricts access to public websites on the post.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I find that on most .mil sites. Supposedly you can install a certificate per [12] but I just ignore it. --21lima (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Very young author

In the "Further reading" section of the article Naval tactics in the Age of Steam, a work by Thomas Allnut Brassey, the future 2nd Earl Brassey, is listed. The work is supposedly from 1875 – when the author was 12.

Is this really correct?

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's more likely Thomas Brassey, 1st Earl Brassey, the 12-year-old's father. The title page of Unarmoured ships shows it was written by Thomas Brassey MP, and the 1st Earl was sitting in parliament at the time. I've tweaked the link in the Naval tactics article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes more sense. But then it's wrong in Wikisource, where it claims the author is Thomas Allnut Brassey, which redirects (in Wikipedia) to the 2nd Earl, Allnut being the maiden name of the 1st Earl's wife (which makes sense as the 2nd Earl's middle name).
HandsomeFella (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
No longer! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Task force for aircraft carriers

Is anyone interested in joining such a thing? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought we already have a task force for ships? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The relevant task force is Maritime. I'd suggest that a subsidiary task force for carriers mightn't have the legs necessary. But then, there is Operation Majestic Titan which is a special project for battleships... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing awards and rank lists from SS articles

There has recently been a push by certain users on Wikipedia to remove lists of Nazi awards and dates of ranks from certain articles, in particular articles of SS generals. This matter has come up before, and nearly always was the result of strong personal feelings about whether Wikipedia should include lists of ranks and awards for Nazi personnel. There was recently a very heated and lengthy discussion at Talk:Karl_Wolff#Awards_removal and now the issue has come up again at Talk:Theodor_Eicke#Removal_of_dates_of_rank_and_awards. An older discussion can be found here and there was also one several years back on Talk:Reinhard_Heydrich/Archive_3#Notable_decorations. Third party comments are needed from some experienced editors as this issue continues and is leading to a lot of removal of cited material about Nazi awards and ranks from military articles. -O.R.Comms 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I know I am repeating myself but, "...especially for high ranking members, awards and decorations should be included; and given [they are bio articles]... it is reasonable to include for that reason, as well. Like everything being considered for inclusion or to be removed, discernment should be used. It is fair that they be cited". With that said, just removing in mass is not the answer, either. At least, if in question, a cn should be placed next to the subject rank, award or medal in an article and it should remain for a reasonable timeframe. Being a volunteer project and having to work long hours, I for one, cannot go around and add cites to all these articles; as I am sure we all don't have the time. There needs to be a consensus and the same policy used for all; German, American, British, Soviet (Russian, included), Japanese, etc. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
We're not here to make value judgments. We don't to like or respect the people or governments involved in awards or promotions.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This looks like selective notification to me: diff. I would suggest that the OP also notifies other participants of the Talk:Karl_Wolff#Awards_removal discussion.
I would note that the content was ultimately removed from the Wolff article, with the closer noting: "There is no clear consensus below about appropriateness of including SS awards in military/paramilitary bios, and it is not likely to be found here" (link). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Highly misleading statement. The material was actually transmigrated to "Service record of Karl Wolff" and the discussion closed as moot since the material was no longer on the article in question. -O.R.Comms 03:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I wonder how this thread will draw "third party comments", but maybe the emphasis is on "some experienced editors". I will keep my remarks short anyway: First, I would point to WP:ONUS (not all verifiable information must be included in an article) and argue that these awards are presented with an undue depth of detail. Second, a career in the SS should not be conflated with a career in the military. The SS, including the Waffen-SS, was basically a Nazi party organization and not part of the Wehrmacht. Third, speaking of verifiability those career sections seem quite often to be based upon primary sources like personal files hosted at archives. In the case of Eicke there are discrepancies in the dates given by a recent scholarly biography (Niels Weise, Eicke, Paderborn, 2013) and the English Wikipedia.--Assayer (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
As there is the apparent start of edit warring now [13] [14] I am hoping that others can get involved in this debate. Most who have contributed to this discussion already can see this for the duck that it is, mainly blanking of Nazi and SS material due to distaste for the material. There are literally hundreds of articles listing medals and dates of ranks, yet this particular group of Wikipedia editors is focused solely on blanking this material from only SS articles. I'm backing off of this one for now, pages are off the watch list, and will let others sort it out. -O.R.Comms 03:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added a link to the discussion in the milhist template to solicit greater feedback; if the edit warring in the article(s) given here reaches a point of mass disruption then I'll start protecting articles. Given that the disagreement currently concerns established editors though I'm loath to resort to this option from the get go since it would mean requiring admin access to edit the articles in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll make the observation that the SS was a paramilitary organisation, SS advancement had meaning within the Nazi Party and SS itself, showing greater levels of responsibility, and was often in parallel with Army or police ranks; so promotion through SS ranks is relevant to a biographical article. To suggest that the Waffen-SS was a just a political organisation and not a military one is contrary to the facts. But even if it was right, we would mark the progress of a union leader through various levels of their hierarchy, so we do that with these people too. I fail to see why anyone would wish to remove such basic biographical information from any article, assuming it can be reliably sourced. Eicke was a member of the Reichstag, so there is definitely information available on his various promotions both within the SS then in the Waffen-SS, as well as other basic biographical info. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Peacemaker67, to say the Waffen-SS was only a Nazi Party organization is just not correct. True, they were not legally part of the Wehrmacht, but it was a "de facto" branch in a practical sense. However, even if it was just a Nazi Party organization, akin to the Allgemeine SS or NSKK, the ranks and promotions obtained by the person should be listed. Especially for high ranking members. The major awards should be listed, as well. Again, as I have said before, in the end, it is reasonable for the info to be RS sourced somewhere in the article. It is too bad that for some of these articles, when editors were adding such information originally, the sources they were using for said information was not added then. It seems that some of the information was written at a time when RS citing was not such a requirement on Wikipedia. Kierzek (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
With all this persistent talk about a particular group of Wikipedia editors [...] focused solely on blanking this material from only SS articles I might as well turn the tables and speak of a particular group of Wikipedia editors who are focused upon adding that material to SS articles. But I will try to make my concerns clear. The SS was not merely a paramilitary organization. It was also a party organization and an intelligence agency. It staffed the concentration camps and built a major industrial complex. Himmler allotted it police powers and tried to merge it with the regular police. He saw the Waffen-SS as a nucleus of a future pan-European Germanic army. My point is not, to suggest that the Waffen-SS was just a political organization. (But keep in mind the title of Bernd Wegner's seminal work Hitler's political soldiers.) Rather I am strongly opposed to suggest that the Waffen-SS was a military organization like any other, because that is a major apologetic rationale. It is misleading to focus upon a "practical sense", because the very definition of "being a branch" goes beyond that. The difference between Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS was both programmatic and practical. In the words of Eicke: "We do not carry weapons to appear like the army, but to use them, when Führer and movement are in danger." (Wir tragen keine Waffen, um dem Heere ähnlich zusehen, sondern um sie zu gebrauchen, wenn Führer und Bewegung in Gefahr sind.) Himmler was very careful to preserve the organizational distance between Waffen-SS and army. He planned, as he expressed in his Posen speech of 3 August 1944, to organize a Nazi people's army through the SS some time in the future. Thus it doesn't matter whether the Waffen-SS fought side by side with the Wehrmacht. The formal, organizational, ideological and programmatical differences prevail, not to mention the competition for resources and the often mutual distaste. The Waffen-SS was a branch of the SS, not of the Wehrmacht.
I have no problem to feature information on careers in biographical articles. I routinely add them myself. I am questioning the way these information are presented. Eicke is a good case in point, because his SS career was a twisted one and has to be put into context. But even that he was a member of the Reichtag, for example, isn't mentioned in the article. Besides, it is problematic to create such rank lists only from the SSO files. That is a primary source which needs to be interpreted. The same is true with the Dienstalterslisten der SS and the SS-Stammrollen. By that I do not wish to imply that those are unreliable sources by the odd Wikipedian definition. But to use them is WP:OR and I am sceptical that anonymous Wikipedia editors are fully qualified to use these files properly. In fact, some dates given in the English Wikipedia differ from the dates given in secondary literature such as Joachim Lilla, Statisten in Uniform (2004). Editors who add such information based on archival documents are certainly advised to add the source of that information. But they are also liable to be challenged for WP:OR. In short, I am arguing for a contextualized presentation of the information based upon secondary literature, instead of a mere decorative listing based upon primary sources.--Assayer (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Assayer hits on a key point here, and it addresses more than just SS or Knight's Cross winners military biography articles in en.wikipedia -- German military personnel biographies are incomplete in the sense that they focus almost exclusively on the Second World War activities of these men. Some prewar material is included, but postwar -- a vast emptiness in these articles. Whether intentional or not, such a bounded focus gives the impression that the only reason these articles exist is to celebrate the wartime experiences of selected German military personnel. That is not encyclopaedic and smells of "fan-boy" activity. Certainly, many of these men lived into the 1970s at least -- are we to believe that nothing in their lives was notable after 1945 ? 83.20.105.165 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is (was) about including dates of SS rank and Nazi era awards in the articles. Of course there wouldn't be any mention of this post war, since the SS was gone and most of these men never served in the military again and had no post war military decorations. As far as post war information lacking from the articles in general, the majority of articles on the German military figures contain plenty of information about those who survived the war. For those who were in prison, who were executed, or died before the war was over, of course there wouldn't be very much. -O.R.Comms 20:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
"plenty of information" is only correct in instances. Take a look at Christian Hansen (general), Maximilian de Angelis, or Friedrich-Jobst Volckamer von Kirchensittenbach as examples where there is practically nothing about their lives postwar. And there are plenty of others like this ... I only point out that as biographical articles, their focus is pretty much on 1945 and prior, although they lived decades beyond the war. 217.96.246.122 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
You should take those concerns to the talk pages of the individual articles. This discussion here is with regards to including awards and rank histories on the articles of Nazi figures and doesn't relate much to the specific articles you mentioned. -O.R.Comms 14:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
And as has been pointed out, hardly a surprise as that is what they are famous for, and in many cases have lived (deliberately) obscure lives. I can think of a few non Nazi blp'S that (similarly) only really talk about what the person is notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Unrelated Comments

