Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 151

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

Aircraft categories

Hey, Military History WikiProject,

I'm not sure where to post this but this is a very active WikiProject so it might as well be this talk page! I just noticed that today, there are suddenly dozens of empty aircraft categories. I'm not sure if there have been a lot of article deletions or just some reorganization going on. But you might check out Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion at the bottom of the right-hand column. In case something is out of order, you have 7 days before these empty categories will be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I've put ~300 up for speedy rename @ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Current requests that were omitted from the successful CfD, and it looks like I'll be adding a few more. Any categories matching the format Category:Swiss aircraft 1920–1929 should be renamed to the format Category:1920s Swiss aircraft as an addendum to that CfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank, Tom. I appreciate the explanation. It's a lot of work putting up that many categories for renaming. Kudos! I hope it goes smoothly. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Probably best you let the WP:AIRCRAFT project know as they are the related project for that category scheme. MilborneOne (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment: Jagdgeschwader 1

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Haine nominated for deletion

trying to add A class review Comment Rhine Campaign of 1795

Hi I'm trying to add an article for A-class review.

  • I've moved the old archived review to ..../archive1
  • added A-Class=current to template

And nothing happens. The "red link" that is supposed to appear is blue, and leads to the archived review. What am I doing wrong, please? auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ruth, you left the redirect behind. I've deleted it, so you should be GTG now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Any use?

[1] - SS Leviathan, + an unconnected text. Is it any use to us? Also [2] for the Battle of Verdun? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 02:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Frequent Wind U.S. evacuation from South Vietnam removed from MACV page

While I await (especially) third opinions on the CINCPAC Command History text above, I have taken the liberty of removing the 1975 evacuation of U.S. personnel from South Vietnam from the MACV article, because MACV's existence ended in early 1973. The whole section duplicates material from an agency article which definitely was in SVN in 1975, the Embassy of the United States, Saigon. The MACV page was previously distorted significantly by inclusion of post-1973 details. I wasn't sure whether to add this note to the discussion above, but it's actually separate. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No, don't "take the liberty", there is an ongoing discussion above and you shouldn't make your changes to any more pages pending the outcome of those discussions. Mztourist (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
In this specific matter, you're being absurd. I am awaiting other third opinions on the DAO matter. But re the evacuation, MACV was disestablished in 1973. The command *did not exist* after that point. Frequent Wind occurred in 1975, two years later. They are not connected, apart from being both part of the end of the Vietnam War, and belong on separate pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Absurd is you moving details to the US embassy page when there was ongoing discussion of whether DAO Saigon was part of the Embassy. As per the discussion above, it wasn't, so DTS and move all details of the evacuation to a new DAO Saigon page. Mztourist (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I acknowledge your comment. I disagree, clearly; both the USAF source saying 'its defense attache office,' and the command history saying that the professional attache functions remained reporting to the Ambassador show that a routine defence attache functionality, part of the Embassy, remained throughout. That made the DAO part of the Embassy. Frequent Wind involved the whole of the Embassy, not just the DAO, so the details on the Embassy page about Frequent Wind is where it should stay. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't wish to split the discussion any more, the evidence above is against you as is consensus. Mztourist (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Defence Attaches within Embassies

I am engaged at Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam with Mztourist, who while having spent significant amounts of time on the Vietnam War does not appear to understand the place of a Defence Attache being within an Embassy. In 1972-73 the Military Assistance Command Vietnam HQ was downsized into a enormous Defense Attache Office, under a two-star Defense Attache, made up of over 400 personnel. Given that the organization changed from being an independent DOD command to a DOD major general and staff being part of the large Embassy of the United States, Saigon, I moved the section on the DAO into the Embassy page, where Mztourist tried to remove it. Can I please have some third opinions to advise Mztourist that Defense Attaches aren't independent floating officials responsible to nobody, but are part of Embassies and responsible to Ambassadors? Much appreciate some third opinions here. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Buckshot06 makes some broad unsubstantiated statements and snide comments here, firstly that I don't "appear to understand the place of a Defence Attache being within an Embassy", I understand how a Defense Attache normally works, but that was not the case for DAO Saigon. Secondly he says that DAO "changed from being an independent DOD command to a DOD major general and staff being part of the large Embassy of the United States, Saigon" but without providing any WP:RS that supports this. Thirdly I have never suggested that the Defense Attaches are "independent floating officials responsible to nobody, but are part of Embassies and responsible to Ambassadors." simply that they weren't part of the Embassy and so the sections shouldn't be moved to the Embassy page but should remain on the MACV page or created as a separate page. In support of my position in the discussion on Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam#Move of DAO section to Embassy of the United States, Saigon I referred Buckshot06 to this US Army official history: [3] and in particular these statements: "Because DAO Saigon was subordinate to USSAG [United States Support Activities Group] in operational and intelligence fields, the normal flow of tasking and reporting was through USSAG to CINCPAC and the JCS in Washington." (pages 18-9); "They were given detailed briefings by the Embassy and DAO" (page 144); and "fact sheets prepared by DAO, the JGS, and the American Embassy" (page 145). Buckshot06 however has not provided anything that supports his position other than general references to the role of Defense Attaches and his own assertions. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's try it around the other way. I have stated the Defense Attache and his staff were part of the Embassy. You have said they were not, an exception from the normal practice. Can you provide some additional materials about USSAG's command structure and how/why they ended up with, as part of their TOE structure, such a misleadingly named department, situated in another country? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Can I suggest the best place to have this discussion is the article talk page rather than splitting it and having it both here and there? Perhaps a neutrally-worded RfC would be the best way to resolve the dispute? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Buckshot06 you're the one who has made the changes to these pages which have been stable for years. I have given a WP:RS, you don't get to say "let's try it around the other way", you provide WP:RS that DAO Saigon was part of the US Embassy. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not the way WP:BURDEN works, quite. You bear the WP:BURDEN for introducing the material on DAO Saigon into the MACV article with this edit of 14 January 2010. You never referenced it, but it came from a Center for Military History 1985 study, 'From Cease Fire to Capitulation.' [4] It's absolutely uncontested that MACV was inactivated on March 29, 1973, so adding the material to that page is inappropriate. I removed, rather than added, any material to that page - the burden is placed on the person who adds or readds, not removes. Meanwhile, I yes bear the burden for adding the material to the Embassy page, and I'm willing to accept that burden; notwithstanding the obvious, remaining, liaison links for ENHANCE and ENHANCE PLUS etc., to USSAG in Thailand, a Defense Attache and DAO, like other attaches, sit under the Ambassador, Graham Martin in this case. You haven't provided any evidence or started a page for DAO being part of United States Security Assistance Group, where I guess at the moment you think the DAO was a part of; you would bear the burden if you started a page for USSAG.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, addendum. Found something incontrovertible. Lt Col A.J.C. Lavalle (ed), Last Flight from Saigon, USAF Southeast Asia Monograph Series. Page vii in the preface: "..in a continuous effort under ever-increasing pressure, the US Embassy in Saigon, and its Defense Attache Office (DAO) there, helped plan, prepare for, and ultimately conduct, the final evacuation from South Vietnam." https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/28/2001330140/-1/-1/0/last_flight_from_saigon2.pdf. DAO Saigon was no exception to normal practice, and, whatever liaison and technical assistance links with USSAG Saigon and thereupon upward to PACOM, was part of the Embassy. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
So you are saying that I have the WP:BURDEN because I originally added the detail of DAO in 2010? OK, done it is the source I gave above, which clearly states that "DAO Saigon was subordinate to USSAG [United States Support Activities Group] in operational and intelligence fields, the normal flow of tasking and reporting was through USSAG to CINCPAC and the JCS in Washington." In relation to your statement that I "haven't provided any evidence... for DAO being part of United States Security Assistance Group, I never referenced that organisation, the quote referred to United States Support Activities Group - notice the difference? As for your source from Lavalle, I find that weak. DAO was a US Army command and so a US Army history is more likely to correctly address the organisational structure than one word in a preface to a USAF report. You expect everyone to accept that "its" is incontovertible support for your position? Despite what the Army history says? You keep going on and on about how defense attaches normally work, but as I have said DAO Saigon was not normal, it was the successor to MACV which ran the Vietnam War. DAO administered military aid and provided logistical and maintenance support to the South Vietnamese military and ran the entire US military intelligence function in Vietnam, all activities vastly more involved than a normal defense attache. Mztourist (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Give it a rest, Mztourist. The DAO was part of the Embassy; the Lavelle source confirms that, and that conforms to the normal practice. It may be a USAF historical study, but that doesn't make it unreliable. The DAO *was not* a U.S. Army command - it was jointly made up of Army, Navy, Air, but mostly contractors and Vietnamese civilians, as the LeGro text shows. Vietnam was not just an Army war, nor are Embassy DAOs just Army. However, it was a DAO in a somewhat unique position, as we know. Most of the operational and intelligence reporting, from the CMH source, did flow to U.S. Support Activities Group/Seventh Air Force, excuse my typo, but that does not move it from it's organisational and administrative subordination to the Ambassador. I've provided a solid source saying it *was* part of the Embassy, and you have nothing to contravene that statement. If you would like additional evidence of the Defense Attache's reporting to the Ambassador, (a) it's in the article itself: "At 07:00, Major General Homer D Smith Jr., the Defence Attache, advised Ambassador Martin that fixed wing evacuations should cease and that Operation Frequent Wind, the helicopter evacuation of U.S. personnel and at-risk Vietnamese should commence. Ambassador Martin refused to accept General Smith's recommendation and instead insisted on visiting Tan Son Nhut to survey the situation for himself," or, (b), the recall of the deputy defense attache to General Smith, Brig. Gen. Richard Baughn, being 'abruptly recalled' to Washington DC, at Ambassador Martin's insistence, for endorsing the 9th MAB's potential use as a Frequent Wind security force without Martin properly clearing it - in the footnote to page 111 of this document.
If the DAO was not part of the Embassy, how could Ambassador Martin have compelled the return home of a Brigadier General?
If you wish to argue that the DAO was part of USSAG/7AF in Thailand, there much be much more evidence available than one offhand reference to correspondence in operational and intelligence matters - can't you find some? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't tell me to "give it a rest", you have provided one word in one line of a USAF report as "incontrovertible evidence". Well here's another WP:RS for you, the official Marine Corps history [5] at page 6 which states "Major General Murray quickly discovered that defense attache duty in Saigon in 1973 would differ significantly from the norm. As the senior American military officer in South Vietnam, he would work with the Ambassador, but report to the Secretary of Defense. The Ambassador only had direct authority over the defense attache in the areas of public affairs and media matters." That together with the US Army history is incontrovertible. I don't need to provide proof of the DAO Saigon reporting line through United States Support Activities Group, just disprove that DAO Saigon was part of the Embassy, which I have done. Drop the stick and revert your changes. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Finally!! "Work together with the Ambassador"!! You've quoted something that admits the DAO was attached to the Ambassador!! We've already agreed that there were two reporting lines; that's clear. What I am arguing, and you have not advanced any evidence against, is that this remnant of HQ MACV was technically part of the Embassy. That accords with all the evidence, yours and mine, and accords with both removal of the data from the MACV article (it was shut down, that's logical), and addition of the data to the Embassy article (that's where the DAO organizationally resided). The DAO was part of the Embassy, though with lots of reporting lines to USSAG/7AF and higher up in the DOD chain. So too do DAOs in Embassies today - responsible to the Ambassador for some things, and responsible to the relevant COCOM, DSCA, and/or DIA for others; in Saigon in 1973 (via USSAG/7AF), in Hanoi today, and worldwide today. But that does not change the technical placing of the DAO within the Embassy. It was clearly *not* part of USSAG/7AF, you haven't even tried to argue that. So no, I will not be reverting my changes. In particular, readding the DAO material to the MACV page would be ridiculous.

'..only in public affairs and media matters?' ..Martin sent the deputy DA home for arguing that the evacuation security force should be a whole Marine Amphibious Brigade!! Clearly things could be fluid, and his authority extended to a much greater extent!!

