Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 95

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 91
• 92
• 93
• 94
• Archive 95
• 96
• 97
• 98
• 99
• 100
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

Scope

A question...do pages on the designers of military aircraft, who never served in the military themselves, qualify as part of the project? I'd think so, but I want to be sure in case I'm wrong. ;) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Benton Air Force Station source(s)?

I was wondering if anyone here knew of any reliable source(s) on Benton Air Force Station? It was in Colley Township, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania in the US, within the northern part of Ricketts Glen State Park, which we are trying to get to FA. My guess is that there would be a few sentences on the station in the park's article (plus a few more on Red Rock Job Corps, which is on the site now, and the FAA radar installation there now). Our only sources on the station so far are the USGS GNIS entry and the USGS topographic map. I know it was a radar site established in the Second World War to watch for low flying aircraft approaching across the Atlantic Ocean. Any additional information / sources would be greatly appreciated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

new articles needing assessment

Ian made a comment about so few articles needing assessment. I was wondering the same thing. Is it that there are fewer new articles? Pr that we are keeping up with the assessments? Both? Does anyone have stats on these things? I've noticed Kumioko hasn't been around, and that may be part of the drop in numbers. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I check the automatically generated list of new articles most days, and the number does seem to have declined over the last year. While the quality of new articles is much higher than it used to be, I don't think that this is an overall change for the better... Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality is always good. I looked at the link, and didn't see what might be new articles in MH. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Raid at Cabanatuan now open

The A-Class review for Raid at Cabanatuan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Terrorism at peer review

A new portal Portal:Terrorism is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Terrorism/archive1. I put a bit of work into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Franco-Mongol alliance now open

The A-Class review for Franco-Mongol alliance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) now open

The A-Class review for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Princess Royal (1911) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Princess Royal (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

USAF Squadrons

I see a number of new articles for various tactical missile squadrons. Was there ever a decision on whether that level of organization was notable.? DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that it would be. Below the squadron level would be probably not, but squadrons should be. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Earlier AfD debates have decided that non-combat ground squadrons are not notable, as are non-combat separate ground companies, but combat squadrons may be. However whether non-active squadrons that only existed for a short period of time are notable is another question. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

More eyes

To achieve consensus here would be helpful. I've suggested a compromise which User:Recon.Army has rejected for now, saying he would like to hear from more editors. Benea (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for William Ellis Newton now open

The A-Class review for William Ellis Newton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for CFM International CFM56 now open

The featured article candidacy for CFM International CFM56 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Army of the Danube order of battle needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Army of the Danube order of battle; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bots automatically adds wrong links

A bot keeps adding a link to the German Wiki article of Wilhelm Borchert and Ernst Born. However the German articles are of different person's who just happen to have the same name. How do I stop this? I manually reverted but they keep coming back. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Interwiki linking conflicts. A manual purge of the links should do it but if that fails you'll need to message the owners of the bots. I've had this happen before and removing the interwiki link from the other wikis to this one helps. I've had a look at the two links on Ernst Born and removed the link on the German wikipedia page but on the Alsatian wikipedia I don't have sufficient editing rights to remove the link so I've left a message with the Alsatian bot.

Peer review for Long Range Desert Group now open

The peer review for Long Range Desert Group is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Royal Navy now open

The peer review for Royal Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Operation Valentine (1948)

I have created the above, but I can't find anything on is, despite perusing all the books in my possession and all I could find on the internet. Is anyone able to expand on this supposed operation and check if it actually exists? SGGH ^ping! 12:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I found nothing in Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I too found nothing online, on google books or JSTOR, or in the myriad of First Indochina War books that I have. SGGH ^ping! 11:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Insurgency in Macedonia

I have just nominated this article for deletion as it appears that the war isn't actually taking place based on the references provided. Comments in the AfD would be most welcome here Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Churchill Crocodile - HELP NEEDED!

Anyone feel like completing the specifications on the Churchill Crocodile? I'm not sure how similar the specs. are to the regular Churchill tank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.68.131 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is rather safe to say that the tank was identical to the non-flamethrower type in regards to armour, speed etc - they only removed the bow machine gun and replaced it with the flamethrower (of course with other internal changes and some to the back). Nothing in the sources i have just checks makes any mention to different specification. I would suggest you would be fine swiping the info off the main article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Osprey Vanguard on Crocs the later Churchils were made with the precise intention of allowing conversion to crocs with the minimum of effort. That imnplies that apart from gubbins they were essential identical to the Gun tanks.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Need a help of a native English-speaker

Need "normalized" a Machine translation from the Russian wiki (text about Lieutenant Colonel ) --UeArtemis (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Russian Armed Forces

Appeared in Russia as a rank and position (deputy commander of the regiment) in the Royal army at the end of the XV - beginning of XVI century. In musketeer regiments usually L.colonels (often "despicable" origin) performed all the administrative functions of the musketeers head, appointed from among the nobles or boyars. In the XVII century and beginning of XVIII century, rank (rank) and P was called as polupolkovnik due to the fact that Lieutenant Colonel is usually in addition to other duties, commanded the second "half" of the regiment - back rows in the construction and reserves (before the introduction of the construction battalion of regular soldiers of regiments) .

Imperial period

Since the introduction of the Table of Ranks, and until its abolition in 1917 of any rank (rank) Lt. Col. VII belonged to the class and report cards prior to 1856 gave the right of hereditary nobility. In 1884, after the abolition of the rank of major in the Russian army all the majors (except for laid-off or tarnished his nefarious transgressions) were made to lieutenant colonel.