The two IP above is coffman. He is being described as agenda driven editor and on a mission. His edits are labeled in terms such as "vandalism" and "disruptive". It's not mistake to say that he should not be taken seriously and should be oppose and ignored most of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.139.45 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I had some suspicions of that at first, but the ip above seems to be stressing that Nazi articles are slanted because they focus entirely on the World War II actions and omit post war information. That is actually a platform that @K.e.coffman: has not ever really been involved with. Also, as these appear to be brand new ip edits with no other article activity (which, in itself is strange), there is really no case here for a violation of WP:SOCK. -O.R.Comms 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of this allegation. And frankly coffman has no reason to hide behind ip edits; he writes his position and arguments without hesitation under his own user name, from what I have seen. Kierzek (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In all fairness Kierzek, you are wrong and he did hide behind IP to make deletionists edits on multiple pages and later as he was annoyed by reverting he confessed it was him. See evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:CEAB:9930:C0F9:20D1:3998:121B Confession: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWerner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=765483301&oldid=706844198 The two IPs are the same person, points out to Assayer (his partner) and talks about nazi fan boying (strong language) and give examples of three articles which were heavily edited by him (coffman) and I am sure nobody here even knew that those persons even existed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.139.45 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I understand this wrong, but for me "I´m with the IP", what you describe as confession of being the same person, simply means that he shares the opinion of said IP-user. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that IP's "smoking gun" is simply a result of a lack of reading comprehension :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone above has stated the Waffen-SS was a "military organization like any other"; ofcourse, they were "political soldiers"; the point is that even if they were just members of the SA, Allgemeine SS, NSKK or "a union leader", one example Peacemaker used, there is no reason not the present rank progression and awards, with citations. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