Try and answer me this: if we remove the data from the MACV page, and we remove it from the Embassy page, where would we put it? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course the DAO worked with the Ambassador! I have never suggested otherwise. "Work with" does not mean "attached to" as you attempt to equate them. Your argument that the DAO was under the Ambassador and the Embassy, is completely contradicted by the quote above from the Marines history which states that the DAO reported to the Secretary of Defense. The quotes I have given from 2 WP:RS are very clear about the role and reporting lines of DAO Saigon and yet you spin them to try to back up your position based on tenuous comments in USAF documents and your own OR. I really don't see how much more explicit sources can get than: "The Ambassador only had direct authority over the defense attache in the areas of public affairs and media matters." DAO Saigon as part of USSAG/7AF is your diversion, all I have ever said about it is the quote from the Army history. As I have said the DAO information belongs back on the MACV page (where it was for 8+ years before you unilaterally changed it based on your own opinions) or a separate page can be created for DAO Saigon. It does not belong on the US Embassy Saigon page, because the 2 WP:RS I have provided clearly state that it was a DoD command and not part of the Embassy. Mztourist (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
None of the information you present provides RS about the DAO being a separate DOD entity. You have provided no organization charts or proper chains of command. You seem to have missed the Ambassador's authority & action to send personnel - the deputy defense attache - home to DC, which substantiates the Ambassador's direct control over DAO personnel. Yes, of course all defense attache staff in all the Embassies do have a line to SecDef, as I wrote above, though not directly. But DAOs are part of embassies. The best place for the information, at present, remains the Embassy page, substantiated by normal practice and the evidence I've provided. If you can provide some kind of alternative evidence about the DAO being part of the DOD structure - where it fitted in, perhaps a 1973 DOD org chart with the DAO Saigon reporting directly to SecDef - we could split it. What's absolutely clear is that it does *not* belong at the MACV page, which was disestablished two months after the DAO was established, and where multiple sources say DAO took over many of its functions - *because* it was disestablished. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, one of the potential advantages for having this discussion at this page was the higher visibility for third opinions. Nobody however has ventured third opinions in the course of this discussion. As the lead coordinator, would you like to comment, or prompt some comment from other coordinators? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: I have just found the 1973 CINCPAC Command History accessible at [6], pages 51 and 52 (77/818 and 78/818), which includes a large slab of text describing the establishment of the 1973-onwards DAO Saigon, and its precise command relationships, to both the Ambassador and CINCPAC. It's quite a long text, so will place it at the MACV talk page where this discussion began, and also at the Embassy article. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
In my view, all your long quote does is establish reporting chains for the DAO. Your own quote has DATT reporting directly to CINPAC for security planning, tasking only with keeping the ambassador informed. Further, dispute resolution between DATT and the chief of diplomatic mission was placed in the hands of the DIA director. The quote does not precisely define command relationships. It states that DATT is to keep the mission "informed," but for anything relating to security assistance it came under CINCPAC and SecDef. It's also odd to suggest that DAO couldn't be viewed as MACV's successor because it was established prior to MACV's closing down. That's how these things normally work...you establish the successor organization prior to folding down the existing organization. Given the scale of military assistance in South Vietnam compared to other regions, I think it's misguided to assume the DAO there would be similar to others at the time. As for the ambassador's authority...they typically have control over who may operate from the embassy, but to suggest that authority extends to control over missions and other activities in all cases simply isn't correct for this time period at least. I would say if you want to split hairs the DAO in this case was attached to the embassy, with the ambassador having normal control over personnel (in terms of sending them home at least). But your own quote clearly states that DAO was responsible to CINCPAC directly for all security assistance programs in SVN. Intothatdarkness 15:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou Intothatdarkness. Third opinions here are super needed. Of the 800+ pages of the 1973 Command History, this was the section of most concentrated relevance. Yes, the DATT was responsible to the Ambassador, Director DIA, and CINCPAC for different functions. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Buckshot06 The quotes I have provided make it very clear that DAO Saigon was not a "normal" defense attache and not under the control of the Embassy. Thank you for the new ref you have provided as it supports what I have been saying already: page 50 makes it clear that DAO Saigon was established by CINCPAC with an Army General in command. Page 51 states that the Defense Attache "was assisted by an Attache element consisting of Service attaches and assistant Service attaches who performed traditional attache functions. The attache element was under the the supervision of the DATT [Defense Attache] and the Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission [Ambassador] to the extent provided by law and in accordance with Executive Orders and such other instructions as the President might promulgate... The DATT was also responsible to the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for all military and political-military intelligence functions. The DATT and his assistant had direct access to the Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission on all attache matters and were to keep the Mission chief fully informed. Unresolved differences between the Mission chief and the DATT concerning attache matters were to be referred by the DATT to the Director of the DIA. Under CINCPAC's responsibility, however, were the DATT's military assistance functions. The DATT was the representative of the Secretary of Defense (and CINCPAC) with respect to the U.S. security assistance program in the RVN and coordinated with the Service divisions in their planning and management of the respective Military Assistance Service Funded (MASF) programs in support of the RVNAF. The DATT was CINCPAC's Single Senior Military Representative in the RVN." This structure seems to be much like the structure of MACV during the war and the description makes it very clear that DAO Saigon was not part of the Embassy. The "attache element" was under the joint control of the Defense Attache and the Ambassador, miltary intelligence went to the DIA, while the military assistance functions were under CINCPAC. And then there's the definitive statement on page 52: "The DAO remained under the command of COMUSMACV until the deactivation of that command on 27 March at which time command passed to the Commander USSAG/7th Air Force." Accordingly the DAO Saigon sections should either be restored to the MACV page (as the sub-command and then direct successor to MACV) or put on a new standalone page. Mztourist (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Based on the sources, my opinion is that while the DAO in Saigon might have been attached to the embassy in a personnel sense (which is normal), in terms of direct command and control it clearly did NOT fall under the embassy. If you want to get all org chart about it, Saigon DAO had a dotted line relationship with the embassy and ambassador, with a solid line relationship existing between it and CINCPAC or USSAG/7th AF (depending on the time frame in question). In this it would be similar to the CIA's relationship with embassies and ambassadors: they use diplomatic cover and may be sent home at the request of the ambassador but do not fall under the embassy or ambassador for command and control purposes. As a MACV successor organization and not really a standard DAO operation I think it makes more sense to leave it with MACV. Otherwise it creates the impression that the Saigon DAO was similar to, say, the Defense Attache in the embassy in Norway, and that is clearly not the case. Intothatdarkness 19:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou again for your willingness to intervene in this heated argument Intothatdarkness.
Three things:
DAO Saigon had a solid direct command line from the Ambassador to the Defense Attache, as per normal practice ("to the extent provided by law and in accordance with Executive Orders") for *commonplace defense attache functions*. This is what appears to have been overlooked by most editors. This is the reason why the Defense Attache was called a Defense Attache, rather than a chief of a security assistance group or some such. While there was a bunch of separate unique Vietnam-related tasks this particular DAO had, having some similarities to COCOM links for example the DAO in Liberia has today, the reason it was *part of the Embassy* was the commonplace defense attache functions. Otherwise yes, with all the reporting relationships to USSAG/7AF and PACOM, it would have been made a separate DOD rather than DOS organization. So if we characterize the reporting relationships to USSAG/7AF & PACOM as 'solid line relationships', equally there were 'solid line relationships' to the Ambassador, and precedent dictated that those (second set of) relationships dictated the name of the organization.
My problem with the idea of hosting the DAO data on the MACV page is that MACV *did not exist* after March 1973. It had been disestablished. Would you kindly humor me and explain again why this encyclopedia should associate data of an organization which existed 1973-1975, with a separate organization whose existence *ended* in March 1973? Surely, in all reason and rational argument, the two should be separated? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Put another way, WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says that 'When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names.' If for the sake of argument, the DAO is, for a moment, seen as the successor to MACV (which I do not believe) the MACV article should be renamed DAO Saigon. Yet this is far-fetched; MACV is certainly independently notable, and should retain its own article. The DAO Saigon has notability *separate* from MACV, and has lots of sources; for this reason also, I do not believe it belongs on the MACV page.
Again many thanks for interposing and bringing a more detached, cooler head to this now intemperate argument. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Buckshot06 MACV will remain as a separate page under that name, the only issue to be resolved is whether DAO Saigon goes back on the MACV page or is created as a separate page, I am fine with either. In relation to your snide remarks aimed at me ("a more detached cooler head to this now intemperate argument"), I counter that your refusal to admit you're wrong based on flimsy evidence is what has drawn this out. Your evidence to satisfy WP:BURDEN is/was what exactly? (1) the words "the US Embassy in Saigon, and its Defense Attache Office" in the USAF report, with no greater analysis of the DAO structure; (2) a footnote in another USAF report referring to the recall of USAF BG Ricard Baughn which you then OR'ed to mean that the Ambassador was in charge of everything, which can be simply explained away with the line from the CINCPAC report referring to the joint responsibility for the normal Defense Attache element and also (my OR here), that Graeme Martin as Ambassador had a direct line to Kissinger and the White House and could presumably exercise influence that way; (3) your misstatement above that "DAO Saigon had a solid direct command line from the Ambassador to the Defense Attache, as per normal practice" in relation to the traditional attache functions, when the CINCPAC quote actually says "The attache element was under the the supervision of the DATT and the Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission to the extent provided by law and in accordance with Executive Orders and such other instructions as the President might promulgate..." so it was a joint command, not a "solid direct command line from the Ambassador to the Defense Attache"; and (4) your continued assertions as to what is the normal structure of defense attaches and therefore that DAO Saigon was the same. As against that flimsy evidence we have the official US Army, USMC and CINCPAC histories which provide incontrovertible evidence that DAO Saigon was not part of the US Embassy. In your 8 May comment you challenged me to find evidence "that the DAO was part of USSAG/7AF in Thailand", well you provided that (thanks) in the CINCPAC report: "The DAO remained under the command of COMUSMACV until the deactivation of that command on 27 March at which time command passed to the Commander USSAG/7th Air Force." Its past time for you to drop the stick, acknowledge you're wrong and either restore the information to the MACV page or create a separate DAO Saigon page. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is is an "either/or" situation. It appears to me that this information about DAO Saigon should be summarised on the MACV page in an "Aftermath" section or similar, but has sufficient reliable sources to justify its stand-alone notability and should therefore have a stand-alone page with all available and relevant information. Perhaps at Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Peacemaker67, I agree. Mztourist (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Mztourist, whether or not you believe me, I was referring to us both when I used the word 'intemperate'; I know I'm getting annoyed; you seem to be; third opinions are always welcome in these situations. Truly, wasn't trying to make a snide comment at you; merely reflecting that we were getting annoyed with each other.
Re PM67's suggestion, I do not agree; (a) the proposed page would have to be at Defense Attache Office, Embassy of the United States, Saigon (1973-75) because the normal defence attache functions remained in the normal relationship with the Ambassador (the original text mentioned five professional attaches) separate from all the Vietnam-unique functions; (b) unless the proposed page was over 60kB readable text size, it should be upmerged to the Embassy page anyway. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
No Buckshot06, you're wrong, just accept it, stop going on about the "normal defense attache functions", DAO Saigon was not part of the Embassy, so the page would not be Defense Attache Office, Embassy of the United States, Saigon (1973-75). I accept Peacemaker67's suggestion of Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975) and invite Intothatdarkness's comments. The evidence and consensus here is clear. Mztourist (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I have read your comment, Mztourist. If the DAO was not part of the Embassy, as you argue, can anyone provide me any reliable sources as to what it *was* part of? The USAF source says 'the Embassy and its Defense Attache Office.' DAOs have invariably been part of Embassies; that's where they sit. So if this one was not part of an Embassy, what organization was it part of? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Given the nature of the Saigon DAO, I think it's best served with a solid summary at MACV and possibly a standalone article as Peacemaker67 suggests. It was clearly NOT a normal DAO operation given its successor status for MACV and its relationship with CINPAC and other organizations. While it might technically have been attached to the embassy, it was clearly serving a larger function...one that was rather unique. Lumping it in with the embassy implies it was just another DAO when it clearly was not and also obscures its role as MACV's direct successor. Intothatdarkness 15:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comment, Intothatdarkness. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Buckshot06 your comment "can anyone provide me any reliable sources as to what it *was* part of?" is just being obtuse at this point. The CINCPAC report clearly states "The DAO remained under the command of COMUSMACV until the deactivation of that command on 27 March at which time command passed to the Commander USSAG/7th Air Force." Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

As per consensus, I have created Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975). Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review: Albert Kesselring

I have nominated Albert Kesselring 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Project related portals could use some maintainers

Despite the RFC at WP:ENDPORTALS being resolved as "strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time", a number of users have engaged on a good-faith program of deleting portals in batches or singly. I have long been a participant in this project and as part of my involvement I have maintained and watched Portal:American Civil War and other war-related portals. Now with Wikipedia much evolved the usefulness of portals as a content-space has been called into question. I'm not sure I have answers. I know that it's not practical for me to maintain all the entries on this tool:

None of the above are currently listed for discussion, so far as I'm aware. Is there anyone here who'd like to list themselves as maintainers for these fully developed navigation tools? I'd be all too happy to show interested parties how to do the actual work, which at this point is not nearly as intensive as redeveloping these portals from scratch.

There deserves to be a fuller discussion about how to rehabilitate and increase visibility of portals but at this point the trend is to delete many of those which aren't actively maintained or are inadequately developed.

There a bunch of backstory to this deletion process and I'm not trying to canvass for MfD participants. I'm merely trying to save work many project members have done over the last 15 years before damage is done. Any project interest? BusterD (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that Portal:Fortifications got caught in the blast radius. RobDuch (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The portal mentioned was one of thousands created in good faith by portal enthusiasts using automated code and based on the fortification template. This is part of the backstory. Rough consensus has been established that totally automated portals created by one user and not actively maintained by any user don't meet the guidelines for keeping. In clearing all of those, many manually maintained portals have also been put up for discussion. BusterD (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Butting heads with an IP over a template - mea culpa

I suspect I'm being cantankerous/bloody-minded/adjective-of-your-choice in my interaction with an IP editor over Template:WWI_tanks. The IP has expanded the navbox with many WWI vehicles of which I was not aware and the also at the List of combat vehicles of World War I (prototype tanks, self-propelled guns, armoured cars et ) - which is good. And it throws up lots of things that possibly warrant articles of their own or covering in general articles of the "armoured vehicle development in X country" type. But to my mind while a list article can handle redlinks and supplementary comments this has resulted in a very big very redlinked navbox. (I note also that some of the vehicles are French and they have very long names). So far I've suggested a discussion but it's likely by now that they think I'm a bad faith actor. If anyone has ideas on how I can engage constructively that would be helpful. Working in Navbox space is tricky because it's unlike an article where you can add appropriate cites. And I'm out of practice editing on Wikipedia and policy. Of course if I'm being a complete ass and a fool do tell me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That navbox is much longer than the ones before and after it in the navbox series (Templates Interwar tanks & WWII tanks). Also this is named Template:WWI tanks but the header lists "World War I armoured fighting vehicles" and includes many non-tank vehicles. The non-tanks sure looks to be out of scope to me. I see no recent discussion at Template talk:WWI tanks; in depth discussion on template specifics should be directed to there imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Including armored trains? Seriously? SPGs are out of scope IMO, & I'd be disinclined to keep armored cars & trucks, either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Which are all non-tanks. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't think I needed to say that. ;p Except that the header on the infobox was AFVs, so, broadly, they'd belong. However... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
the IP expanded the scope. Perhaps hiving off the non-tanks to a new navbox would retain the intent without losing the effort or the new editor. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Cold War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cold War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cold War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Expeditionary energy economics

Hello, I am a new page reviewer and just added someone else's new article, Expeditionary energy economics, to your project. I am unsure about how to add this article to one of your specific Task Forces, so please proceed as you see fit. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"Panzer (disambiguation)" and "Panzer" page moves.

Project members may want to give their input on the discussion about page moves at Talk:Panzer (disambiguation), which also concerns the Panzer article. (Hohum @) 19:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just reverted some premature moves and redirects that attempted, probably inadvertently, to bypass the discussions. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Summer–Autumn Campaign of 1941

Hello WP MilHist! I'm working through the backlog at Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009 and came across Summer–Autumn Campaign of 1941. It seems legit, but only has one source, and is orphaned. I was wondering if anyone could help answer some questions for me. Is it indeed a legitimate term? If so, is it really something that needs its own standalone article, or would it be better off merged elsewhere? And third, if it is legit and should stand alone, where can I link to it to de-orphan it? I'm happy to do any legwork, I just need to be pointed in the right direction. Thank you in advance! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears that a merge into Operation Barbarossa is in order, as the subject article presents an outline of the Soviet view of that campaign. RobDuch (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Either that, or Al Stewart’s Roads to Moscow... Qwirkle (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This was created by a now-banned editor as part of a large campaign of creating an often duplicative set of articles on World War II using Soviet/Russian terminology and historiography. Redirecting to the Operation Barbarossa article seems sensible, though it is a shame that there isn't an article on the first phase of the 1941 invasion of the USSR. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Joking aside, and with due consideration for the damage a particular activist has caused by crusades on similar issues, using names only from the German POV (for only one example) creates a confirmation bias in research.

If you look up contemporaneous material on the “civil war”, you see a different picture from the “war between the states”; “Bull Run” gives a different picture from “Manassas”. This sort of thing sometimes shows up in unexpected places; American newsmen, for instance, were active in Germany until US entry in WWI, and often used different names for battles than did the British or French.

Obviously, this is something of preaching to the converted; the historiographical standards for military articles on Wiki are much, much higher than those for most of the rest of Wikipedia. Still worth keeping in mind, though. Qwirkle (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly a bit intimidated by the prospect of merging something like this into Operation Barbarossa, which is a lengthy GA on a topic I know little about. Would a redirect alone be reasonable, with perhaps a note at the talk page there? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Flag icons in Section headers - does the project have a position?

Some list articles eg List of common WWII infantry weapons, List of infantry weapons of World War I, List of combat vehicles of World War I have Flag icons in the section headers. The WP:MoS (not in MOS:FLAG where you might think it would be mentioned but in MOS:HEADINGS) says that's not a place for flag icons (or any icon). Equally there shouldn't be links, as in List of limited service World War II combat vehicles. And that as it's a technical issue it overrides local consensus or IAR. I'm assuming the MilHist project doesn't have a different view on this, only it could get a bit revert-y in applying (and enforcing the rule) and I wouldn't want to find myself without a policy to stand on. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGCRUFT might be of use. Mjroots (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any significant view within the project that differs from MOS:HEADINGS, and in case, as a consensus-based Wikipedia-wide guideline, the MOS trumps any project consensus. MOS:HEADINGS is very clear in saying that icons should not be contained in section headings. I would just go ahead and remove them all, along with the links, which are also verboten. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I've dealt with List of limited service World War II combat vehicles, it now meets MoS with respect to links in headings. And just found the flag-be-iconed WW2 infantry weapons by faction and cleaned that up. I note it has a merge notice on it but to my mind from the state of it is probably more AfD material. Anyone fancy processing it?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Frigate Egyptienne

What is the identity of the frigate Egyptienne wrecked in the Bosphorus in October/November 1854? - "Latest Intelligence". The Times. No. 21902. London. 18 November 1854. col E, p. 6. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help). Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly one of the vessels listed at Égyptienne (ship), but very uncertain. RobDuch (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
None of those seem to fit the date. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The wreck is also referred to in the London Standard and a budapest paper but I can't find any other record of the ship. Is it possible that it was an Egyptian frigate rather than the Frigate Egyptienne? According to List of shipwrecks in November 1854 the Egyptian Navy lost a couple of vessels that month but near Crimea rather than the Bosphorus - Dumelow (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Barring a better identification, I'm leaving this one off the shipwreck list. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems very likely it was one of the Egyptian vessels lost in the Crimean War, but positive ID will be difficult. RobDuch (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Russian ship Rostikoff

What is the identity of the "Russian ship Rostikoff" wrecked before 20 December 1853. Apparently a ship of the line of 120 guns. - "Foreign Intelligence - Russia and Turkey". The Royal Cornwall Gazette, Falmouth Packet, and General Advertiser. No. 2638. Truro. 13 January 1854. p. 2.. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Russian Warships in the Age of Sail 1696-1860, the Russian Navy built eight first-rates for the Black Sea Fleet (none of which are your vessel) and five for the Baltic Sea Fleet (but I can't see those pages in google books to confirm) in the period between 1825 and the Crimean War. The index doesn't include a vessel by that name, however, though there was a Rostislav of 110 guns launched in 1813. Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
According to the List of ships of the line of Russia, the 1813 Rostislav was broken up in 1827. Three Decks says she was severely damaged in the Great Flood of 1824 and had been based in the Gulf of Finland. There is an 1844 Rostislav of 84 guns, stated to have been scuttled during the Siege of Sevastopol in 1855. Could this be the vessel? Was it subsequently repaired? Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Sozaev & Tredrea make no mention of any accident with that vessel - it carried troops in the Black Sea in October 1853 and was at Sinop in November, where it received 25 hits. It was repaired in 1854 and as you note, scuttled at Sevastopol in February 1855. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've created an article on the Rostislav of 1844. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Field Marshal of Prussia , Field Marshal of Bavaria and Field Marshal of Hanover etc after 1871 = Field Marshal of German Empire !?