About the SS records on the SSO files of RG 242, we are talking about the SS service records themselves which have a cover page listing the dates of ranks and the awards the person earned. (See Service record of Reinhard Heydrich as an example). That isn't Original Research, it is recording information from a service record as maintained in the personnel department of the organization. Also, the National Archives has a series of "Finding Aides" which actually have the biographical data already listed from the microfilm itself (they are typically not cited separately since the finding aid of a record group is considered part of the record group itself). In any event, to suggest that listing dates of rank taken off the front of a service record, maintained by the agency itself, requires any kind of interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, if you look back in the archives of this military history page, as well as few others, you will find broad consensus that information taken from military personnel records, especially documents like a DD Form 214, is considered extremely reliable. National Archives Record Group 242 (Foreign records seized) has also been cited in numerous books, journal articles, research papers, and was a key source of material for evidence in war crimes trials. One can't get much more reliable than that. -O.R.Comms 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
We can use primary sources, we just have to be careful in doing so, so avoid biases in the material. But simple factual stuff like dates of awards, promotions or assignments from a soldier's service records would be fine, and certainly not OR. Claiming otherwise is simply ludicrous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
To be clear: WP:OR states The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material — such as facts, allegations, and ideas — for which no reliable, published sources exist. And it is not "reliable or published", but "reliable and published" which you can tell by the combined wikilink. And it is also stated in an explanatory footnote: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist. As long as you refer to unpublished sources, and many personnel files have not been published, it is by definition OR. (That alone does not turn an unpublished source into a primary source, as secondary sources can also be unpublished and vice versa.) I happened to notice that WP:VERIFIABILITY has been somehow softened in 2013 [15] based upon only brief discussion (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#Published means made available to the public), but I beg your pardon that I rather stick to the definition followed by various manuals of style and I also use the definition of primary source as it is common in historiography and may seek consensus for that view in the future.
But let's take an example to see what we are actually talking about: According to his official personnel file Karl Wolff was promoted to SS-Sturmführer on 18/19 February 1932. That date is also given by Lilla. On 19 January 1932 he had been ordered to be Führer (mit der Führung beauftragt) of the SS-Sturm 2/II/I in Munich. As Jochen von Lang tells us, Wolff only became Führer of that SS-Sturm, because no leader of a higher rank was available. His promotion was delayed, however, because admission to the leader corps required certain proceedings. Heinrich Hoeflich wrote a recommendation on 20 January 1932 which was presented to the corps leadership on 22 March 1932. After endorsement the matter stuck on Hoeflich's desk until the end of June. For the personnel files the promotion was dated back to 18 February. (Top Nazi, 2013, pp. 7-9) So which one is the correct date? I would also have asked for an explanation of the different dates for certain promotions of Eicke given by Weise and Lilla on the one hand and English Wikipedia on the other, but as OberRanks has explained he will not have access to his files for some weeks. I think, however, that illustrates the problems of verifiability, and published vs available to the public quite nicely.--Assayer (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Things like backdating promotions, etc. should be covered in the records; and since the records like the SS files in NARA are publicly available, I don't them see them as unpublished. But obviously you're a strict constructionalist on this issue and I am not. You are quite right to ask for clarification about the differing dates in your examples above, but you cannot always expect an answer, nor should you delete that material if no answer is received. Any discrepancies should be covered in a note, pending further research, which may or may not ever be performed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

entirely agree with Sturm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Assessing consensus

The above comments and discussion have been really beneficial. However, as we have seen in a recurring pattern, discussions like this will happen, people will cool down a bit, and then a few weeks will go by (or perhaps months) and then the same issue will come up again with a renewed round of removing SS rank and award material. The two schools of thought are that 1) rank and awards are allowed on Wikipedia as pertinent biographical material and 2) the material is related to Nazism and added dates and ranks generates undue weight. Some kind of common ground needs to be found so that this cycle does not keep happening over and over again. Thank you to all. -O.R.Comms 15:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@OberRanks: - I think, if it really comes to it, we could apply extended confirmed protection to all related articles so inexperienced editors don't remove information on a whim. It could work. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I would actually recommend an administrator keep an eye on this situation. If the same users reappear in six to eight months, categorically blanking cited SS ranks and Nazi awards from articles, then stronger action may be needed. There has also been a lot of noise from one or two editors that "no consensus has been reached". I would disagree and state that the vast majority of editors, in over four separate discussions about this topic, have all agreed that rank and award information is perfectly acceptable in these types of articles. -O.R.Comms 20:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The result at the Karl Wolff discussion was:

  • "Closed as Moot. There is no clear consensus below about appropriateness of including SS awards in military/paramilitary bios, and it is not likely to be found here." (link) K.e.coffman

I noted above that O.R. did not notify other contributors who took part in the Karl Wolff discussion; I don't believe this has occurred yet. Many of the awards in question are party or SS awards; they are non-combat decorations and thus do not fall under "Military history". In any case, consensus achieved in prior discussion @ MilHist is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and does not represent the community consensus. I believe this indicates "no consensus", as presently stands. Perhaps these threads come up periodically because various editors find these listings problematic? Please see an earlier comment by another contributor: "why do we love, in en:WP, to entertain the reader by listing awards after awards?. Given that the Wolff discussion brought up issues of NPOV, I believe that the more appropriate venue for a "central" discussion would have been the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe this board is an appropriate venue for discussion of this issue, even if many are "party or SS awards". The articles are still part of the military history section and are assessed by this section of Wikipedia (among others). Kierzek (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Please stop misrepresenting the Karl Wolff discussion. The discussion was "closed as moot" because all of the awards and rank information was moved to a new article at "Service record of Karl Wolff". There have also been no less than four other discussions cited in this debate, all of them overwhelming favoring including this material. Honestly (at present), it appears to be simply you and one other editor who have persistently called for the removal of this material. I like the citation idea, mainly that this material can stay in if cited, but beyond that if its removed repeatedly as cited sourced information, that is bordering on disruptive editing.
There have been far too many people involved in this issue over the past ten to twelve years to notify them all. As for Karl Wolff, most of those who spoke there have spoken here. Notification is a courtesy; an editor is not required to do extensive research on who has commented on a past post and notify them. if you have observed a significant editor has been left out of this discussion, you have every right to notify them as well. -O.R.Comms 22:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I note that editor Peacemaker has been notified by the OP, but not other contributors to the most recent discussion on the Wolff awards. I believe this is "selective notification", no?
And, how else can one interpret: "There is no clear consensus below about appropriateness of including SS awards in military/paramilitary bios, and it is not likely to be found here."? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I hope I don't offend anyone here, but the idea that listing ranks and awards of a military figure violates NPOV is pretty ridiculous. Now, if we were saying what a great guy the person was for earning such awards, that would be a POV issue. But simply stating a rank and award history out of a personnel file is about as neutral as one can get. -O.R.Comms 22:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
From the Wolff article: "In 1942 Wolff oversaw the deportation transports during 'Grossaktion Warschau'..." This sounds like a police function to me, not performed by a military figure. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Militarized police, sure. Almost all of the various German police units/types were incorporated into the SS, although not the Waffen-SS. Those policemen who did become part of the 4th SS-Polizei Division were not transferred to the Waffen-SS until 1942.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
At the end of the war, Wolff was a Waffen-SS general and the de facto commander of German forces in the Italian Social Republic. Even if he wasn't a "military figure" per se, he is cited in enough sources as an extremely important figure in the Nazi era to warrant an article with broad covering information. -O.R.Comms 15:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any active disruption now, the award-rank section blanking has seemingly stopped, and at the very least there is agreement that rank and award material should be cited. As far as this other endless cycle of protestations - i.e. the merits of Nazi awards on Wikipedia, certain awards being "insignificant", and now stating that notable World War Ii figures are actually minor and to cover them extensively is POV editing - I think a lot of people have simply lost patience with that endless debate since it appears to be coming from literally only one or two editors. If this kicks up again in 6 months to a year I imagine we will all be back here again, or possible at ANI if such actions are determined to be tendentious editing. -O.R.Comms 14:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Why single out the W-SS? Perhaps editors might reflect on the function it can serve, like implicitly legitimising the same behaviour by post-1945 organisations. Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I would like to illustrate the issue of undue weight a little further. Working on the article on Karl Wolff I found numerous errors and poor citations. Of course any article could use some additional work and as a collaborative project Wikipedia grows by the contributions of various individuals with different expertise. But before you can work on the details, you'll have to get the basics right. To discuss photographs of Wolff wearing uniforms seems to be intricate detail distracting from what he actually did while occupying key positions in the SS. Given the way Wolf is dealt with in historiography and the issues that are raised in historiography, I would even say it is utterly confusing that so much emphasis is put on such trivial issues. Someone, I believe it was Sturmvogel, has argued somewhere else, that Wikipedia was not only for the general public, but also for the specialists. Still the specialists have to consider, whether the content they cherish so much is of importance and of interest for the general public and what kind of image it conveys within the general context of the article itself.--Assayer (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the comprehensiveness criteria and the existing consensus on what is included in military history biographical articles for them to be comprehensive. Ranks, promotions and awards are not trivia, they are relevant detail to the military (or paramilitary) aspects of a person's biography. To argue otherwise is, frankly, ludicrous. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
At the end of the day, most on those on this discussion have agreed that ranks and awards are perfectly acceptable for inclusion in these types of articles. The continuous back-and-forth with basically what appears to be only two editors has strayed into several off topic areas. As I said, however, the one good thing that came out of this was that these rank and awards lists should be cited. I'm all for that. -O.R.Comms 05:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually I did not really expect you to appreciate my argument. What I am talking about, is the narrative that is constructed by listing even the most trivial awards like Sport Badges or Julleuchter. It becomes even more bizarre, when the article Service record of Karl Wolff dwells upon photographs like the one, which depicts Wolff wearing a black SS uniform, walking beside Himmler, in the winter of 1933 or even discusses a photograph of which there are only reports. The discussion of medals and awards inadvertently adds an heroic dimension even to Theodor Eicke. Don't get me wrong. Niels Weise discusses the awards and promotions Eicke received, when he received it and why. So these things are important, as long as they are put into perspective. For example, was Eicke's career an extraordinary one or not? WP:UNDUE notes, however, that viewpoints have to be represented in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources and adds that undue weight can be given by depth of detail. I have explained why I do not consider SS Officer Personnel Files to be reliable, published sources, and why Wikipedians should not work with them. But enough of that. The whole discussion here was not intended to be an exchange of arguments, was it? It was about the one good thing, namely to confirm the "consensus" that these rank and awards lists should be cited. It is still important to outline other arguments, however, because consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments, not by the number of editors who happen to agree.--Assayer (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the SS was determined by the tribunals at Nuremberg to have been a criminal organization. Would we include the awards given by a Mafia group to their minions? I don't see why not, so long as the information is reliably sourced. We're here to report, not to judge. If the awards were rescinded that can be reported too. Felsic2 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting comparison (I kinda like it, actually). The main difference would be that all of the awards awarded to the SS were legitimate decorations as approved by the government of the state, as compared to unofficial awards presented by an informal or unofficial recognized group. Even the political decorations of the Nazi Party, as authorized to appear on SS uniforms, were sanctioned by the German government as official state awards through the process of Gleichschaltung. -O.R.Comms 18:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
To state that the "discussion of medals and awards inadvertently adds an heroic dimension" is a personal opinion which is disingenuous to the editors herein who work hard to add detail, write objectively and add RS cites to articles. We are here to inform readers both new and long term on subjects and we have a duty to present it through a "comprehensive criteria", as Peacemaker states above, which has been part of the "existing consensus on what is included in military history biographical articles". Kierzek (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
To speak of the heroic dimension of medals and awards is "disingenous" to the editors herein? That medals and awards convey the image of heroism is a staple of historical-sociological and cultural-anthropological analyses of the military and of heroism as a social construct. The notion that it is somewhat "disingenous" to call that practice by its name seems odd. Several editors have been outspoken of their intention to "let the Germans have their heroes". The idea that military biographies can be written objectively without any agenda except informing readers comprehensively on certain subjects is methodologically naĩve, a remnant from 19th century historicism. What I would call "disingenous", however, is the persistent attitude and talk by quite a few "veteran editors" that a critical approach towards certain literature and towards certain ways of presenting information, is somewhat suspicious, against consensus, tendentious, disruptive, anti-German, short of book burning, and so forth. Guess what, it is hard work to review both articles and literature. --Assayer (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't cherry-pick my comments, please. Read what I wrote in context; it is "disingenuous" to editors who do legitimately work hard here to build an encyclopedia to say that they are adding awards and medals sections to bio articles to convey a type of heroic image. And yes, one can write in an npov presentation to give an even handed point-of-view of a subject; I never said anything is perfect; as for the rest, I don't believe it needs a reply. Frankly, this discussion is becoming a dead horse at this point. We agree on one thing: "...it is hard work to review both articles and literature". I agree and have been doing that for a long time herein. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kierzek: If you call upon me not to cherry-pick your comments, please read my comments more closely. I did not say that editors add awards and medals awards and medals sections to bio articles to convey a type of heroic image, although I have met some who do so and are outspoken about that. I spoke of discussions of medals and awards which inadvertently (according to my dictionary: "without knowledge or intent") add an heroic dimension to biographical articles.--Assayer (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What's the Wiki typeface?