Some Field Marshal of these live through after 1871 , the proclamation of the German Empire.

Since Prussia , Bavaria and Hanover became part of German Empire after 1871. Were those Field Marshal such as Prince Karl Theodor of Bavaria , William, Duke of Brunswick , Friedrich Graf von Wrangel , Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia and Crown Prince Frederick (Frederick III) automatically become Field Marshal of German Empire ?

Thank you.-- Comrade John (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Article 63 of the 1871 Constitution of the German Empire leaves every territory its own army (in peacetime). So they stayed "bavarian" officers. That ended only in 1919. Alexpl (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
So in other words , there's no Field Marshal of German Empire in fact ? Just a common saying ?-- Comrade John (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
No, but the original affiliation was kept. Wilhelm II for example declared Mehmed V Field Marshal of Prussia and of the German Empire. Alexpl (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
In this case , who should be consider as Field Marshal of German Empire ? Those who promoted after 1871 , proclamation of the German Empire ? Before that are not consider as Field Marshal of German Empire , even Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia and Crown Prince Frederick (Frederick III) are not consider as well ?
Also , a off-topic but related question:
Some Austrian Empire field marshals live through after 1867 , when Austrian Empire became Austria-Hungary. Can we consider them as field marshals of Austria-Hungary ? -- Comrade John (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I would say not, as they could be one thing but not the other. Unless RS say it we cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Since the current List of German field marshals and List of Austrian field marshals article make me puzzle , I need somebody to clarify. -- Comrade John (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

List of German field marshals is a strange list, the restriction on the state Prussia and its predecessors before 1870 as beeing "German" seems kind of random. Many contemporaries in other states would have also seen themselfs as beeing "German". For your list, the easiest solution would be to take out the pre 1870 Prussians and Saxons (1806–1918). Alexpl (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
This is problematic, and I agree. The solution is to retheme it to Prussian and then have anew list for Germany after "unification" under Bismark.Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
After 1871 it was the Imperial German Army so all of those marshals can de facto be considered to be of the German Empire. The army was a contingency army with each state having its own forces that were integrated into the hegemonic Prussians. However a few states were able to keep their armies as seperate entities with their own war ministries, lists and ranks (including Field Marshal). Those were, beside the obvious Prussia, the kingdoms of Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg. Not Hanover though. ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I know Bavaria and Saxony still have new field marshal after German Empire proclamation but they were field marshal of Prussia before or after that. Beside that , does that mean Field Marshal of Prussia after 1871 = Field Marshal of German Empire ?
Also , Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia and Crown Prince Frederick (Frederick III)'s article both have Field marshals of the German Empire and Field marshals of Prussia in their category but both of them have been promoted before German Empire proclamation. Does that mean they all automatically become Field Marshal of German Empire after German Empire proclamation , it makes me puzzle. Anyway I also agree to have anew list for Germany after "unification" under Bismark-- Comrade John (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Moreover , Some foreign country leaders and generals held this rank as well , all of them are honorary rank right ?-- Comrade John (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
No, there was no rank of Field Marshal of the German Empire, just of the respective armies. However many from other states were named field marshals of their own army and the Prussian Army at the same time. As for the categories of those princes, that is because the category Field marshals of Prussia is not a subcategory of the other category as there were indeed loads of Prussian marshals before that Empire was created. The current marshal list is somewhat subotmial as it lumps together the empire but e.g. doesn´t have independent Bavaria while having Prussia as its own before and Saxony on its own before and during the empire. And yes, all foreigner field marshals were honorary. A very common thing with royals, Wilhelm II was one himself in the British and Russian armies ... and of the Bavarian Army as well. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Other than that , As the people promoted to Generalfeldmarschall after German Empire proclamation , Can I called them Field Marshal of the German Empire ? -- Comrade John (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan/Iraq orders of battle: time to delete?

Do the articles War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012 and Iraq War order of battle, 2009 serve a purpose anymore? They used to be continuously updated lists, but ended up frozen in time because editors stopped updating them. I'm not sure what the point is of preserving these snapshots of troop deployments for those two years. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 107#Future of Iraq War order of battle for previous discussion. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they really serve an encyclopaedic purpose, as even within a given year period, the ORBAT will have changed with units rotating in and out at various stages. I also doubt there are high quality reliable sources for this material. ORBATs are more suited to battles and date-defined operations or campaigns. Some of this information (which countries participated, where and for how long) would be better captured in brief summary form in the parent articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, they tell little of value and they’re not even accurate. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC).
It would be nice to salvage something here as these, like all OOBs, are important topics. But as the articles aren't sourced and do look to have problems with accuracy, this might be easier said than done. @Buckshot06: are you aware of any reliably-sources which provide theatre-wide OOBs for these conflicts? Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Why are we even having this discussion? They are of unquestioned encyclopedic value as a guide and snapshot of what the forces looked like at at least one point during the war, and yes, probably they need to be improved, but almost every other article in the encyclopedia needs to be improved too.. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Since there's disagreement I used AFD instead of PROD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq War order of battle, 2009 and War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire's Mushir Rank

Hello everyone. This is somewhat related the one that I ask previously.

Four questions:

1. Except German Empire , does any other foreign country leaders or generals got this rank ?
2. Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz , Erich von Falkenhayn and Otto Liman von Sanders. Are these all German general got the Mushir rank ?
3. I also found Guido von Usedom in the unfinished list of "List of field marshals of the Ottoman Empire" , This people is the Admiral , but coludn't found he had Mushir Rank , is it true that he got Mushir rank ?
4. To above the question , Based on their carrier , they somewhat got the power to command Ottoman forces in WWI. Is it mean that their Mushir rank is the real one , not honorary ?

Thank you. --Comrade John (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand it Mushir is the equivalent of both Field Marshal and Fleet/Grand Admiral and loads of countries had that (some still have). Yes, all three of them were Mushirs and Admiral von Usedom as well (though several books name him field marshal instead of fleet admiral but as said it was the same title). I´d say those promotions were indeed substantial and confered command authority but they already had that as they were either seconded to, or commanded combined forces including, the Ottoman forces and were promoted after having commanded them. Of course the promotions also had an honorary character as they were no regular Ottoman officers and would return to serve within the German forces (in which they still were commissioned) after their assignments there ended. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to reply , maybe I didn't say the second question clearly. The meaning of the second question should be this:
Is it true that only Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz , Erich von Falkenhayn , Otto Liman von Sanders and Guido von Usedom are the German officers got the Mushir rank , no others ?
First question left unanswered , Can anybody solve this one ? -- Comrade John (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There also is, and even included in the apparently incomplete List of field marshals of the Ottoman Empire, British Major-General Charles George Gordon. Most likely there are more, maybe some around the Crimean War. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hans-Joachim Marseille

Hans-Joachim Marseille, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Frisian Legion" and related edits

Advanced search for: 
"Frisian Legion"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

Draft:Frisian Legion looks to me like an ill-prepared attempt to create a hoax. I see absolutely zero relevant English sources in a Google Book search, and that seems highly unlikely if the legion had existed. I have asked User:Olimpus344 for sources, but they have not replied.

File:Frisian legion.png
"Logo of the Frisian legion."

The associated "logo", File:Frisian legion.png, does not have a credible source, is marked as "own work", and does indeed look exactly like that. Creation of fake files to support a hoax article is classic modus operandi. Adding a link to the article title in another article as was done in Special:Diff/862080187/863452484 is also classic. I'm inclined to think the draft should be tagged with {{db-hoax}}, but seek opinions from editors more acquainted with history in general.

This made me look further into what Olimpus344 has been doing:

Advanced search for: 
"Друштво за уређење и улепшавање Карађорђевог шанца"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

Considering all of the above, I think all uploads to Commons by this user should be tagged for speedy deletion and sr:Друштво за уређење и улепшавање Карађорђевог шанца should be tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. Would anybody here happen to speak Serbian and know the speedy deletion procedure there? Sam Sailor 12:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Speedy tag placed at Serbian article. There is one source about the Društvo (Society for Improvement of Karađorđe's Šanac) on GBooks, and it did exist between the world wars, but that's where the facts end. Good find – both articles are hoaxes indeed. No such user (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, it's deleted on Serbian Wikipedia. Is there something what should be deleted there too? Zoranzoki21 (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and help both No such user and Zoranzoki21. Draft:Frisian Legion has been tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax, and the user's images on Commons are up for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Olimpus344. I left a comment on sr:Разговор:Српски добровољачки корпус (Други светски рат). Sam Sailor 08:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Republika Srpska for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Republika Srpska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Republika Srpska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Needs help: Templatedata for Template:WikiProject Biography

Hello. I updated templatedata for Template:WikiProject Biography (added values and descriptions), see the botttom of Template:WikiProject Biography/doc. But I didn't "update military-work-group" and "military-task-force" - Whats the difference? Christian75 (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Expansion!

Hi all. I've finished my project on British Army first-class cricketers and left the two generals who played for the team until last. Please feel free to expand Edward Fitzherbert (British Army officer) and Harold Fawcus - I've covered the bare bones but you guys might have more military things to add to them. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A. D. Harvey

Harvey is a known hoaxer. He is a PhD and was (and still is) published in reputable journals. He wrote some on air power history. Are his works RS? Or is he presumptively unreliable? He also published on aviation under the name Stephen Harvey. Srnec (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

G'day Srnec. You could ask at WP:RSN, but I would think it would depend on the context. Given he's still being reliably published, unless he has been involved in hoaxing regarding aviation topics, I would think he would still be reliable for them at least, although I'd use him with care and I'd be looking for corroborating sources for anything controversial or any exceptional claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Pritzker Military Museum and Library news

The Pritzker Military Museum and Library will be launching a new exhibit, D-Day +75. Mainstream news articles on the exhibit will be available shortly. In the meantime, please check out the announcement here: http://www.pritzkermilitary.org/explore/museum/permanent-current-upcoming-exhibits/d-day-75/

PMML has a new CEO, Rob Havers. Crain's Chicago Business has this article: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arts-entertainment/meet-new-head-pritzker-military-museum

There is a lot of other news articles on PMML that would really help update the main Wikipedia article. Those resources have been added to the talk page. There is also a lot about PMML and the WWI Centennial in Google News.

And if you need help tracking down a print resource for a Wiki article you are working on, please be sure to email us at librarian@pritzkermilitary.org as the PMML staff is happy to scan the appropriate pages to you if we have the book or journal in PMML's collection.

Happy editing! TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Signal service

I working on a non-mil article and a source says in 1864, my subject was in Washington to try to get better mail service for the Arizona territory and that he was successful in "rendering 'signal service' to the Territory.

Does anyone know what this could have been referring to. I've found that "signal service" could mean signalling between ships or stations on land with flag/torches and telescopes. Or it also meant Army telegraph. (I found a 1873 report in the NYT about the Chief Signal Officer - military signaling and telegraphy.)

At the time, Arizona was just formed and pretty much dependent on the army (and this was also during the Civil War). The newly appointed civilian officials traveled there by army escort, and I'm guessing the army brought the mail as well. I'd like to elaborate more on what this improved mail service was.

Does anyone know anything about this? MB 01:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Could 'signal service' been a phrase meaning noteworthy? As Oxford dictionary gives it, the adjective form of signal means "Striking in extent, seriousness, or importance; outstanding". GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Graeme given the context. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I've since found that from the 1860s-1890s, the signal service was supposed to "maintain and operate all military telegraph lines owned by the government." In the latter part of this period, Signal Service was also a program where weather data (meteorological services were also part of the military) were sent by telegraph around the country and then printed and delivered by post to every post office as the fastest way of getting weather info to farmers in all the small towns that did not have telegraph service. But the above info provided by GraemeLeggett led me to search Newspapers.com for "signal service" in the pre-telegraph era. It was indeed used to mean noteworthy, but overwhelmingly in the UK. However, there was some usage of the term in the US. I even found "rendered signal service", so I am convinced this is it. Thanks. MB 14:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth L. Gardner up for deletion

Women Airforce Service Pilots. WW II pilot. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Closed as Keep - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth L. Gardner starship.paint (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

AEW links under threat

Pages on AEW are being taken over by wrestlers, some more voices in the discussions would be welcome:

  • Also note that supporters of the change to a wrestling term are making changes to aviation and military articles related to AEW while the discussion is still open. MilborneOne (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you. Could you let me know of any you come across? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I have identified two users: Starship.paint (talk · contribs) and Galatz (talk · contribs). Going through the articles they have edited recently, they appear to have been working as a tag-team over AEW related linking, which does not bode well for them. I have dropped a note on each of their talk pages about that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys. I welcome your help in improving the aircraft articles. You can check my contributions to find them. I found a ton of unreferenced statements / paragraphs / sections. I found some unreliable sources. I have tagged them accordingly. starship.paint (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Tag team issue is settled. starship.paint (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
RE - tag teaming - if we were tag teaming, would we edit one after the other, where I [7] essentially undid Galatz's addition [8]? starship.paint (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what you would be doing, that's what tag-teaming is. Here are just the first four articles I checked out. In each one you followed Galatz (talk · contribs) through a day later, again as you did in the example you just gave:
And here's the combined result of their edit and your "undoing" on the Xian X-7:
That's five one-day shadows and counting. No matter what you claim, the record speaks for itself. It is beyond coincidence. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
To all concerned. Wait until the outcome of the AEW discussion is clear before considering whether such changes are appropriate. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ha, you are truly Peacemaker67. Not being sarcastic, really. Anyway Steelpillow, mere following does not mean being disruptive. It does not mean bad faith. Go ahead, tell me my edits [9] [10] were made in bad faith and were disruptive. starship.paint (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Just so long as you follow the suggestion of Peacemaker67 and myself and quit editing AEW material for now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I stopped an hour before you even posted on my talk page. I merely defended myself both here and on my talk page. After merely exchanging several replies on these talk pages, you eventually said This is my FINAL WARNING to you. If you keep up your disruption I will take you to WP:ANI. It's funny. I assure you that I will only make edits to improve pages. starship.paint (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, the discussion's over. AEW stays. Anyway, I've never been blocked, and I don't remember if I was taken to ANI before. It would be a shame if someone did, I think I have a pretty good record. Assume good faith? starship.paint (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Clearly we both found links related to AEW due to the ongoing discussion. That does not mean its "tag teaming" or anything of the sort. Its laughable if you look at the series of edits to think that there was any sort of coordination. I solely piped links (with the exception of adding short descriptions to some, which I have done to thousands of pages), while the other user changes sentence structure or wording, I changed nothing to the text of the article itself, as far as I can recall, on any article. Please explain how that possible is tag teaming. And for your examples above, I think the other users edits were proper based on MOS:ACRO. And your example of the "combined result" is laughable, take a look at your combined result [11] in comparison to just theirs [12], and you will see my edit made zero impact on theirs.
As for not editing while the discussion is ongoing, there is no policy that states that. In fact, we generally encourage editing while discussions are ongoing. This is the equivalent of saying its disruptive to edit a page that has an ongoing AfD.
I did not change anything on the AEW page itself, which I could see as being disruptive, but I did not. There is criteria laid out in WP:DONOTFIXIT on when a redirect should remain, which this does not fall under. Therefore piping the actual page is the appropriate action, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. To make proper edits is perfectly acceptable while the discussion is ongoing. Saying that its best to wait until next week when the discussion closes to make the exact same edit makes no sense.
All of the comments here seem to be based more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT than looking at the actual facts and how they relate. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Well then, since the discussion is closed, I guess I can now continue making proper edits without you thinking its disruptive. Just plain silly - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, Steelpillow saw me editing after you, Galatz, and concluded we were a tag team. Because I appeared to be following you, and I was, actually, because until very very recently, I had no idea where to find links to the AEW redirect. I wasn't aware that the RfD itself already had a link to find links (now, only after editing those articles, I finally do). So the only way for me to find those links, and to check if they were indeed legitimate, is to follow Galatz, who apparently could find those links. So that's the truth, I was ignorant, and thus had to follow Galatz. That doesn't mean I purposely worked to reinstate Galatz's edits had they been reverted. It simply wasn't a tag team. starship.paint (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
How's this for a mea culpa? [13]? starship.paint (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
As long as no more wrestlers think they know more about the finer technicalities of aviation than the denizens of the WP:AVIATION and WP:AIRCRAFT WikiProjects, I will have no problem from here on in. Signing off this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
the finer technicalities of aviation - if you thought this dispute was about that, you were simply mistaken. I'm no aviation expert, but you don't need to be one to spell out jargon, spot uncited sentences and label unreferenced sections. Had you really analysed my edits, I think you would have realized that. starship.paint (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirect discussion of AEW closed as keep to Airborne Early Warning and Control. starship.paint (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Vedette rider