Ive been using Open Office but have Word now and it's punctuating in a serif typeface, which buggers up apostrophes when used for italics thus. thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keith-264, Are you sure it's the typeface you're using? I think it's more likely that Word is automatically turning quotes into 'curly quotes', which is one of their defaults. In my version of word (as I'm not sure what version you're using) go through the following pathway: File > Options > Proofing > Autocorrect > Autoformat as you type > Deselect the 'smart quotes' option. That should mean it defaults to a straight quote. Hope this helps, The Bounder (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah,so that's it. I re-downloaded open office but I'll give it a go. Er, where is File? Keith-264 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Its Word 2007Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
'Tis done, I found it in Word options. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Help With Wikimedia File Name Change

Ahoy, just hoping someone can help me create a better filename for this image— https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ray_Wagner_Collection_Image_(16344668175).jpg. It's "Ike" Kepford in his White 29 F4U-1A. Kepford was a member of the VF-17 Jolly Rogers, a legendary land-based WWII squadron operating from Ondonga and Bougainville. Presently working on a page for him, since he's one of the highest-scoring US aces without an article. Another (worse, in my opinion) version of this image exists but it has the much better filename 'F4U-1A Corsair of VF-17 in flight in 1944.' Anyway, help is appreciated. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I can do that. What do you want it renamed to? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Ira Kepford's Number 29 Vought F4U-1A Corsair.jpg would be just fine. Seems adequately descriptive that way. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. It's at c:File:Ira Kepford's Number 29 Vought F4U-1A Corsair (Ray Wagner Collection Image (16344668175)).jpg. I kept the identifier because it might be important to someone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Some assistance with a couple articles including Jacob Lobmeyer

Hi there! I am new to this WikiProject and was wondering if someone could assist me with this Jacob_Lobmeyer stub article that I have been working on. So far I have only found one reference for it. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! :D

Others I have created so far have been Hans Vohburger (Wehrmacht Oberleutnant) and Michel Bletterman. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: G'day, List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L) spells Lobmeyer's name differently, so potentially there might be more sources if you search using the alternative spelling? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Help expanding Draft:Cannabis and the United States military (marijuana)

WikiProject Cannabis is planning a big collab for 15-30 April this year, and a lot of us are preparing drafts to publish during that window, and starting early on the ones that would benefit from larger input. While researching for Cannabis in Panama I found mention that US troops were smoking marijuana in the Canal Zone as early as 1916, and the military did studies to figure out how detrimental it was or wasn't, concluding at the time it wasn't a big problem. Also found mentions of medical use of cannabis by military medics and veterinarians, lots of interesting little tidbits I'm trying to weave together into an article.

My draft is at Draft:Cannabis and the United States military, and I'd welcome anyone interested to help in building it up, maybe we can even put it up for a DYK in April if it gets strong enough. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian military deception

I'd appreciate any input from WikiProject Good Article participants here about listing Russian military deception. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This RfC...

...may be of interest to the members of this project: [16]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion/Proposal on Template:Infobox military person

Now probably on the MOS talk itself, too.

Another discussion that might be of interest. Specifically as a proposal has been made. It is in continuation of those other two discussions about the issue of the applying capitalization rules outside of sentences.

Apparently the views are conflicting with each other and both sides, one of those being me, think to have a case per wikipedias manual of style. As our project is the one that works with both the content and the infobox I put it up here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

RfD notification: First aerial victory by the U.S. military

First aerial victory by the U.S. military and some of its variants have been nominated for deletion. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 16#First aerial victory by the U.S. military would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Barking Creek

This article needs some help.

It's very interesting - about the first Brit pilot casualty of WWII, from a friendly fire incident.

Unfortunately, some of it doesn't make sense.

Wyresider (talk · contribs) posted questions on the talk page in August 2015, but unfortunately nobody has responded. He's asked again today on helpdesk [17] [18].

So, can somebody help? Please see - and respond - at Talk:Battle of Barking Creek, thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

War crimes by the 239th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht

I am looking for more information and references regarding war crimes committed by the 239th Infantry Division at Katowice following the German invasion in 1939. The German Katowice Wiki article references a book by Jochen Böhler Der Überfall: Deutschlands Krieg gegen Polen [The Invasion: Germany's War against Poland]. Unfortunately not the entire section is referenced. The German Wiki article indicates that although the Polish Army had retreated from Katowice, members of the 239th Infantry Division executed 80 civilians and burned down the Great Synagogue, Katowice. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Polish airman killed by British civilians?

In Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain#Poland it is stated that: "...30 Polish airmen were killed during the Battle. One of them died at the hands of an angry crowd in east London". Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Any help at Talk:Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain/Archives/2017/March#Polish airman killed by British civilians? would be appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If the people in the crowd took Polish for German, and weren't familiar with British pattern vs German pattern aircrew dress, it seems quite possible. The incident described, baling out and landing in Wapping, makes sense and is backed by a reference. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It may be "possible" but did it happen? On what day? What was the man's name? Nobody knows... The reference is The Guinness Book of Military Anecdotes for goodness' sake. Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a scene in the film Battle of Britain where a Polish pilot parachutes into a field and is frogmarched at pitchfork point (presumably into custody) because the folk who find him assume he is an enemy airman. Britmax (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems well attested that some allied airmen were "captured" during the Battle of Britain by local defenders. The issue is whether a Polish airman was actually killed by a mob of eastenders. Monstrelet (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Not wholly similar but one reason for the decision to pay a bounty to the Home Guard for captured airman was a umber of instances of them shooting bailed out Polish pilots. So given this (and no actual source that contests the claim) I see no issue here, beyond a need to attribute the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26 am, Today (UTC+0)
Do you have a reference for Polish pilots being shot or even shot at? It happened to James Brindley Nicolson, but he wasn't Polish. Alansplodge (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And I can't find a ref for the Home Guard bounty, except for an episode of Dad's Army. Alansplodge (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
[deleted in error] apolsKeith-264 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
[19].Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but no shot Poles yet? Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

A number of templates have been nominated for discussion. They can be found here:

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Task forces for Templates and Disambiguation articles?

Should one add task force to these articles? Is "no-task-force=y" appropriate?

  • I wouldn't bother doing it at all, but if you think that it's worthwhile, no task force is fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Usage of Succession boxes for military commanders

Is the usage of succession boxes for military commanders within MILHIST style policy? See for example Nikanor Zakhvatayev. Kges1901 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Most German WWII generals have them; sample: Erich Abraham. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
And British generals (Bernard Paget and Harold Franklyn for example), although some of their US colleagues seem to go without (Mark W. Clark doesn't have one, but Ernest J. Dawley does). Alansplodge (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

GA reassesment required

For the British Army- here is the original: Talk:British Army/GA2. I'm not necesarilly disputing the result, but it's unlikely- verging, in truth, on the impossible- that that represents a review of the thoroughness the page deserves. Actually, I'm amazed that it hasn't already been a GA or more for a while now. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. An article like that needs a very experienced reviewer; it's not an easy thing to write, nor to review. Just from a quick run through the sourcing doesn't look strong enough and the sources there are aren't consistently formatted. There's no way it would survive a formal reassessment in its current condition. It's in a lot better shape than it could be, but there's a lot of work to go yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy

Hi all. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our movement's overall goals, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?". It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (FAQ, lists of other community discussions, etc). (Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, please let me know. Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Medieval foot armour

Please see move discussion at Talk:Sabaton In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Do sources need to be in English?

Can you please provide your comments at: Talk:Battle of Ap Bau Bang#RfC: Language of sources regards Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No they don't need to be In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
However, it is strongly encouraged where it is possible; as they can be easily read and checked that way. And unlike the past, many books are translated into English editions these days; also this is English Wikipedia. Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The issue seems to be one of POV, the sources put "the other sides" version of events. Quite often such material is not published in English.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have boldly closed the RfC. Whether individual non-English sources are reliable, or of a similar or higher quality than available English sources is an appropriate discussion to be had and decided on a case-by-case basis. But whether non-English sources are categorically disqualified is not up for debate, and if it were, the appropriate places to make that case (which would surely fail) would be at WP:VP or WP:V. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Ernest Hemingway covert WWII work (MilHist interest)

There is a RFC discussion about Ernest Hemingway's recruitment by the Office of Strategic Services, Office of Naval Intelligence, NKVD, and missions during WWII as well as a related Section on sources which may be of interest to the greater project. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

Several categories that are relevant to this project has been nominated for discussion. Please see:

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Military magazines

I've noticed Category:Military magazines; this seems horribly ambiguous for a military topic category name. Since it is concerning military, wouldn't ammunition clip, ammunition magazine, or armoury be a very likely confusion for such a name ? Category:Military periodicals or Category:Military periodical magazines would seem to make more sense -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

G'day, it might be best to use the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion process here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to see an opinion from MILHIST before filing for one of those -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted RfC at Talk:Cold War II

I relisted the RfC, Talk:Cold War II#RfC: "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section. I re-invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

More reviewers requested at A-class review

Hello, if anyone has some time to spare, several nominations for A-class at WP:MHACR are in need of another reviewer or two to help move things along. The following have been open for a while and are close to promotion but are waiting for more feedback:

If you have time to review one or more of these, the coordinators, and I'm sure the nominators, would be very grateful! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

WWII photos

The photos in this story from the BBC were taken by Wolfram von Richthofen, who died in 1945. As such, they are in the public domain, arent they? Might be useful to snaffle them and do a little bit of trimming. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They are in Europe (and other countries that use the 70PMA rule), but unfortunately in the US the URAA extended copyrights for foreign works. The question is if and when they were published. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK, they were unpublished before cataloging for auction. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
If unpublished before 1 January 2016 then they are also PD in the US as unpublished works with a known author are also PMA+70 years under US law. Nthep (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Marks as backlog at 10, not 20 as article states

Category:Military history articles with no associated task force says, "If this category gets 20 items or more, it will report as a backlog," but it appears to be marked as backlog at 10 or more.--Trilotat (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Either I was mistaken or this has been corrected.Trilotat (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Favour to ask on Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War...