I've run across the term "Vedette mail" used in the 1860s. (e.g. [14]). Vedettes were apparently riders who carried military mail on horseback. Our article Vedette (sentry) doesn't get into this, and I can't find much more than what is in the link above. I'd like to mention Vedette mail in the sentry article if anyone has a source. MB 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I find I always benefit from getting out a dictionary and checking definitions. I know the term, although I think I've generally seen it spelt as "vidette" rather than "vedette". But both are valid, according to the Encarta dictionary:
1. vedette or vidette (plural videttes) forward scout: a mounted soldier posted forwards of a larger force to serve as a scout
2. vedette or vedette boat (plural vedette boats) small fast scouting vessel: a small fast boat posted forwards of a larger seaborne force to serve as a scout
[Late 17th century. Via French from Italian vedetta , alteration (influenced by vedere , ‘to see’) of veletta , from Spanish vela , ‘watch’, from Latin vigilare , ‘to watch’, from vigil , ‘awake’. See vigil.]
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I think the origins of the word are quite informative in this case. My understanding is that it's originally a light mounted military scout, but can be extended to mean a light mounted message-carrier or courier, and can also be extended (in the context of "light") to include light scouting or patrolling vessels. So vedette mail would imply light, fast horse mail.
Mirriam Webster also mentions "vedette post": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vedette%20post
And there are stamp auctions online which include items with vedette post/mail classifications, eg.: https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php?start_lot=1128&stop_lot=1163&sale_no=1189
Interestingly enough, it seems to still be in fairly common use in French when referring to certain types of horse in dressage and competitions, eg. https://www.facebook.com/hdb.harasdebrullemail/posts/1108061089226278/.
I got a number of similar and related hits, but nothing much useful, unfortunately. And no useful citation links. Sorry!
Hope it helps!
Cadar (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I knew about the stamp auctions (that was my original link). And I did check the dictionary. So I completely agree with your inference that vedette mail is "light, fast horse mail". But as you said, nothing useful as a citation. There must be something offline. Thanks. MB 19:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Quality standards template for The Ascent war film article

Hi everybody, I've done a general clean-up of grammar, punctuation, typos, etc. on the article for The Ascent. Can we get a second pair of eyes on it to see if it still needs the quality standards template? Any other feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent Cadar (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Citations could stand a good scrubbing. All |title= where the assigned value is written in Cyrillic script should be using |script-title= instead (remember to include the language code prefix). Some of the citations seem to have extraneous quote-marks and guillemet; these should be removed. This {{sfn}} short reference doesn't link to anything; it should; or it should be deleted.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
-Thanks. I'll have to take some time and have a look through the help files on the correct formatting. Regarding the citation which doesn't link anywhere, it's a reference to Klimov's book about Shepitko. What's the way forward with that? And can I ask for more help from you if I need it?
Cadar (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Presumably you mean Elem, not Hermann. Rewrite Elem Klimov citation:
{{cite book |last=Klimov |first=Elem |author-link=Elem Klimov |trans-title=Larisa: book about Larisa Shepitko |script-title=ru:Лариса: книга о Ларисе Шепитько |location=Moscow |publisher=Iskusstvo |year=1987 |pages=290 |ref=harv |language=ru}}
Klimov, Elem (1987). Лариса: книга о Ларисе Шепитько [Larisa: book about Larisa Shepitko] (in Russian). Moscow: Iskusstvo. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
and for {{sfn}} write:
{{sfn|Klimov|1987}}
While I'm at it, rewrite the Hermann Klimov citation:
{{cite book |last=Klimov |first=Hermann |last2=Murzina |first2=Marina |last3=Plahov |first3=Andrei |last4=Fomina |first4=Raisa |trans-title=Elem Klimov. Unshot cinema |script-title=ru:Элем Климов. Неснятое кино |location=Moscow |publisher=Chroniqueur |year=2008 |page=384 |isbn=978-5-901238-52-3 |language=ru}}
Klimov, Hermann; Murzina, Marina; Plahov, Andrei; Fomina, Raisa (2008). Элем Климов. Неснятое кино [Elem Klimov. Unshot cinema] (in Russian). Moscow: Chroniqueur. p. 384. ISBN 978-5-901238-52-3.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Elem was Shepitko's husband and wrote a book about her. Not sure if Hermann is a relation, but his book was different.
OK, so I've updated the citations, although it looks as though the Klimov cite was actually already in place. Anything else I need to sort out?
Many thanks for the help!
Cadar (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
As I wrote before, All |title= where the assigned value is written in Cyrillic script should be using |script-title= instead (remember to include the language code prefix). Some of the citations seem to have extraneous quote-marks and guillemet; these should be removed. and these {{sfn}} short refs.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll have to get to that later. Thanks.
Cadar (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. All |script-title= updated. All quotation marks and guillemets removed. Maybe double-check me to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I used the browser's search function to find all relevant instances and replaced them. If there's nothing else, I'll give it a couple more days to see if anyone else has any comments, then the template can come off. And thanks again. This is the first time I've dealt with Cyrillic content on an article, so it's new territory for me.
Cadar (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Promo for List of U.S. Department of Defense code names

Just wanted to make readers aware of this resource, which can be helpful for research leads, and ask any assistance. There's lots of codenames accessible via Category:Military operations involving the United States that haven't been added. Would like to thank Lineagegeek for recent help, including obscure U.S. Air Force codenames. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles

Hello, I would like to inform the project of two articles that cites zero sources: Defence Avionics Research Establishment and U.S. Carrier Group tactics. starship.paint (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe KCVelaga or another member of the Indian task force might be able to help with the former article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the ping. I am busy until this weekend, will have a look at it during the coming week. If anyone else is going work on it, I am happy with that as well. KCVelaga (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't find sources for many of the claims in the first article, but I added a couple sources I found to support some basic data. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I added a few books to the suggested resources section which should help with referencing this article. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Gazoth. The article Defence Avionics Research Establishment, is well referenced now. KCVelaga (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Turkish Armed Forces for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Turkish Armed Forces is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Turkish Armed Forces until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle and Kaiserliche Feldmarschalle

These are the two Holy Roman Empire's field marshal rank.

Is Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle higher than Kaiserliche Feldmarschalle ?

If so , why some Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle holder such as Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen award Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle earlier than Kaiserliche Feldmarschalle ?

Thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  • More or less yes. It also is a different appointment. A Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall was a joint appointment by the Emperor and the Reichstag; with a limit of title holders (2 or 3). As for the appointment of Charles to Field Marshal after being Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall, he had retired from service between those two appointments, and afterwards no more Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall was appointed at all (and the HRE ended, and with it the rank). ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply , appreciated.-- Comrade John (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirection target for "Armed services"

Please take a moment to comment on the most appropriate redirection target at Talk:Armed services. (Hohum @) 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

FAC review needed

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Jauréguiberry/archive1 already has 2 reviews, plus image and source reviews. It needs one more review to pass FAC, but it's in danger of being archived as nobody's commented on it in the last few weeks. I hope that one kind soul can find the time to do a review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the multiple responses. If my changes in answer to their comments are satisfactory, it should pass with ease.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

CC-BY resources on WWII places in Queensland

The Queensland Government has a a website WWII places in Queensland, which is interesting material but alas copyright only. However, I have just discovered that they publish the same info in a CSV on the Queensland Open Data repository (albeit with some HTML markup) under a CC-BY-3.0 licence. Now I don't understand why they would use different licensing for the same material in different places, but, shrugs, why should we care? So long as one of them is CC-BY, we have an opportunity. What this means is that it should be possible to write a tool to go through and convert each entry into reasonably good wikitext for insertion as a section into the relevant place article (and/or wherever else it might be useful). Now, as some of you might be aware, I have done similar things with heritage registers but there I was generating whole articles, whereas I think these entries are more of a size to be a section (or subsection) in a larger article (which actually makes the task easier -- generating ledes, infoboxes, categories is not so easy). You can of course do these things manually but with 566 entries, it would be a very time-consuming to do it all manually. Having said this, I am not a believer in dumping machine-generated wikitext into articles without some human review and often a little bit of copyediting is needed to get it MoS conformant and sometimes a bit of wikilinking may be required (I can generate wikilinks but not as well as a human can). So my approach is to generate *draft* wikitext which a human editor inserts and polishes as required. Still a bit tedious (hundreds of anything is tedious) but a lot less time-consuming than doing it all manually. I've got a couple of large-ish projects happening at the moment, so this is probably something I will look at later in the year. But I just thought I would put the idea out there to see if anyone else is interested in being involved. I don't write military history content normally so I think a collaboration with some folk who do will probably get a better outcome than my going solo with it. Kerry (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Outcome Verdicts in the list of US wars

Talk:List of wars involving the United States: Any advice could help with similar debates on a lot of other pages.TrendBronco (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ships scuttled at Sevastopol in 1854

There seems to be some discrepancies between contemporary newspaper reports and Wikipedia articles re certain Russian ships scuttled at Sevastopol.

From the Hampshire Chronicle and Sussex Telegraph of 14 October 1854 under the article heading "Off the River Katscha, Sebastopol, September 28":-

"The ships which they sank two days ago are the Holy Trinity, 120 guns ; Rostislaff, 84 guns ; Sisepoli, 40-gun frigate ; Zagoodieh, 84 ; Ooriel 80 ; Silistria, 80 guns; Zoolevche, 40.

Two day ago would refer to 26 September (new style date?). As for the ships, is "Holy Trinity" the Tri Svyatelia, which is listed as having been scuttled on List of shipwrecks in September 1854#11 September (old style date?)? "Rostislaff" is probably the Russian ship Rostislav, which according to the article was scuttled on 13 February 1855. "Sisepoli", "Zagoodieh", "Ooriel" and "Zoolevche" - no idea, not in the list of sail or steam frigates, nor listed at Threedecks. "Silistria" is probably the Silistriya, which is listed in the list of ships of the line of Russia as having been scuttled at Sevastopol in 1854. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Also reported in the Hampshire Advertiser and Salisbury Guardian of 14 October as "Holy Trinity, 120; Rostislaff, 84; Sisepoli, 40-gun frigate ; Zagoodich, 84; Ovriel, 80; Silistria, 80; Koolevche, 40." Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sisepoli is obviously Sizopol‘ 60/54, she is listed here: List_of_Russian_sail_frigates#Frigates of the Black Sea Fleet (1783–1855). Ooriel is Uriil 52, she is here: List_of_ships_of_the_line_of_Russia#Uriil-class (4 units). "Zagoodieh" and "Zoolevche" -??? Perhaps some captured Turkish schooners.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
"Zoolevche" or Koolevche is obviously Kulevtchi 60, Scuttled in Sevastopol in 1855, when Russian troops abandoned the city--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
"Zagoodieh" is probably Iagudiil, also "Scuttled in 1855 at Sevastopol, when Russian troops abandoned the city".--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nicoljaus: Thanks for that. I've already got Uriil listed, and will add Sizopol. That means we've got three ships that the articles say were scuttled in 1855, but newspapers say were scuttled in 1854 - Rostislav, Kulevtchi and Iagudiil. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. In addition, an error with dates, even taking into account the old style. 11 September for the 19th century is 23 September of a new style, not 26.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The date error is explainable. It may have taken a few days for the report to get from Sevastopol to its destination, and was then repeated verbatim. It's not something I'm overly concerned about. We have a fixed date of 11 September for Tri Svyatitelya and contemporary sources say the others were scuttled at the same time. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "Holy Trinity" is Tri Sviatitelia (but amusingly, that's not a correct translation of the name) - according to Sozeav & Tedrea, she was scuttled on 11 September 1854 (O.S.); they also list Silistriia as having been scuttled the same day, as were Uriil (Ooriel) and Sizopol'. I'd agree that "Zagoodieh" is likely Iagudiil, but according to Sozeav & Tedrea, the ship was still in action against shore batteries in October. And they list Kulevchi as having been scuttled on 27 August 1855 (i.e., the day before Iagudiil).
Personally, I'd go with Sozeav & Tedrea, since their book is quarried from Russian sources, over contemporary British papers, as I can't imagine they had reporters inside Sevastopol. Presumably their reporting came from army reports, and they can hardly be trusted to get Russian ship identification correct. For example, they apparently missed that Varna was scuttled at the same time as Tri Sviatitelia and the others (I would go so far as to say that they incorrectly identified the scuttled Varna as her sister Iagudiil - and Kulevchi was probably an incorrectly identified Flora). Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: would you please check the shipwreck list entry (linked above) and report back here whether or not any adjustments need to be made. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It's missing Arkhangel Gavriil, scuttled the same day at Silistria, according to S&T (though I wonder if that's an old name for someplace around Sevastopol, as it seems unlikely that she was that far up the Danube - but on the other hand, the Russians were withdrawing after the Siege of Silistra in September 1854, so I guess it's a possibility, and it might be a reference to the Silistra Eyalet in general), and Flora as already mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Ahkhangel Gavriil is there, second entry. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Ha, that'll teach me to read from the bottom and stop at the first RN ship I see ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Flora added. Mjroots (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a bunch of results for "Три святителя" "Уриил" "Варна" "Силистрия" "Селафаил" "Сизополь" "Флора". Also, Russky Mir names[15] the ships scuttled on 11 (23) September 1854 as Varna, Silistrnya, Selaphail, Tri Svyatitelya, Uriel, and frigates Sizopol and Flora; the Twelve Apostles, Rostislav, Svyatoslav and frigates Kagul and Mesemvria as being scuttled on 13 (25) February 1855; and frigate Media as being scuttled on 16 (28) February 1855. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hydronium Hydroxide: would you please add the missing ships to the List of shipwrecks in 1855. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done List of shipwrecks in February 1855#25 February ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Peruvian ship Mercedes

Is the Peruvian transport ship Mercedes, lost on 1 May 1854 the same vessel as the frigate Mercedes acquired by the Peruvian Navy in 1840? Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's likely. The American Rifleman in 1914 states: "The wreck of the frigate “Mercedes" and the corvette “America," both of which took place in time of peace, are recorded and looked upon as two glorious events. The former occurred in 1854 off Casma. the ship being in tow; the tow rope broke and the ship drifted on to the "Roca Negra." - Dumelow (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This Peruvian Navy page seems to confirm it: "Among those who gave the Navy the most attention during that period were Marshal Ramón Castilla and General Rufino Echenique, who helped make Peru a naval power through an aggressive acquisition program. Among these ships the Mercedes frigate, which was the first warship purchased by Castilla, and then the Rimac, the first steam warship in South American waters, built in the United States of America and arrived in Callao on July 27th of 1848. The frigates Callao and Amazonas were ordered to England in the following decade. Other warships and transports were also acquired, to the point that the Peruvian Fleet became the most important in South America in those years. However, an unfortunate fact, happened when the frigate Mercedes shipwrecked in front of Casma on May 2nd, 1854. That terrible accident, which cost the lives of more than 800 people, left a magnificent lesson of more value beyond the line of duty, when the commander, Captain Juan Noel, preferred to sink with his ship before abandoning it in such a difficult trance and with a large number of people still onboard." This also accords with our article List_of_Peruvian_Navy_ships#Vessels_acquired_in_the_1840s_and_1850s - Dumelow (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dumelow: - I'm not seeing anything about America in the link you posted from The American Rifleman. Would you please add the relevant entry to the shipwreck list? Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mjroots, it's already listed at List of shipwrecks in 1868 - Dumelow (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dumelow: - thanks. I misunderstood your original post. Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Egyptian frigate losses in 1854

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 151 § Frigate Egyptienne

Further to the earlier discussion, the Daily News of 23 November adds the information that "An Egyptian three-decker has been wrecked near Varna. Admiral Hassan Pacha, who was on board, perished. He is much regretted. A fourth of the crew was saved." Does this shed any light on which vessel it was? Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Think I've solved it. The Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 24 November - "The Turkish man-of-war Abadidschi had foundered with the Turkish admiral and 700 men on board" Other papers list her as an Egyptian vessel lost on 5 November 1854. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe not, as the Morning Chronicle of 24 November names her as the three-decker Bahiri lost at Cape Kara Barnu", at the entrance to the Bosphorus. Date is before 9 November. This is all so confusing. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Langensiepen and Güleryüz in The Ottoman Steam Navy state the Egyptian squadron sent to the Black Sea as having comprised the ships of the line Benhauf, Halep, and Mefta Cihat (and several frigates). According to them, Bahrî was a frigate. Parsecboy (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Part of the problem of identifying Ottoman warships is their tendency to reuse parts of names in numerous vessels. There was the frigate Bahrî, but there was also the Ottoman frigate Pervaz-I Bahrî, an Ottoman paddle steamer of the same name, the steam frigate Feyzâ-i Bahrî, another frigate named Navik-I Bahrî, and a corvette Saman Bahrî. I checked the order of battle they provide for the Egyptian–Ottoman fleet at the start of the war and they don’t list a vessel that approximates Abadidschi (though that of course could just mean that it was a vessel sent after October 1853). Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

From Russkii Invalid, No. 261, 22 November, 1854:

This site quotes the Russkii Invalid (No. 261) of 22 November 1854:

  • "According to news from Constantinople, from 9 November (28 October), announced in the newspaper Ostdeutsche Post, an Egyptian three-deck ship of the line and a frigate which had been wrecked on the night of 29 (17) October (in these notices, the ship is named as the Bakhiri and the frigate Muftakhi-Dzhekhad), have been completely sunk. From the crew of the Bakhiri, which consisted of 800 men, not less than 650 perished in this disaster, including Admiral Khassan-Pasha himself. From the frigate's crew 270 men drowned. This event shook all of Constantinople, where people are beginning to have great fears for the expeditionary fleets."