I've a quick favour to ask of any naval historians out there. I'm reviewing Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War, where there has been a slow burning disagreement between several editors to the geographical scope of the article - should it focus on the events of the Atlantic Ocean, or extend more widely, for example to the Indian Ocean? This matters to my review, as it would determine if the article as it stands gives a reasonable coverage of the topic or not. I'm not a specialist in this period, and if anyone with more knowledge fancied leaving an opinion, I'd much certainly appreciate it. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm more interested in American history then Naval history in particular, but my answer would be that it does not - I can see why its causing trouble since the Anglo-French War is the broader conflict for France, and likely why France intervened at all, but we are treating it as part of the American Revolutionary War. But to answer your question, I do not think Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War gives reasonable coverage of the historical background for France becoming involved in the War, though this could be just a paragraph since there is already an article on the topic. I would suggest putting this in as a background to "France enters the theatre" Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Helping out with the favor you asked, since this is about the American Revolution, I'ved tagged the article for use of American English and changed the theatre to theater and the harbours to harbors (particularly in place names). As for the main question, I think the Indian Ocean stuff is pretty remote, but some thought might be given to exapansion of action in the Caribbean. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Since an editor has chosen to revert my edits and even tag the article for use of British English, I have opened a discussion of that subject on the article's talk page. Although it would appear that Bertdrunk would rather revert again than enter into this discussion. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That's slightly unfair on Bertdrunk, as he responded to your thread 12 minutes after you posted it. I'm not entirely sure of the rationale for tagging for American English: the first version of the article used British not American English and it has been tagged for British English since at least last year. The war involved Britain too and is as much part of British history as American history (and so there is no claim to WP:TIES on either side. Regardless of all that, it would be better if common terms could be found. I switched "France enters the theatre" to "France enters the war", while "port" and other synonyms can be used in place of harbo(u)r in a few places. I'm not sure that the original poster was asking for a favour with an EngVar battle, but more over the geographical scope of the article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI there is a somewhat slow-moving edit war over many articles on naval engagements during the period 1778-1783, between editors who believe they are part of the American Revolutionary War, and others (often anonymous and possibly a single person) who categorize them into Anglo-French or Anglo-Spanish War categories and remove references to the ARW. This article is just another part of that dispute. (By "slow-moving", I mean that articles on my watchlist have been subjected to it for probably two years, if not longer, with significant time between edits in either direction. I'm not involved.) Magic♪piano 21:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Determined editor at it again at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands

Longstanding editors may remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat, about a enormous and incoherent article created by a very determined editor who wanted everything in 'his' article to remain exactly the way he saw fit - basically had no idea about WP:OWN. I've been attempting to reason with this editor, Johnvr4, at User talk:Mark Arsten. Seemingly one of the results is that he's created the above offshoot, back into the mainspace, about nuclear weapons issues only peripherally related to Red Hat. But he is absolutely ironclad that his new article shall remain untouched, including sentences in the lead which aren't about anything that's mentioned in the body of the article. Would some uninvolved eyes please review both the text and the talkpage, please, and give some third opinions? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What to look for? 2013 was about four years ago. The material in my sandbox (originally part of the 2013 article) has been redeveloped and updated with additional sources for the last four years. I am absolutely ironclad in the belief that one needs to follow our reliable sources which the above editor has confirmed in other discussion that he did not do and did not intend to do.
What this editor has decided to bring to you is this text from the 2013 deleted article:

On January 18, 1959, an F-100 Super Sabre in ground alert configuration and armed with a nuclear air-to-air missile caught fire at an unnamed U.S pacific air base. The fire was reportedly quickly put out and there was apparently no danger to the nuclear weapon.[1] At that time, it is known that nuclear armed F-100 aircraft in the Pacific were based at Okinawa, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Thailand.[1] More than 50 years later, the specific location of this potential nuclear accident has never been disclosed by the government of United States.[2]

This new article is is where I believe the material described above should go:
U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands # Suspected nuclear weapons incidents on Okinawa (to be renamed:) U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan.
U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands is an offshoot of the 2013 deleted article Operation RED HAT in that the 2013 version of OP red hat had a section: Secrecy of WMD deployment to Okinawa (Japan):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Johnvr4/Operation_Red_Hat&oldid=559315568#Secrecy_of_WMD_deployment_to_Okinawa
Please note that the new focused subject article, U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands # Suspected nuclear weapons incidents on Okinawa (to be renamed:) U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan, does not even once mention OP Red Hat.
A discussion on this material is here:Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Original_research.3F_.2F_synthesis.3F_removed.2C_failure_to_WP:BRD.3F. However, the entire extent of the concern that this editor raised in discussion on the above material is (all of it) is: "Listen to the other editor, please, Johnvr4: there is no consensus to include this statement, which lacks some WP:Verifiability. Please stop flogging this dead horse. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)"
One does not have to accept my synopsis of events, please review the talk page sections of that article.
While I type here, the editor is still edit-warring[20] over other disputed content: diff, diff, diff, diff.
Yet the editor refuses to discuss any of the contested material on the articles talk page diff and we are left to "discuss" his contested in edit summaries and also here with the the editors misrepresentation to the project.
There certainly is a lot of history here since 2013-99% of which that editor left out. For a diff with a huge long list of content discussions with this editor(see link at bottom).
I at times don't (or didn't) understand the WP policy on a particular dispute (sometimes the existence of that policy), so if one exists, please point me to those policies and helpfully clarify it to me if I misapply them. The above editor has repeatedly stated his intent to separate me from draft material in my sandbox and has made numerous threats and attempts to do so. The opposing editor continues to repeatedly remove sourced content and frequently inserts gibberish into main articles[21] with arguments that are based upon utter ignorance of the subject. This is especially troublesome because this editor has stated an unwillingness to and assertions that he did not review our reliable sources in contested edits. for example, he has actually stated that he did not review any of the sources that are cited when he restarted Operation Red Hat (not even the citation that he put a retrieval date on) which I am so troubled by that I can't even put it into words.
Forcing (or enforcing) my edit text appear essentially unchanged is just a misrepresentation. Operation Red Hat was the very WP first article I developed and I really had no direction or help or idea what to do with it and it is probably full of mistakes that shouldn't be maintained. The article edits I made were also right at a time (around 2012-ish) that the subject was being redefined in highly reliable sources (my so-called "history of OR"). Some editors, and especially that one, have utterly resisted any redefinition of the subject based upon newer sources and they continue to do so. When I did ask for this editors input it was only per the request of the original deleting editor and as a courtesy. Buckshot06 among many other editors felt my draft was too large and covered too many subjects. I was asked to break up the material and move it to main space. At that point, Operation Red Hat was recreated by that editor. He states his purpose was NOT to create the very article that he already well knew I was in the process of creating since that was the ONLY reason I even contacted him. He says he just wanted a brief summary for Operation Red Hat in the main space.
So, I moved a part, US nukes in the J-islands, out of the draft into a new article: U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands and it was immediately set upon my this editor who deleted sourced content and then took to inserting falsehoods[22] or inserted unsourced content to replace it[23] into the main space and other dubious edits with dubious concerns. Of the text that I submitted into the new article, he put the entire thing into a place that I explained it would never ever fit: Japan and weapons of mass destruction. I explained that because the page he selected would cover all of the same subjects in my draft plus a ton of more VERY large controversies, it simply wont fit there as he left it and summaries are needed on that page.
While he is making the above arguments, that U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands must go here: Japan and weapons of mass destruction, simultaneously, he appears to make the suggestion that his incomplete and poorly executed or researched Operation Red Hat re-creation stub (also deleted once) does not go right here: Japan and weapons of mass destruction # U.S.chemical weapons in Japan.
I'm happy to explain any aspect needing clarification but literally no one would want to read all that discussion. The current problem between us is here: Talk:U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands and there are links to all of the other discussions there. I have repeatedly asked for RFC (3 times in discussion and here: as well as long ago in other places I've lost track of). Admin input and advice to resolve these matters and improve our content is highly welcomed! Thank you in advance, Johnvr4 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The follow up explanation as requested: User_talk:Nick-D# U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands Johnvr4 (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

National World War I Museum and Memorial

Hi,

I'm confused: This article has two tags for this project, two different ratings, and one of them won't change. I don't understand the extra code that follows the ratings, either, because I'm new at this. Can someone take a look please? Article's Talk page. RM2KX (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@RM2KX: I have fixed it. MILHIST requires a b class checklist. If you don't provide this checklist it will suppress any attempt to make it B or C class. Even though the actual text said it was C, the lack of the checklist made it show a "Start" class. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! RM2KX (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fall Rot

Is there a convention for using the German term as the article title or using a translation (Case Red → Fall Rot) as it seems both ways (Case Blue → Fall Blau) are in use?Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Keith-264. Per WP:UE, titles should generally follow the convention used in English sources. So if English sources use the non-English terms, (Fall Rot/Blau) then so should Wikipedia. If they usually use the translated terms (Case Blue/Red), then we should also. TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks TimKeith-264 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I did a web search using the German and English translations and the German ones predominated. It'll take longer to check the sources. regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Combined citation question

Operation Harpoon (1942) I tried to combine {{sfn|Playfair|2004|pp=299, 253–298, 331–340}} and {{sfn|Greene|Massignani|2002|pp=230–231}} into {{sfnm|Playfair|2004|1pp=299, 253–298, 331–340|Greene|Massignani|2002|2pp=230–231}} copying the formula from Battle of Buna–Gona ({{sfnm|Bullard|2007|1pp=94–176|Milner|1957|2pp=54–121}}) but it didn't work. What have I missed? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it because 2 authors are listed in the middle in the first use of the sfnm template. Try it with 'and' or '&' like this: {{sfnm|Playfair|2004|1pp=299, 253–298, 331–340|Greene & Massignani|2002|2pp=230–231}}, which seems to display fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Or use the |1a1 and |2a1 labels for the authors as listed at Template:Sfnm, like this: {{sfnm|1a1=Playfair|2004|1pp=299, 253–298, 331–340|2a1=Greene|2a2= Massignani|2002|2pp=230–231}} -Fnlayson (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I did wonder about the dual author bit; I'll have a go.Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it's still getting red on like this "Harv error: link from #CITEREFPlayfair2002 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from #CITEREFGreeneMassignani doesn't point to any citation."Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorted. You need to differentiate which is the first citation, which is the second, etc using the format along the lines of {{sfnm|1a1=Playfair|1y=2004|1pp=299, 253–298, 331–340|2a1=Greene|2a2=Massignani|2y=2002|2pp=230–231}}. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, although you'll have to resign from being a bounder for helping. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
LOL - I'll go and do something caddish to make up for it, I think! - The Bounder (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Center for Defense Information (1981). "U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents: Danger in our Midst" (PDF). The Defense Monitor Vol. X, number 5. Retrieved April 13, 2013.
  2. ^ William Burr (April 12, 2013). "Atomic Energy Act Prevents Declassification of Site of 1958 "Broken Arrow" Nuclear Weapons Accident". The National Security Archive, The Gelman Library, George Washington University. Retrieved April 13, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_138&oldid=1136049784"