And also from the Russkii Invalid (No. 263) of 24 November 1854, quoting the Triest Gazette:

  • "The two lost Egyptian naval ships which on 30 (18) October were wrecked on the coast of Rumelia, were: the three-deck ship of the line Muftakhi-Dzhegat and the frigate Bakhiri (in earlier reports the names were switched). The death of Admiral Hassan-Pasha, who is confirmed as among those who perished, caused great sorrow. Of the Egyptian crew, 800 men perished in the waves; of the 140 men who succeeded in reaching the shore by swimming, 50 were were put to death by the Greeks living there, while the rest have arrived in Constantinople in very bad shape. Because all Allied steamships were otherwise engaged, the Austrian naval steamer Custozza was sent to the Black Sea to rescue the survivors of this shipwreck. But the Black Sea was so rough from two weeks of storms that the steamship Custozza had to spend several days off the mouth of the Bosphorus before it dared to approach the dangerous coast." - Dumelow (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Muftakhi-Dzhegat would be Mefta Cihat as romanized by Langensiepen & Güleryüz above. They don’t reference the wrecking, but their coverage of the war is fairly brief and centered on the activities of the steam warships (as one would expect based on the title of their book). Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Firetrap, and related topics

There's a brief discussion on my Talk Page, at User talk:Narky Blert#Firetrap, which IIRC was prompted by a bad military-related link to the DAB page Fire Trap. We may have identified a couple of holes in WP worth filling; I didn't even mention e.g. minefields or Kesselschlacht in that discussion. So, if I prompt an editor or two here to start writing... Narky Blert (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

763d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron

I doubt there will be much reaction to this, but some time ago, a banned editor moved the article on the 763d Bombardment Squadron to 763d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron. For reasons I gave at Talk:763d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, it is unlikely the two units are the same, and no WP:RS is given for the move. Before I ask an admin to move the article back over redirect, I thought I'd give everyone in the project an opportunity to rebut the lack of identity between the units.

A slightly different issue. If the move is made, I doubt that the 763d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron is notable enough on its own to merit an article, but any opinions on this are welcome as well. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The content as it stands is 95% the 763rd Bombardment8 Squadron, so that's the best place for it. GraemeLeggett (talk)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pritzker Military Museum & Library

PMML has been in the news a lot in the last 30 days. See: Google search

2019 Pritzker Literature Award will be announced before summer's end. Pritzker Military Presents will start its new season on WTTW this fall. Any help updating these articles is appreciated. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

harvc question

* {{cite book |ref={{harvid|Bond|Taylor|2001}} |title=The Battle for France & Flanders Sixty Years On |editor1-last=Bond |editor1-first=B. |editor1-link=Brian Bond |editor2-last=Taylor |editor2-first=M. D. |year=2001 |publisher=Leo Cooper |location=Barnsley |edition=1st |isbn=978-0-85052-811-4}}
** {{harvc |last=Buckley |first=J. |c=The Air War in France |year=2001 |in1=Bond |in2=Taylor}}

Can the harvc bit accommodate authorlink? I tried |authorlink=John Buckley (historian) but got nothing. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template documentation, it is a good thing: Template:Harvc § Parameters
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
A hyphen.... thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

75th anniversary of the end of WWII

We are in the final stages of a plan to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moonwalk on the Main Page on July 16–24. I began preparation for this last year, in August 2018. I was wondering if there was any interest in doing something similar for the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII. I think this WikiProject is well suited to coordinating such an effort. We can choose two dates, Victory in Europe (May 8, 2020) and Surrender of Japan (September 2, 2020August 15, 2020), and flood the Main Page with articles about World War II on both these dates. I met little resistance to the idea and found many supporters to my cause when coordinating the Apollo 11 anniversary. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. One or two of the FAs I've developed covering World War II in 1945 still haven't appeared on the front page, and I'm sure there are plenty of others. I'd suggest 15 August as the target date, as it's when the war actually ended - 2 September was when the paperwork was signed. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, thank you for responding! We really only need two FAs for my plan and they should be very relevant to the days in question. I have penciled-in Surrender of Japan for 15 August 2020. I was hoping to raise Victory in Europe Day to FA and nominate it for 8 or 9 May 2020. I am still new to promoting GAs and FAs but I won't let that stop me.
Nonetheless, I do want to pencil-in then nominate some of your FAs on other dates. Below is a list of the your FAs and the dates I would like to nominate them for TFA, with your consent:
Did I miss any? They are nicely spaced out so there should be no objection to all of them running. I know you have more but these are the ones that I could find that have a 75th anniversary coming up over the next year or so. If any one else has any other FAs with 75th anniversaries coming up between August 2019 and December 2020, please speak up.
I also want to have a full set of 8 DYKs (difficult to do) and an FP (easy to do) for both VE day and the Surrender of Japan. DYK is where I need the most help. Most of the articles already exist so they have to be raised to GA to qualify for DYK. Doing 16 GAs (8 each related to each of the dates selected) in a year is a tall task for a relatively new editor like me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Of "my" articles, Operation Paravane could also run on 15 September 2019, its 75th aniversary. I reckon that members of this project could easily produce 16 DYKs on new articles and new GAs at around the intended dates. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I have added those five to WP:TFARP and will nominate them at the appropriate time. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This looks good. We should also work towards getting Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to FA to run as TFA on 6 and 9 August 2020, on the basis of IAR and the fact that there have only been two nuclear attacks on cities in history and they happened three days apart. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That is also another great idea. Since this is a discussion that is likely to continue for over a year, I would advise creating a task force as a sub page of this project. I found it really helpful to create a page like WT:S2019DYK and WP:S2019s. Forgive my laughable attempt at creating a WikiProject pages. I am sure people at this project can create a page that is much more functional and user friendly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can tell you now, that's not going to happen. There was extreme resistance against ever running articles at TFA more than once, and the "allow it in special circumstances provided there's a minimum gap between appearances of at least five years" compromise is still considered too lax by many. Even if you could get an article as unstable as Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki through FAC, if @WP:TFA coordinators were to schedule the same article three days apart the delegates would be run out of Wikipedia on a rail and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency would be dusted off for the first time since 2012. If you want a fighting chance of getting the delegates to break protocol and run articles on closely related topics in quick succession, you're better off choosing a related article—e.g. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Paul Tibbets (already FA), Nuclear weapon or Enola Gay—to run on one of the dates. ‑ Iridescent 11:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That is certainly true for trying for both dates. But I don't see the harm of trying Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for one of the dates and a different article for the other date. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I overhauled that the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 2014 along with the other Manhattan Project-related articles, and it is in very good shape. That's the good news. The bad news is that it's been nominated for FA twice, and is too controversial to ever get through the FAC process. Last time round it was opposed by an editor on the grounds that it is about the bombing, and he thought that the article should be about everything but the bombing. Unless a whole lot of people here are willing to go over to FAC and !vote for it, it cannot get through. However, I do have other fine FA articles that could be used instead. Tube Alloys is a FA, as is K-25, and Deak Parsons. Project Alberta could be nominated at FAC. Many other Manhattan Project articles have already run as FAs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

General comment: planning for and improving articles and other activities to mark such anniversaries is excellent. I'd like to collect examples of this (along with brief commentary on how successful the attempts were). The examples from MILHIST that I can think of are the ones that were mentioned under 'special projects' but were trimmed and are mentioned in the past tense on the MILHIST main page as 'previous special projects have included work on': the American Civil War, World War I and the D-Day landings (it is ironic that the latter went inactive). Non-MILHIST ones I can think of include the activity centred around the Titanic centennial (I can't remember if a central co-ordination page was set up for that). Anyway, the 75th anniversary of D-Day got me wondering if it is too early to gently ramp up towards the centennial of WWII? This may be ambitious given that this is 25 years away, and Wikipedia is not even 20 years old yet, but maybe some of the groundwork could be laid now to avoid repeating past mistakes or being overly ambitious? How far in advance were the other 'special' projects set up, and what (apart from the obvious of people willing to do the work) makes such a project successful? Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Changed the tense here on one of those inactive projects, though that is just tidying up. I hope those pages are kept to show what was attempted, even if what happened wasn't quite what was planned (there was a lot of activity on the WWI topic, still is to some extent, just not as co-ordinated as it could have been). Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget the Star Trek Main Page which had a TFA, 24 DYKs!, and a TFP.
Starting on 100th anniversary of D-Day may be overkill. There are plenty of anniversaries before that. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Good example with Star Trek. I am sure Titanic had a Main Page like that as well. It was a few days late (or it wasn't possible to get the exact date), see: Wikipedia:Main Page history/2012 April 15. That link won't show all the DYKs. They appear to have been spread out over 16 and 15 April 2012, see here. There are 13 DYKs there. Sometimes others appear in the days before and after as well (there were four in May). Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the 75th anniversaries are special? The 100th anniversaries tend to generate more coverage, though in this case the dwindling number of WW2 veterans still alive gives each milestone anniversary a bit more significance. You may be right about it being too early for WW2 centenary. Nothing planned yet. Only references are in SF books! :-) (Actually, if you look hard enough, there are plans here and there and preparations already in place for the WW2 centenary, usually of the form of far-sighted commemoration committees doing WWI commemoration that will lay groundwork for WWII commemorations). Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Relative immediacy is crucial to generating interest to a Main Page special project. You will find few editors willing to commit to a 25 year project. We want something that is not too far off in the future but with enough time to get several GAs and at least 1 FA completed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That is a good point. The over-ambitious projects try and get large numbers of articles across the whole topic area up to GA or FA, rather than having a manageable target, and sometimes even try to get the 'main' article to featured status (I presume no-one has made any progress with getting First World War or Second World War to a point where it might be possible to assess them?). It might be possible over 25 years to really do something special, but very unlikely. One thing to be wary of is instability in articles as an anniversary approaches and new books and other sources are published on the topic. Page views is something to watch, have just looked at the page view graph on Talk:World War I, and the views there in November 2018 as the centenary events came to a close, rocketed to some ridiculous figure of nearly 400,000. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The 75th anniversary will be special because it will be the last 25-year anniversary with combatants still alive. They won't be around for the 100th. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I would observe that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the start of the war. We might consider a focus on that anniversary since many of the events of the 75th anniversary have both passed and been overshadowed by the 100th anniversary of WW1. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Nick-D. The shooting stopped on 15 August, but, like in WW1, the war didn't actually end until the treaty was signed. Armistice isn't the end of a war, contrary to a view all to popular today. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Technically yes, but given that Japan was accepting unconditional surrender there were no substantive negotiations between 15 August and 2 September (though senior Japanese figures met with the Allies to sort out the details). Various sources note that the delay until 2 September was partly artificial and partly imposed by logistical demands, as MacArthur delayed signing the treaty until he could arrange a spectacle in Tokyo Bay and start moving large numbers of occupation troops into Japan. The various Allied commands across the Pacific were forced to cool their heels until this time despite they and the Japanese being ready and wanting to wrap things up much earlier. The British were particularly annoyed at the delay this imposed on them re-entering Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong. Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a story here, not covered in the Surrender of Japan article. GHQ in Manila hear about the Emperor's surrender from eavesdropping on the Japanese radio circuits by the Central Bureau. Certain grammatical forms are only used by the Emperor. General MacArthur then ordered his Chief Signals Officer, Major General Spencer B. Akin to get in contact with the Japanese. On 15 August (the same day as the Japanese broadcast) message (in plan text but using Japanese Kana Morse code) from MacArthur to the Emperor, Diet and Japanese military, specifying how an envoy was to be sent to Manila. Messages were broadcast on all known Japanese circuits, but none responded. Finally, a diplomatic station in Singapore acknowledged the message. It then got in contact with Tokyo, and gave Central Bureau a call sign and frequency to communicate with Tokyo directly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
"Technically yes" Not "technically" anything. Wars end when treaties are signed. WW1 ended not 11/11/18 with the Armistice, despite common belief, but in 1919, when the (Versailles?) Treaty was signed. So 2 Sept '45 is wrong, too: that, IIRC, was the Armistice; the actual Treaty wasn't signed until 1946. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The Treaty of San Francisco was signed on 8 September 1951. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Incubator – I have started an incubator for V-E Day. Please join at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/V-E Day. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Would it be possible to include a few late April/early May 75th anniversaries in this project, given that many significant events related to the end of the war occurred before 7-9 May? Kges1901 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

New article needs help

Hello, all! I have just created an article about Brigadier General Laura Yeager, shortly to become the first woman to command an Army infantry division. I am not familiar with the traditions and format of military articles so I would appreciate any help or corrections. In particular, I don't know how to list her awards and decorations. Would one of you be willing to do that? They are listed here: [16] Thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

B class criteria for WP:MILHIST

Where can I find the B class criteria for WP:MILHIST so I can show someone how to assess WP:MILHIST. Adamdaley (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The appropriate section is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Criteria Kees08 (Talk) 03:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Campaign article titles

I've noticed that articles on campaigns of World War II aren't consistent on capitalization - we have Guadalcanal Campaign, North African Campaign, and Philippines Campaign (1944–1945), but also Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, and Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign (among many others). These probably ought to be standardized one way or the other - any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I think the uppercase C version looks better. WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Are they all recognised campaigns in RS? Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
No. In the above example, the first three are, while the last three are Wikipedia constructs. In the sources, the Gilberts and Marshals are generally considered separate campaigns, as are the Marianas and Palau, and Volcano Islands and Ryukyus. The official US campaign names for them are Eastern Mandates, Central Pacific, Western Pacific and Ryukyus. We seldom use the official British or American campaign names on Wikipedia, but we do have an article matching the the US ones of World War II up with the articles (List of United States Army campaigns during World War II). Not all campaigns are named after geographical locations. Well-known exceptions are the Battle of the Bulge, the Hundred Days Offensive and the Brusilov Offensive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The "where" part is an attributive noun (describing where the campaign took place). Since these are "places", they are capitalised (ie derived from a proper name even though it is acting as an attributive and not a proper name). "Campaign" is descriptive and therefore, intrinsically not a proper name. It is a common misconception to capitalise all of the words in a noun phrase because some of the words are capitalised or because the modifiers used (attributive nouns in this case) cause it to refer to something very specific. To capitalise the complete title would be to adopt title case and this would be contrary to the MOS. The problem though is that MOS:CAPS also defers to usage in [independent, reliable] sources. Military sources will tend to over-capitalise. Capitalisation of different campaigns in sources will vary and in consequence, so will the titles. Incidentally, "island" is capitalised even though it is descriptive because of a long standing and universally practiced orthographic convention to do so for geographic names (island, road, mountain etc). Incidentally, the same would apply to "battle" articles and an host of others. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You mislept “tend to correctly capitalize” above.... Qwirkle (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. [bold added for emphasis] WP:TITLE defers to this on the matter of capitalisation.
I ran the following n-grams: Guadalcanal campaign, North African Campaign, Philippines campaign, Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, Gilbert Islands campaign, Marshall Islands campaign, Mariana and Palau Islands campaign - no results, Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign - no results, Burma campaign, Malayan campaign, Papuan campaign, Solomon Islands campaign, New Guinea campaign, siege of Tobruk, first battle of El Alamein, Battle of Alam el Halfa, Battle of Buna, Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of Singapore, Bombing of Darwin, Battle of Milne Bay Battle of Savo Island and Battle of Rabaul. Qwirkle, this is what a sample of the sources has to say.
Some observations follow. N-grams reviews the corpus of google books. Some subjects may be poorly represented in the corpus. Some searches returned no result. N-grams do not differentiate the usage in headings etc v running prose. This can (does) over-represent capitalisation. All of the search phrases include a "location" and a description of the event (eg - campaign, battle etc). These are "titles" of the event. There is no question of capitalising the location - only of the descriptor. In "title case", this would be capitalised regardless. WP uses "sentence case" for article titles and the descriptor is capitalised regardless if it is the first word in the title phrase. This is not the same for running prose. In almost all cases (except "battle of ...") in the sample above, the descriptor does not meet the criteria set by MOS:CAPS to be capitalised. Based on the samples (and while there may be specific exceptions) "campaign" should not be capitalised in an article title. "Battle of ..." (and similar constructions eg "Siege of ...") will be capitalised in an article title but not necessarily elsewhere in the article. It is common (mea culpa) to bold the article tile in the lead verbatim and in links, without consideration of capitalisation where the article title does not start a sentence - eg "The Battle of XYX was ..." v "The battle of XYX was ...". Having asked the question, this is not so simple an answer/solution. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear that the way to achieve consistency, between articles, with sources, and with WP style, is to downcase the ones noticed by OP that are capped. Anyone working on that? Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Why were no notices of these proposed moves not given on the articles in question? Kablammo (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixes to simple capitalization errors like this (when sources and guidelines all agree) are uncontroversial and don't typically need discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

At risk of tying up editors in unproductive RM debates, I feel that the above moves should have a little bit more discussion before being declared "uncontroversial." N-Grams supports uncapitalized usage but also might be including all sorts of running text about other topics. I feel "consistency" is a very weak argument here because, as usual, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the sources are consistent. I would say that "descriptive titles" where Wikipedia made up a name - e.g. - Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign - sure, use "campaign." For the campaigns that are their own entity... well, to quote Cinderella157 above, "MOS:CAPS also defers to usage in [independent, reliable] sources. Military sources will tend to over-capitalise. Capitalisation of different campaigns in sources will vary and in consequence..." That sounds like an argument to do a case-by-case examination to me, and if the best sources "over-capitalise" then so should Wikipedia. I'm not a subject matter expert here and will defer to WWII experts, but if sources differ, then it could well be there was no problem at all to begin with - that we'd expect no consistency and these should all be moved individually IF that particular campaign doesn't appear to be de-capped. SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Military sources will tend to over-capitalise" is about specialist sources. WP follows general sources. Dicklyon (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

RM discussion is open now at Talk:Tunisian_Campaign#Requested_move_16_June_2019 for 4 more of these. Dicklyon (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Lend-lease

Could someone who knows the subject please take a look at the recent edits to Lend-lease please. (Hohum @) 23:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the extensive quotations are completely unnecessary, but the gist of it is right. Does the source actually say that? IDK, I don't read Russian...but it fits what I've read in English. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, agreed - as I understand it, it's a fairly mainstream view now that Lend Lease was important in supporting the Soviet counter-offensive from 1943 onwards, but not so important during 1941 and 1942. The material complaining about the US not giving the USSR heavy bombers is very one-sided though. From what I've read, the US didn't actually have a surplus of them until late in the war (for instance, the RAAF's attempts to be granted B-24s were denied until well into 1944), and the USSR didn't place much priority on acquiring them given it was focused on tactical aviation. The western Allies' strategic bombing offensive against Germany was also obviously of great value to the USSR, and there are obvious (and in retrospect entirely correct) reasons why the US didn't want the USSR to end the war with a fleet of strategic bombers. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It should not be thought that the US supplied surplus equipment under Lend-Lease. It did supply its allies with aircraft, tanks and other materiel that the US forces desperately needed, especially in 1941-42. But the US did withhold technologically sensitive equipment such as the Norden bombsight from the British and Soviets. Aircrew were advised not to allow the Lancaster or B-17 bombers to fall into Soviet hands. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
♠No, there wasn't real trust, there, nor was U.S. production of heavies so lavish large numbers could be spared. AIUI, the Red Air Force would have had little use for B-17s or B-24s in any event, since its approach was much more tactically or close-support oriented.
♠There are also issues of the inability to get supplies to the SU any sooner, partly a product of U.S. dithering over constructing facilities.
♠That said, are we straying from the point? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Straying a little perhaps. My main concern is that the wording of recent additions were, in part, incomprehensible. It needs someone who knows the subject to unpick the good information, IMO. (Hohum @) 16:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of United Religions Initiative document on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of "The Urgent Need for Prevention of Genocide of the Assyrians and Yezidis of Iraq", a document presumably published by the United Religions Initiative, on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Persecution of Yazidis by Kurds. — Newslinger talk 22:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion of United States Army and Military of the United States portals

Legión Infernal

Hi! A discussion was the started in WikiProject Venezuela regarding the Venezuelan 19th century army Hell Legion. I understand this is one of the most active WikiProjects in the English Wikipedia and I was wondering if there is any editor that has bibliographic material to start an article about the topic. Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day, it isn't a topic I would be comfortable working on, but there are a few mentions here, which might help anyone who does decide to take this on: [17]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! We will take a look at them! --Jamez42 (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments

Hello all,

I started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of Minnie Chan's reports on the Chinese military. I would like to invite the inputs from editors familiar with the subject.

Regards. -Mys_721tx (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Task force assignment

Quick question: is it more appropriate to add a British-built war memorial in South Africa to the British task force, the African one, or both? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: this seems likely to be about Scottish Horse War Memorial which was built to commemmorate deaths in a regiment that served on the British side in the Second Boer War. MPS1992 (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Both would be best, to cover nationality and place. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Submarine-surface ship engagements

I've recently stumbled across some articles on individual engagements between surface ships and submarines in WWI: Action of 15 October 1917, Action of 17 November 1917, Action of 21 May 1918, Action of 5 September 1918, Action of 8 May 1918. Having read through them, I don't believe that any are actually notable, although you might be able to make a case for two of them as they cover the engagements in which Americans earned the Medal of Honor. There are also a few more covering engagements in the Black Sea in WW2, but, by and large, these sorts of things are not covered on WP, probably because they're actions that are too low a level to be encyclopedic and are best covered by the articles on the ships involved, IMO. And there would literally be hundreds of attacks to cover. Do we want to change this as a matter of policy?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

IMHO minor incidents/sinkings such as this should be covered in the ship/sub articles rather than as a stand-alone article on the engagement itself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Most of these articles were created by a disruptive editor who was later found to be sockpuppeting to avoid scrutiny. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Dutch warships lost December 1854

What is the identity of HNLMS Amsterdam and HNLMS Cyclops lost after 14 December 1854 whilst on a voyage from the Baltic to Vlissingen? Mjroots (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've got "Cyclops" - HNLMS Cycloop (1843). Just need Amsterdam sorting out. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Amsterdam is HNLMS Amsterdam (1852). Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on MOS:JOBTITLES as it applies to military articles

I’ve noticed a number of increasing edits on military articles that change capitalization. For instance Secretary of the Army is changed to secretary of the Army or secretary of the army. Much of this is in line with MOS:JOBTITLES, but MOS:MILTERMS states “The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized.” so, as a community, what makes sense? My personal opinion is that capitalization, when consistent in outside sources should be used, even if it contradicts MOS:JOBTITLES and added as an exception under MILTERMS. Garuda28 (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:MILTERMS is still in force, so no change there. Is there a particular editor that is doing this? I've seen several RMs recently which seem to follow this decapping approach, so if there is an ongoing issue with one or more editors applying guidelines inappropriately, it would be better to address it directly with them. Happy to help with that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Good discussion. I am reading (in MOS:MILTERMS) "However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. Thus, the American army, but the United States Army." To me, that means "All of the armed forces, including the US Army, are commanded by President Trump." but "The president commands the army, navy, air force, marines, and coast guard." Am I misreading this? Eyer (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
No I do not think you are not misreading this. However MOS:JOBTITLES does not apply to article titles. For article titles see the policy WP:AT. So for WP:RM (moving articles) ignore MOS:JOBTITLES and look to WP:AT and its naming conventions (the the policy's guidelines). -- PBS (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Eyer: I would actually read it as the “president commands the Army, Navy, etc.” as they refer to specific units, and are not general units, ie. “the navies gather for fleet week”. I believe the New York Times uses this convention, but we don’t exactly spell it out. Perhaps it is worth doing? Garuda28 (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67:, specifically here [18]
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense per the MOS. Secretary of the Army is a proper noun like President of the United States and is rendered in that way in most reliable sources, it is the proper name of the position, and should have initial caps for Secretary and Army when used in full. If used in the sense of "the secretary said..." or "the president commands the ..." you should properly drop the initial cap on Secretary/President. The linked edit includes changes that are appropriate as well as ones that clearly aren't. The full capitalisation of Secretary and Army applies to the position when used in an article title, including the capitalisation of the first sentence of the article and any other instances of the full position being used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
That was my understanding as well, but wanted to check first and see if that made sense with the rest of us. Also have another on at the CMC’s page I’m confused on [19] Garuda28 (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Good grief. When it is Commandant of the Marine Corps, it has initial caps for Commandant, Marine and Corps, when it is just commandant on its own, no caps. Imagine if people didn't bother themselves with this stuff and got on with writing content... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I ping @Chris the speller: as this is his obsession. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The capitalization of military titles follows (more or less) the guidance in MOS:JOBTITLES, so I would capitalize "was Commandant of the Marine Corps", but use lower case for "was the 17th commandant of the Marine Corps" ("commandant" is modified). Trouble arises with "the Commandant of the Marine Corps is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", where MOS:JOBTITLES specifies lower case because of the preceding article "the". This is actually an easier case than "Secretary of the Army", because "Marine Corps" is usually treated as a proper name (see oxforddictionaries.com.us), while "army" is a common noun, so I don't want to get involved in changing "was the 14th Secretary of the Army" or "was the 14th secretary of the Army" or "was the 14th secretary of the army". I am unsettled by the latest changes to the article United States Secretary of the Army: Eyer has it about right, I think, but the subsequent change to "the secretary of the Army" looks wrong, and the edit summary is spurious, because we use "Smith joined the army in 1939" and "Williams left the university in 1933" even if we know which army and which university are being referred to. See MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Chris the speller yack 14:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in, Chris. I think that your explanation and my understanding agree. Eyer (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
We don't write "President of the United States", though. We write "president of the United States"; "secretary of state", etc. The question is whether "Army: by itself is a proper noun. My reading of MOS:MILTERMS is unclear on this. Of course, if the full name "United States Army" is used, it should be capitalized. What about "the American army" though? Eyer (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
It's in MOS:MILTERMS: "the American army". It's not a formal name. Chris the speller yack 14:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Eyer: It’s not explicitly stated, but common practice on military articles seems to have been capitalize branch names if they are in reference to specific services. Outside sources, such as the New York Times [20] follows this pattern. Garuda28 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone

A discussion is taking place at WT:AV re the addition of a template to the June 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone article, Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

French rule in the Ionian Islands

Members of this project are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 23#Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for input on re-draft of an article

Hi, I've redrafted the article on slighting in my sandbox and wondered if I could get some input on it. I'd like to copy it over to mainspace but since I've written one of the sources used I'd like to try and establish some sort of consensus first. For those of you who haven't come across the term before, it's about the deliberate destruction of buildings – especially fortifications. If you have any comments, I reckon Talk:Slighting would be a good place for them; I'll create a new section there shortly. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback moved to talk page of article.
Cadar (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Douglas Albert Munro needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Douglas Albert Munro; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable medieval warfare source?

A recent citation at English Longbow has been removed as unreliable. The edit suggests that the book is actually a compilation of wikipedia content. The book is :

Syed Ramsey Tools of War: History of Weapons in Medieval Times, Vij Books, 2016 isbn=9789386019813

Having reviewed what I can through Amazon and Google, I think the assessment may well be correct. Is anyone else aware of the author or publisher? If nothing else, I'm flagging it here as a caution to editors who may see it elsewhere.

Monstrelet (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Concur this is highly likely to be a Wikipedia copy (and I couldn't find attributing inside the book - but that may be due to the limits of preview). e.g. I took a random phrase from the beginning of the book - "broadly put in two groups. Those designed to engage" - put it through google, and got to our Air-to-air missile article (as well as this book). Same with "as the extent of German research into rocketry became clear." which leads to Anti-ballistic missile (as well as the second book [21]). So either they are copying from us, or we are copying from them...... Probably resolvable with publication date (both books are rather new....). Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Definitely seems like there's someone copying from someone. I had cause to do some in-depth research on longbows a while back, and I recognise some of the content that has been attributed to that book from my own research. Some of it has definitely come from Wikipedia, or the same source as the Wikipedia article. The claims are correct and correlate with my own findings - so they can stand - but its references might be a problem.
Cadar (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Checking some pages I have some knowledge of the edit histories of, there are a number of instances where paragraphs or groups of sentences have been copied for the book. I have also noted on the publisher's website that the book is one of a series of four volumes under the general title "Tools of War". An Amazon review of the ancient period volume notes the copying of wikipedia pages verbatim. Monstrelet (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviations of military ranks

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Do not use unwarranted abbreviations

I am looking at the edits of a user who frequently changes "General" to "Gen." etc. Is there any guidance on this? I have always assumed that in general [pun intended] that the full rank ought to be used unless space is an issue in--a table or whatever--(Just as is done with the month in dates (MOS:DATEFORMAT).

One of the issues with using abbreviations is just because a reader is familiar with one verity of English they may not be with another. So for example an American maybe familiar with what a "technical sergeant" is but a Brit probably would not. Using "TSgt" just puts another level of opaqueness into a sentence that uses the abbreviation.

What are others thoughts on this? -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course the full rank should be used. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
We are not short of space so should use the full rank which also make is clearer to readers who may not have a knowledge of such abbreviations. MilborneOne (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
For the records, the ranks and their abbreviations are included in the table directly shown in the MOS linked above. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that User:GELongstreet, I should have mentioned it! It seems from the reading of that part of the MOS, that the MOS encourages the use of abbreviations vis. (sic) "Wikipedia has found it both practical and efficient to use the following abbreviations,... followed by a list that includes some military abbreviations such as "Gen." -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I might recommend taking into account the gist of MOS:SURNAME in addition. My read of application here would be that only the first time it's necessary to establish current context should the name take any sort of rank (for which I would recommend avoiding the abbreviations--an additional 10 or so words won't break the article bank). --Izno (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree and disagree, yes the MOS says some can be used. But as other have said I am not sure the gen public (sorry general public) may not what a given abbreviation might mean. I suppose it depends on context, Maj Gen sir Naughty Wombat might be OK if it is a wiki link, but Msgt Terrible Boomerang, without context or link, might be confused.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
For biography articles, I think a single mention to the rank is ok since abbreviations for the rest of the article would still carry the assumption of the rank for the given person. Outside biography articles I always favored spelling the full title out since it eliminated confusion as to what rank was being referenced by a given author. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Why would we need to continue to mention their rank?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the rank should be used in full on first mention and then not used at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I use the full rank the first time and then abbreviate it (though as Sturmvogel says, if it's the same individual, I don't use the rank - as an example, in SMS Leipzig (1875), the full rank is given for Korvettenkapitan Carl Paschen, no ranks at all for subsequent mentions of Paschen, but an abbreviated rank for other captains of the ship). So long as abbreviations are explained on first use, I don't see a problem. Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:SURNAME applies to military just as much as civilian. After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only... – with a rare common sense exception where the rank is relevant in context. As for that initial mention, I see no reason why it should be abbreviated. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I've always greatly disliked abbreviating ranks. Military ranks are not well understood by many readers, and the abbreviations even less so, and are not just country-specific, but service-specific as well. There's no word limits on Wikipedia, so no reason to abbreviate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a military person—it can be hard enough for the lay reader to follow these ranks without the double whammy of having to figure out what some abbreviation stands for (especially if their not familiar with even the more common abbreviations). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we need to take the lay reader into account here, and studiously avoid abbreviations unless they are really necessary, and only after they have been introduced. I see Parsecboy's point about long-winded non-English ranks, and I think that works when they are properly introduced and linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have found some more advise in the main MOS article in the section :See Do not use unwarranted abbreviations. There seems to be general agreement so far on how to handle this, and it is the practice I have seen in hundreds of articles. So how to proceed? -- PBS (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Direct them to this discussion and revert? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Renaming of Infobox Mil Struc to Mil Inst

Is it all right if I update the MH MOS to reflect the renaming and redirection of {{infobox military structure}} to {{infobox military installation}}? RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 13:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please !vote on this discussion about the titles of 1948 articles

Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war#Vote (after reading Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name)

In short, for more there a decade there is a problem with the titles of three articles: 1947–1949 Palestine war, 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
It was agreed that there is a need for a common prefix for these three articles, and a neutral title should be chosen. Before casting a vote, you are encouraged to donate 10 minutes of your time and read Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name to understand the background of this long discussion. Thanks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Monmouth needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Monmouth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ll have a look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Russian ship La Russie

What is the identity of "La Russie", a three-deck ship of the line of 112 guns lost at the Battle of Sweaborg.("The Baltic". Glasgow Herald. 14 September 1855.). Nothing in the List of ships of the line of Russia fits and Threedecks draws a blank. Mjroots (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

According to russian sources, this 120-gun, 1st class ship-of-the line "Russia" (built in 1839) fought valiantly, received dozens of hits, but was not lost in the Battle of Sveaborg. It was scrapped in 1860.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I've found she in the List mentioned above: Rossiya 120/128 ("Россия", 1839) - Hulked as floating barracks 1857, BU 1860--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: - The Glasgow Herald says she sank. That doesn't mean she wasn't subsequently salvaged. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mjroots: - Maybe. But I have never seen the claim that Rossiya sank at Sweaborg before. It is more likely that the The Glasgow Herald exaggerated the success of the bombardment to raise morale in wartime. The book The Crimean War: British Grand Strategy against Russia, 1853–56 by Andrew Lambert states the following: "Stork and Snapper, armed with Lancaster guns, forced the three-decker Rossiya to withdraw from an enfilading position between Bakholmen and Gustafsvard." But he doesn't say she was sunk. [22] --Nicoljaus (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Impostor?

User:Patton976 Is this editor another visit by our resident Italian chauvinist? Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them as a disruption-only account. It's best to use WP:SPI for things like this, so checkusers can confirm a link (thus extending the ban to the socks). Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This editor has now been re-blocked for threatening to use multiple sockpuppet accounts to disrupt Wikipedia on their talk page. It would be worth keeping an eye out for them. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Elliot See needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Elliot See; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Campaign" in articles.

There is an ongoing attempt at "uncontroversial" decapitalization of "Campaign" in proper name phrases such as "Bougainville Campaign". Any input appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see Talk:Bougainville_Campaign#Requested_move_24_June_2019. Following up on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles and move discussions such as Talk:Tunisian_campaign#Requested_move_16_June_2019, there seems to be a broad consensus that when sources show mostly lowercase campaign, there's no reason to go against WP:NCCAPS. Yet we see things like Sam Sailor undoing fixes at North African Campaign and North African Campaign timeline. The usage evidence is very clear for lowercase. Is there any controversy in such cases? Is there a reason to discuss each one, rather than admit the concensus to follow guidelines? I'm happy to discuss any that have any actual controversy or are questionable for some reason, but these are not them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
That ngram information is quantitative, it needs qualitative analysis to be convincing. Keith-264 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's one THE OFFICIAL NAMES OF THE BATTLES, ACTIONS, & ENGAGEMENTS FOUGHT BY THE LAND FORCES OF THE COMMONWEALTH DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR, 1939–1945. REPORT OF THE BATTLES NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE AS APPROVED BY THE ARMY COUNCIL (1956) Franklyn, H.E. (General Chairman of the Committee). Keith-264 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
One what? Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
A reliable source regarding the name of battles I assume.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe so. It does not appear to include campaigns. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
NCCAPS is, frankly, begging the question. It explicitly says no caps except for proper names. Vague handwaves at it, or support based on it, have very little weight until the first question, what the proper name of the subject might be, is answered. Qwirkle (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The point is, unless there's evidence that these are proper names, we don't cap them. The evidence clearly shows that sources do not treat these as proper names. We don't need to identity a proper name for every topic; many topics do not have proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
A google scholar run suggest that capitalization is dominant, with a good deal of other lower cased uses being political rather than military. Ngrams, as mentioned above, need to be looked at qualitatively. Qwirkle (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you say which campaign you're looking at in scholar, and what you're finding? Maybe a search link? Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Burma, in that case, since it was already under discussion. Qwirkle (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
If you use quotation marks ("Burma Campaign") you'll have a more relevant search, with hits required to have both words together: [23]. Looking at the hits, the caps are mostly in titles (e.g. "Phoenix from the Ashes: The Indian Army in the Burma Campaign"), and in org names like "Burma Campaign UK" and "Burma Campaign Society". Uses in sentences about the campaign are mostly lowercase (and yes some in recent years are about the "Free Burma campaign", which is why the graph of usage over time in n-gram stats is so useful). I find no evidence that sources are treating Burma Campaign as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
So, if a more general search, with both lower case nonetheless brings up a large number of dead obvious uses as a proper noun, that is somehow counterevidence? Hmmm. Qwirkle (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
First off, Google search is not case sensitive; second, if you don't put the search phrase in quotes, you're seeing irrelevant hits. Third, the hits you're seeing are a wikipedia-based eBook and a book title. There is scant evidence of anyone capping campaign in "Burma Campaign" in a sentence. So yes, it is counterevidence. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
A wiki based book from 1984? Impressive. Qwirkle (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
That is pretty hilarious that the date appears as 1984 and the snippet reads "Charting the whole Burma war, this book flows like a novel from the high Burma Campaign - Wikipedia Charting the whole Burma war, this book sets out a myriad of facts and considerations in a clear and coherent narrative". Obviously not a source we can rely on. Dicklyon (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The oldest copy of the book in WorldCat is from ‘85, and is described as a reprint. Later cite, not the work, mentions Wiki. OTS,IF. Qwirkle (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I read this thread, purely out of curiosity, and can't help feel that there's some form of manipulation going on, to influence the outcome. No offence to this Dicklyon guy, but on observing his repeated use of the terms "evidence" and "proper name" (while avoiding saying "proper noun"), in nearly every reply, I feel it comes across as POV dog-whistling: trying to enforce a status quo rather than being open to other opinions. In my mind, the "proper name" for most battles and campaigns is not only the result of nomenclature (i.e. an offical naming process) or established usage, but is a "proper noun" in the strictest possible sense: unique events are given a capitalised identity, anything else is a generic reference. So if we have one "Bougainville Campaign" it is THE Bougainville Campaign of WWII, not a "Bougainville campaign" which reads like some unnotable event in Bougainville and could mean anything; a political group seeking votes in Bougainville would be running a "Bougainville campaign". A "presidential campaign" or "womens' rights campaign", is a generic event, they are not a proper names. However, looking at the unique historical events which Dicklyon has raised as "needs moving to small case because 'evidence' says otherwise" comes across as vexatious, an attempt to enforce WP:NCCAPS (which, as Qwirkle notes, only pays lip-service to the issue) in a manner that is not necessarily in spirit with the guidelines and lacks collaboration with experienced MILHIST project editors who write and maintain war-related articles. IMHO, these requested moves ignore established English grammar regarding the use of proper nouns and, to a lesser degree, exhibit a form of historical revisionism, since renaming "X Campaign" to "X campaign" may appear to devalue that event. Historical editors would be wise to review flagged campaigns on a case-by-case basis and challenge any moves, if appropriate, and not be influenced by over-simplified demands for "evidence" that prevent you from thinking outside the box and using common sense. Sorry to come across as blunt and over-analytical – it's just my way when I see what I consider wikilawyering. I'm sure that's not the case here, however. — Marcus(talk) 07:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, proper noun and proper name both direct to the same page. The distinction is that the former is a single word, while the latter is a noun phrase of one or more words (as explained in the article linked). The titles in question are noun phrases, consisting of two or more words. The usage of "proper name" (or not) in discussing the issue is therefore quite appropriate. Are they a "proper noun" in the strictest possible sense: unique events are given a capitalised identity, anything else is a generic reference? If you wish to make such an assertion, please do so within accepted onomastic theory - otherwise, it has the appearance of a fallacious arguement based on an appeal to unsubstantiated and arguably false authority (such as claiming "established English grammar"). Onomastic theory does not support such an assertion. A proper noun|name is not descrptive. "Campaign" is descriptive. A proper noun|name is specific in its reference but not an exclusive criteria. The definite article (the) is also specific. Further, a proper noun|name is not modified by an article (or like), yet articles commence "The X C[c]ampaign ..." - modified by an article (the). Capitalisation for emphasis, importance or significance is not an onomastic criteria. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cinderella157 – Having never heard of "onomastic theory" and with no immediate desire to study its applications, I'll kindly pass on your invitation to make assertions based upon it. Given that it is supposedly a theory, it would seem a waste of time applying it in this case anyway, since anything stated as falling within the realms of a theory cannot be considered factual. How can you call something "false authority" in one hand while asking us to use a theoretical authority in the other? Further to the point, if English grammar is not an established authority in written communication, what alternative form of composition do you propose we format information with in articles? That may seem a facetious question, but your statement makes no logical sense to me, otherwise. Regardless, this discussion already has the makings of a circular argument, I don't see the need to add a new layer of complication to it. — Marcus(talk) 12:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
To clarify further, the are real exceptions to the idea that proper names do not use the definite article. Some are likely clippings of larger noun phrases - “the Levant”, some are likely freezings of descriptives - “the Ukraine”, some calques, borrowings, or combinations thereof - “The Groyne”, “The O’Neill”. Battles and wars are also, of course, a blatant exception. We would normally not modify a proper name, yes, except to emphasize its non-exclusivity. (We might say “The/the Bill Gates” to distinguish the most prominent holder of that name from some other persons also named William Gates, for instance.)

Most battle names in English take the definite article. Most names of wars do as well. (So do many revolutions, upheavals, names of eras, &cet.) If nothing else, “campaign” is a very obvious analog. Qwirkle (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish,onomastics "is the study of the etymology, history, and use of proper names." Within "English grammar", it is that branch of study which deals with the rules, conventions and like which relate to proper names. An arguement purportedly based on "English grammar" can therefore reasonably be described as an "onomastic arguement". A branch of study is conducted within a framework of theory. To dismiss an arguement based on "onomasic theory" is therefore to dismiss an arguement based on the principles of the "established authority" of "English grammar". Such a statement on its own (ie, the authority of English grammar), is an appeal to authority. If the claim being supported by such an apeal is at odds with the rules and conventions of onomastics|English grammar, then it certainly appears to be a fallacious assertion.
Qwirkle, as with English more generally, there are exceptions to every rule. Some proper nouns do include "the" but are capitalised because it is derived from a proper name. This is discussed at proper noun. The same might be said of "The O'Neill" though this is also possibly a Gaelic construction (albeit translated into English) and we are dealing with English. Most importantly, proper names are not descriptive. "Burma campaign" and all the other examples you give are descriptive of a type of conflict. This is essentially the same observation I made in the earlier discussion at MilHist. Your comment made then, was that we should not disagree with the sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The text above has been struck. It was edited by Qwirkle with this diff. It is reinstated below per the original diff. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Dunno exactly how so much baby went out with the bathwater there. Qwirkle (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Qwirkle, as with English more generally, there are exceptions to every rule. Some proper nouns do include "the" but are generally of a geographical nature - as in the former two of your examples. In the construction "the Burma campaign" (etc), Burma may be geographical but Burma campaign is not. In the construction "he is the Bill Gates", Bill Gatesis not being used as a proper name but is nonetheless capitalised because it is derived from a proper name. This is discussed at proper noun. The same might be said of "The O'Neill" though this is also possibly a Gaelic construction (albeit translated into English) and we are dealing with English. Most importantly, proper names are not descriptive. "Burma campaign" and all the other examples you give are descriptive of a type of conflict. This is essentially the same observation I made in the earlier discussion at MilHist. Your comment made then, was that we should not disagree with the sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
First, @Cinderella157, I believe I explicitly mentioned above...yes, I did, looking at it...that Battles and wars are also, of course, a blatant exception.?

Next, the evolution of simple descriptives to names is such a commonplace that it should not need discussion. The Battle of Britain uses “Britain” as a geographic modifier of “battle”, the central part of the phrase. Qwirkle (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 – Since I, and probably few others here, are not aware of "the rules and conventions of onomastics", then it goes without saying that we only have your opinion that anything said is a "fallacious assertion". Personally, I don't intend to be judged by a theory I know nothing of – it's a bit like judging an atheist by unwritten religious ideals, you just don't do it. English grammar is what it is, I don't need to delve into its evolution or some pseudoscience of linguistics to know the difference between well-written and poorly-written English. I mean, you can drive a car without fully knowing how an engine works, and the same applies here: you can write good grammar without knowing directly about onomastics. I've survived over 30 years without it, I'm sure I'll survive one more singular discussion. :^) Besides, Wikipedia doesn't require editors to make determinations based on something so academic. If anything, I believe that grammar is an authority in written communication, because it lays the foundation for anything being communicated. You're welcome to disagee with that, but I haven't seen any rule that says otherwise, and would suggest that few editors are ever going to be willing to restrict themselves to theorectical standards. From what I understand, via some light research, onomastics is, as you said, "the study of" names. I see no suggestion that onomastics also attempts to create rules within linguistics; a bit like genealogy is "the study of" family trees, but doesn't lay rules on how to have a family. Anyway, I'm sure onomastics is very interesting to you, so good luck with that in whatever studies you do. — Marcus(talk) 11:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Marcus and Qwirkle, I'm also not that big on the theory of onomastics (but glad to have been introduced to it by Cinderella157). I agree with you that "English grammar is what it is". In all these cases, we can look at sources and use things like n-grams stats to better understand "what it is". In the case of these campaigns, few scholars or writers in general use caps on campaign. That's what it is. So where's the problem? Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/proper_nouns_rip/ — Marcus(talk) 08:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Very interesting that the evidence shows the opposite of what that article claims, on "Cold War" at least. I haven't checked further. At least he admits "I’m in the minority in current usage." Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't make any distinction between proper name and proper noun, but I know some do. But look to sources: do you see them capping "Campaign" for some of these? Can you show where? Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not here to answer leading questions. I'm simply stating that I believe your behaviour represents proof by assertion and the outcome you seek is likely to prove disruptive in the long-term, because it has less to do with historical research and more to do with pushing guidelines on a broad range of articles. I also consider these "conclusions" regarding the linked Google searches, quite subjective. Firstly, you're only looking at a small slice of published mateirial identifed by Google, which is paramount to cherry-picking, and secondly, the authors of those texts had the choice of using capitalised or non-capitalised variations of the word "campaign"? This begs the question: how did they determine which format to use? This is not "evidence" per se, in fact it amounts to WP:SYNTH, since you are implying a conclusion drawn on search engine generated usage, rather than looking for an established consensus or official nomenclature. Since historians tend to develop their own style, or possibly that of their publisher, when there is no standard naming convention, then we should consider that using search engine averages is not a highly reliable way of deciding how Wikipedia should go about naming its articles, especially since the results can be biased or inaccurate (especially those scanned using OCR technology). Since the English language and use of proper nouns already has established methods for capitalising unique events, I fail to see why you are deviating from those grammatical trends and are focusing on a limited sub-set of sources in a fashion only you consider "evidence", when this is far from the truth. — Marcus(talk) 23:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
WTF are you talking about? I'm not about "proof by assertion", but by looking at evidence (which you say you have no answer to). I'm not "pushing guidelines", but trying to apply our widely accepted guidelines (and finding pretty near zero opposition in the relevant move discussions). The books that Google has analyzed in the n-grams data is pretty nearly "all books"; if you have any books they missed, show us. Yes, their authors had a choice; look at MOS:CAPS for how we use the choices in reliable sources to guide us. And WP:SYNTH is about what articles say, not about how we decide on issues like caps. I'm not sure where these "grammatical trends" are that you're referring to, but I'm asking again if you have any evidence or sources to support your hunches on this. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You're quite the wordsmith, but once again are being evasive by providing generalised opinions without specifically citing guidelines. You point to MOS:CAPS as a whole, but don't direct to examples within. Let me do that for you. Line 1 of MOS:CAPS states: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names.... Once again – military campaigns, especially those pertaining to the likes of WWI and WWII, are often unique notable events, and per English grammar are considered proper names. Proper names equal proper nouns, having said yourself to make no distinction. Proper nouns are capitalised. Magic! Why are you having difficulty accepting this concept instead of continuing a crusade for "evidence", when you know fine well that no historian is going to directly state "use capital C's because it's the right way to do it"; only a source advising on nonenclature might do that. You are grooming us to accept a compilation of search engine queries as fact, and that is an inherent form of synthesis. Synthesis applies to an entire article, title and content – I do not accept your claim that it only covers the content, because if that were true you wouldn't be seeking nomenclature as a form of evidence with which to format the titles. Please don't feign ignorance while contradicting yourself. And don't keep spouting this red herring about "there must be evidence", because that is how I identified your "proof by assertion". Since you insist on pushing guidelines, do yourself a favour and review MOS:MILTERMS. It states: Accepted full names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized... The generic terms (war, revolution, battle) take the lowercase form when standing alone... Since military terms are covered by MOS:MILTERMS for capitalisation and we have WP:MILMOS for more specific military term styling issues, why would we need to accept a vaguely written WP:NCCAPS? There are a dozen MOS pages advising on how to title articles, use proper nouns, and follow conventions, so please enlighten us why you think only NCCAPS should be followed? — Marcus(talk) 06:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:NCCAPS explicitly invokes MOS:CAPS, which states: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent [empasis added], reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." MOS:MILTERMS commences: The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization [emphasis added] in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page. This statement is not at odds with the broader statement that prefaces MOS:CAPS. The evidence presented in respect to the various moves does not indicate anything approaching "consistent capitalization" and certainly not sufficient to create "reasonable" uncertainty in respect to the substantive criteria. What is the authority (reference or like) to assert: unique notable events, and per English grammar are considered proper names? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Moves should not be proposed using MOS:CAPS, because MOS:CAPS has nothing to do with the naming of articles as it as that is not a guideline for article titles policy (AT), The guidance on this issue for article titles is in the AT section "Article title format" (link via WP:LOWERCASE). The lead in that section states "The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles" and the first sub section "Use sentence case". If the policy section is not clear enough then the guideline that helps to explain policy can be used. It is called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) (WP:NCCAPS). Each article should be assessed on its own merrits using the name and format commonly used in reliable sources not as blanket moves as some may be descriptive titles and as such should follow the sentence case as advised in WP:LOWERCASE. However in some cases the campaign name may have become a name that is commonly used for the actions in which case upper case campaign may be more appropriate. This is something that an investigation of the sources can be used to ascertain, which is why there should be a separate RM for each article not a bulk request as has been done at Talk:Burma Campaign. -- PBS (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

To respond, I am posting this thread from the move discussion at Talk:Bougainville Campaign. As follows, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:NCCAPS explicitly defers to MOS:CAPS which states: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent [empasis added], reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." The evidence of an n-gram search is provided in satisfaction of the criteria (PBS). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"Oh no it doesn't". If it does quote the line. Secondly even if it does, we make decisions on the policy Article title the MOS is not a policy and where it diverges from the policy then it ought to be fixed. In this case there is nothing in the policy that says "consistently capitalized" see WP:COMMONNAME. -- PBS (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
PBS, Quoting from the third para of the lead at WP:NCCAPS: For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, see the manual of style sections on capital letters ... You will note (and can confirm) that the link in that text is to MOS:CAPS. At WP:AT, what it does say is: as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


While the matter is being discussed, I suggest that page moves be suspended. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I stated in my initial comments that Dicklyon's attitude "lacks collaboration with experienced MILHIST project editors who write and maintain war-related articles" and the fact that he went ahead and moved several articles to lower-case titles mid-discussion a few hours ago, without consensus, really proves that fact. Very disappointing to see such pretentious POV-pushing and manipulative behaviour. From the start of this thread I noted his unwillingness to listen to other editors or compromise. Given his lack of transparency and uncooperative stance towards members, I would suggest that some MILHIST coordinators get involved to make sure this does not persist as it could prove disruptive. — Marcus(talk) 07:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the proposal to decapitalize "campaign" in article names a bit ludicrous as it contravenes basic English grammar for proper names (possibly related to the fact that I'm seeing a lot usage in articles lately of proper names rendered (non-capitalized noun) of (capitalized place name), like king of England or battle of Hastings). Obviously an article title like centrifugal pump requires no additional capitalization since it's not a proper name, but something like the Great Fire of Smyrna does, since it's a proper name referring to a specific incident. And, more specifically in American Civil War historiography, campaign is usually capitalized referring to the Overland or Gettysburg Campaigns. And I suspect that much the same is true for terms like the New Guinea Campaign, etc. I wonder if this is an AmEng vs BritEng thing as well with the Americans generally capitalizing it and the Brits sometimes?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

What you're saying here is that you have a theory of "basic English grammar for proper names" that is different from what the majority of your sources have. What exactly is that theory, and why do so many reliable sources on military history not use it? Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I question the methodological basis for your assertion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
May I compliment you on your terminological exactitude. Keith-264 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Battle honours articles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45 is declared by the proposer to be a test case for a possible later mass nomination of such pages. This could do with more participation given the wide consequences of the result, so far it is only the nominator and myself. SpinningSpark 11:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion has now moved away from deletion and into a proposed merge of the battle honours "North West Europe 1940" currently at North-West Europe campaign of 1940, North-West Europe 1942 (battle honour), and the aforementioned North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45. Discussion at Talk:North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45#Merge proposal. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I am pleased that this matter has moved from confrontation to resolution. However, I make the following observations in a broader sense:

  • Battle honours and theatre honours are predominantly a matter of Britain and Commonwealth nations.
  • For WW2, the Battlefied Nomenclature Committee report is both official and definitive. However, there are other wars and other sources which might be considered to be definative in a similar way.
  • The matter is "bigger" than just WW2 battle and theatre honours.
  • I would observe that the initial subject article title was probably incorrect (North-West Europe 1942 (battle honour)) in that, I believe it is a theatre honour.
  • There is a complex network of information to consider, consisting of: the names of honours (and whether they are for a theatre or battle), an article on the theatre or battle to which they refer, the units (and like) awarded such honours (and antecedence) and the country to which these belong. This list is not definitive. It strikes me that this is a matter of categorisation.
  • It also strikes me that these "categories" essentially represent lists rather than individual articles.
  • I think it appropriate for this project to consider a consensus on reaching a structured approach to the matter in an holistic way.
  • Consequently, I propose a discussion in consideration of the previous points.
  • As an initial proposal, it is to create categories and list articles as previously indicated. In pragmatic terms, this might merge existing stand-alone articles into lists and the creation (and linking to) categories. It might also require identifying suitable "authoritative" sources to support such a structure.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We have the complementary pairing of Category:Battle honours of the British Army (which chiefly contains redirects of the honours as they appear on standards to the relevant battle or conflict article) and the straight list Battle honours of the British and Imperial Armies on the one hand, and the standalone RAF battle honours list which includes descriptions of the honour critera on the other. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but my impression is that these honours are not separately notable topics. The items in the categories are mostly redirects to the corresponding campaigns and wars, which clearly are notable topics. So the category is really just serving as a list. I think it makes sense to not change things too much, to focus on lists and more detailed info in merged articles / lists such as RAF battle honours, and to merge any standalone articles into the articles about the corresponding campaigns. On the one we were discussing deletion of, my proposal was effecively to delete the article on the battle honour in favor of a similarly named article on the campaign itself, which could mention the honour. But like I said, I'm no expert and have no axe to grind here, so I won't mind if you go a completely different way with these. Dicklyon (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
To that end, North-West Europe 1942 (battle honour) aka North-West Europe 1942 could redirect to a section added to the FA List_of_Commando_raids_on_the_Atlantic_Wall. North-West Europe 1944-45 could link into Western Front (World War II) ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Eyes needed at S-200 (missile)

The S-200 (missile) article, following the incident yesterday when a missile believed to be a stray S-200 fired by Syria hit Northern Cyprus, appears to have been used as a coatrack to about the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus (phrases like "illegally occupied region of Cyprus(by the Turkey's army at 1974)" and "that fact is supported by the foreign minister of the illegally self-proclaimed (1983)[64] [65]and without international recognition fake state of "Northen Cyprus"". The discussion of the incident could really do with a little diplomatic tweaking to make it more neutral.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted to the preceding edit before that content was added, because there's strong evidence of sockpuppetry from two different yet peculiarly identical accounts (User:Srarfgen_Wiston and User:Blass12334) which clearly have NPOV issues and a political agenda.
Cadar (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for George Washington's political evolution needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for George Washington's political evolution; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This one now only needs one more reviewer, so if you have a bit of time up your sleeve, please take a look. I'm sure Factotem (the nom) would greatly appreciate it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Salute to America

Should Salute to America be included as part of WikiProject Military history? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It's a completely military program. And, POV here, in spite of what it's promoted as being, this seems like one of those displays of military strength meant to impress other countries. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it, we do not yet know who or what are taking part do we?Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Assuming it's actually a military parade, then sure - just like 2018 Moscow Victory Day Parade. If the military fails to march, then possibly too as well as in Israel Defense Forces parade and "The parade that did not march". Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Someone has added the article to WP:MILHIST. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

New parameter for Template:Infobox national military

I'm not sure where to ask, but is it possible to add a new parameter for Template:Infobox national military regarding foreign assistance? In the Peshmerga page, I've added a long list of countries which have sent weapons to Peshmerga but the list also includes countries such as Sweden and Norway which train Kurdish soldiers. Having these countries under 'foreign suppliers' is misleading to me, so perhaps we need a parameter that includes training? Unless it could be argued that training is somehow supplying a military as well. Thanks in advance. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

its clear it means "major foreign suppliers of equipment" So not training would not be included. There maybe an argument for a new range, called something, but every name I can come up with is fraught with problems "Foreign assistance" (well they gave them guns) "foreign training" (what they train foreigners).Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe "international assistance from"? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I can see the same issue, also does that include political support, medical or humanitarian aid? I know what we mean, I am trying to second guess the future arguments about what it includes (in a way look at how "foreign suppliers" has been misapplied). But maybe the whole problem stems for the idea we need to say who supports who in the first place. Do we really need to know such information in the infobox anyway?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It would be infobox creep to add it. I also very much doubt a complex situation of "aid" to armed forces (whether financial, diplomatic or mercenary) can be simplified to meet infobox requirements. If it's important, it should be in the article text; if very significant, it should be in the lede. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Legion of Hell 2

I left a message at the Venezuelan Wikiproject, and somebody adviced me to ask about it here: As I was wathching some videos about Simón Bolívar, I discovered that some English-speaking YouTubers like to talk more about the Legion of Hell (Spanish: Legión Infernal) than to introduce José Tomás Boves. I think an article should be written about this Legion, Boves article in Wikipedia does not even make mention of this. From what I understood, the Legion served as a military division pro-Spain that finished with the Second Republic, but also as a repression force against the population. I wonder if anybody here would have a good reference that we could use to create the article (specially books). I would not know where to start, we are lacking of an Spanish Wikipedia article about it as well. Please ping me if you answer.--MaoGo (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have now realized that somebody from the Venezuelan project already asked this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 151#Legión Infernal. Anyway, more insight is still needed.--MaoGo (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If you are not already aware

G'day all, some of you who are not often engaged with the higher workings of Wikipedia or don't get the Signpost may not be aware of the recent incident where the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) Trust & Safety Team banned an admin for a year in an office action. To date, two bureaucrats and twenty admins have resigned the tools over this issue. I suggest you read the Arbitration Committee's open letter to the WMF Board regarding this matter, and the related discussions. They can be found here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this in some way relevant to WikiProject Military history? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Only in the sense that we are all editors, and members of the wider Wikipedia community. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
So, no. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Or, perhaps, “ so, yes, since this project contains a good number of dramaplatz-averse folk who may not have noticed this, yet it is, unlike the usual tempest in a teacup, actually important.” Qwirkle (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Important, maybe. Relevant to the project, probably not. I thought this was a project talk page. No matter. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Qwirkle put it far better than I did, we have a lot of drama-averse editors who just get on with creating content, but this is a matter of significant import that affects them, so it was posted as a PSA. No-one has to follow my suggestion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It is important to know there is a organization out there that can pull rank on admins and that even Arbcom can't help you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The concept of Arbcom helping is a weird one. It's interesting that they're in a power struggle with the WMF. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
You'd think they'd have learned after the super-protect debacle, but I guess not... TomStar81 (Talk) 08:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
And with this above observation about pulling rank, we have once again veered back into firmly topical matters. Qwirkle (talk)
Well played! Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There is an update on this issue, the WMF Board has issued a statement here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The WMF has also just issued a statement at User talk:Katherine_(WMF)#Response on behalf of the Foundation Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Not here too, please.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

As this is one of the most active Wikiprojects and this talk page attracts over 100 views a day, it is appropriate to use this as a means of bringing the matter to editors' attention, especially now that there have been announcements about broad-ranging consultations. I agree though that WP:FRAM is the appropriate place to actually discuss the matter. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nick. This is being done as a PSA, and I think it is entirely reasonable given the gravity of what has happened, as I think the often drama-averse members of this WikiProject should know about this issue because it potentially affects them. I've taken no position about the issue here, just brought it to the attention of project members. If people wish to engage with these matters, Nick and I have provided links to where they can do that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
That is mainly my point, please lets not go over this again here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Discussion should be centralised at the links given. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin nominated for A-class

I would like to nominate Yuri Gagarin for A-class but have a question before I do. Are redlinks a failing criteria for A-class on this project? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not. I have had plenty of redlinks in A-Class articles, I'm sure I'm not alone. You don't want a sea of red, but the occasional one isn't going to be an obstacle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for quick response! I have nominated the article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I would still remove them, they look bad.Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I would rather not if it is not required. The three medals in particular would be easy for an editor in this project to create if not easy for me. I am hoping the ugliness will inspire someone to create them. When this gets main page exposure a Russian editor might take care of the other two. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Not only have I never had any issues with redlinks in A-Class reviews, I also have numerous FAs (including my first one, which is nearly seven years old) which still have redlinks. The encyclopedia is not finished. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Some FA reviewers are funny about red links, but they're definitely fine at ACR. The guideline WP:REDLINK strongly encourages their inclusion. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

German-occupied Europe -> German occupation of Europe during World War II

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:German-occupied Europe#Requested move 24 June 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

American Army Aviators

Three new categories created today and populated into a number of articles, they dont appear to add anything to the articles or naviagtion, one of the main problems is I have no idea what the terms mean or if they are of any use. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be the three grades of the United States Aviator Badge. I don't think it is useful to split out the articles like this. For one thing are the articles in "United States Army aviators" all those with the just basic badge or a catch-all for those we don't know the grade of? - Dumelow (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Monmouth needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Monmouth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Merging/Deletion of Categories

The following categories are proposed to be merged or deleted.

The discussion is being had at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Denis Oswald (codebreaker)

Hi! I've just created an article on the Oxford University first-class cricketer Denis Oswald, who it turns out was a senior linguist and cryptographer in the Testery section at Bletchley in the war. His activities might make for an interesting article, so I'm posting him here to see if anyone fancies doing his codebreaking activities more justice in the article than I ever could. Also, feel free to rename the page – not sure the current article name is exactly accurate! Many thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Potential major change to capitalization guidelines of MOS:MILTERMS

FYSA, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "army" and "navy" that the community should be aware of. Any input on possible changes would be appreciated. Garuda28 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Last year my dog died. She was a truly magnificent animal. I miss her still, and probably will forever. I could regale you with tales of her intelligence, courage, and strength for hours on end, but I’m feeling charitable to you lesser tribes without who did not have the honor of her acquaintance.

You know what I miss about her most right now? Watching her wag her tail. Haven’t seen that for a while around here, nope.

Other way ‘round, here, yessir. Qwirkle (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Pritzker Literature Award

The Pritzker Literature Award was announced today. John Morrow, Jr. is the 2019 recipient. See: [24], Military historian John H. Morrow wins $100000 award, and [25] for starters. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

RfD discussion of Wikipedia:CIVILWAR

It has been proposed that the redirect Wikipedia:CIVILWAR, which currently redirects to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram, either be deleted or repurposed for this WikiProject, perhaps for the American Civil War task force. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Wikipedia:CIVILWAR would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This one has had a good going over by two reviewers already, and the image review is done, just needs a third review to get over the line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Prokhorovka

Is Ben Wheatley a reliable source to be considered for the Battle of Prokhorovka (see A visual examination of the battle of Prokhorovka)? In his abstract Wheatley states "The battle of Prokhorovka was steeped in Soviet legend (and myth) for many decades. This remained the case until post-Soviet era research revealed the reality of a Soviet armoured disaster. Building on this knowledge this article explores Luftwaffe reconnaissance photographs taken in the days and weeks immediately following the battle of Prokhorovka. The photographs provide visual confirmation across the battlefield of the demise of the 5th Guards Tank Army's 18th and 29th Tank Corps'. The battle's most famous locations are visualized (many for thefirst time) in wartime photographs; these include the notorious anti-tank ditch, Hill 252.2, Oktiabrskiy statefarm, Storozhevoye Woods and the site of Tiger tank duels on and close to Hill 241.6." Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Given it was published in a peer reviewed academic journal yes, but with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ben Wheatley is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of History at the University of East Anglia The article itself looks good and is referenced by well-known and respected authors like Frieser, Zetterling, Glantz and Zamulin.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Certainly, but given this brings into question long-held perspectives about the battle, I think the reference to Wheatley should introduce the sort of study it was: ie "The historian Ben Wheatley conducted an examination of Luftwaffe reconnaissance photographs taken in the days and weeks immediately following the battle. His study found... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it should be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree, of course.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yashima needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yashima; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This one is done now, thanks AR! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

EngvarB question

Is there a WP on it? Hawkeye says that it's prohibited. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about "prohibited", I use it, but you have to be careful with it, because it throws up inconsistencies, particularly with AustEng under the "supposed" Commonwealth spellings. AustEng is more flexible about spellings than the script is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the label had changed but I rarely move away from EvB articles so that doesn't really apply to me. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151&oldid=1086851052"