Soviet period

In the Red Army rank of lieutenant colonel for a long time simply absent. It appeared only in 1924 as a regular category K8 - "assistant commander of the regiment and his peers, which in 1935 with the introduction of personal titles were abolished. The very title of the newly introduced September 1, 1939 decision of the CEC and the CPC of the USSR № 2690 (Article 41-I Law on Universal Military Duty), which was announced by the order of the People's Commissar of Defense (NCB) № 226 of July 26, 1940, when it was first awarded , as the insignia were awarded former "colonel" (for three "sleepers" in their buttonholes). In the hierarchy of the military-political composition of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel was consistent with the title "Senior Battalion Commissar".

in the first section

the text refers to the practice of Proprietorship (Inhaber). See Proprietor (Inhaber) for an article about the Habsburg practice (and Prussian, most of the German states). In France, the Proprietor was a Colonel, and usually had a chef de brigade, which would be a Lt. Colonel, who performed the administrative tasks. Eventually the chef might be promoted if the colonel was promoted to general. In the Habsburg armies, the appointment was for life, unless the officer was cashiered or quit. The translation of "despicable" would probably mean someone of common origins, or plebian. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary now open

The A-Class review for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ndwandwe–Zulu War

Does anybody have information on this war? I'm looking for some now. I could use a little help. B-Machine (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I just ce'd an article on the Ngoni people, who were displaced in this war. You might check that article to see if there are some sources. Article itself wasn't well cited, but it did have some references. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Also, check The Zulu Revolution: State Formation in a Pastoralist Society. David Shingirai Chanaiwa African Studies Review, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Dec., 1980), pp. 1-2. and "Warfare, Political Leadership, and State Formation: The Case of the Zulu Kingdom, 1808-1879". Mathieu Deflem. Ethnology. vol 38:4 Autumn 1999, pp. 371-391
• The Zulu Kings: A Major Reassessment of Zulu History. Brian Roberts (1976?)
• Zulu Kings and Their Armies. Jonathan Southerland. (2006?)

Problem is that most English sources focus on the Anglo Zulu wars in the later period, not the formation wars in the early century. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and there is also an Osprey book on the Ndwandwe–Zulu War--Angus McBride was the author. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there's something in The Washing of the Spears:The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation. Donald R Morris (1989) [1965]- not sure how well it compares to more modern sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's very Sixties. But interesting none the less. I think most of it is in googlebooks. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC Gnevin (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese prisoners of war in World War II

There's presently a discussion of the neutrality of the Japanese prisoners of war in World War II article and its content which editors active in this project may, or may not, wish to comment on. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Quebec (1775) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Quebec (1775) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Horses in World War I now open

The featured article candidacy for Horses in World War I is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for William Ellis Newton now open

The featured article candidacy for William Ellis Newton is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Need more American sources for Operation Crimp

Hello all. I have been involved in writing the article on Operation Crimp, a joint US-Australian operation in 1966 during the Vietnam War. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate any substantial US source material, particularly for the operations of the US 3rd Bde (not so much for the US 173rd Bde). Can someone with more knowledge and access to US material on the Vietnam War please have a look at the article and let me know if such material exists, and or add it themselves? The link to the GA review is here for information. Many thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked JSTOR and there is one document that refers to "crimp documents"

Have you looked at the New York Times or Washington Post archives? They both had good coverage of Vietnam. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have 6 or so documents that might help. A couple look pretty good. If you send me an email, I send them back. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, will do. Anotherclown (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the US Army is producing/sponsoring an official history of the Vietnam War which may have some material on this operation (if it a) actually exists and b) the relevant volume has been published). Have you checked the sources To Long Tan quotes? - it may be the most recent scholarly book on this operation. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Nick. Actually I have got the US official history and have used it in the article. Interestingly enough it cites an Australian author for much of the detail (Breen). Re To Long Tan, good idea but I'm now divorced from my collection (overseas again)... asking a lot I know but would it be possible for someone to check this out for me? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Marrua

The Marrua article has been nominated for deletion. It appears to be a Brazilian built military vehicle, so should fall under the remit of this WP. It needs work, (structure, refs) but should be salvageable. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump Proposal: Scrap A-Class

(Not my proposal.) You guys use it, so you must have some comment to make, good or bad. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#A-class_articles - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

HMS Sea Robin (P267)

FYI, HMS Sea Robin (P267) has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Deprodded. It needs expansion, yes, but a ship that wasn't completed can be notable, indeed. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it depends on the ship. Japanese battleship Tosa was special because of all the testing done on the incomplete hull. I don't see that same quality in Sea Robin—in fact, I see nothing that couldn't be summed up in a table or list in the class article (unless I'm missing something here?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The cancellation of 'small' vessel construction programs was a widespread event at the end of World War II, and unlike capital ships, there's rarely much of worth (a) to know, and (b) written in reliable published sources. Unless I'm missing something big, the entirity of the boat's history is "Was laid down, war ended, was cancelled as no longer required" in about as many words. This article would probably serve best as a redirect to British S class submarine (1931), as all of the relevant information appears to be covered in the British S class submarine (1931)#Third Group section. -- saberwyn 05:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Indiana (BB-1) now open

The A-Class review for USS Indiana (BB-1) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 09:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Article nominations

Hi everybody. Nominations for Good Article that fall under our scope are starting to pile up again—there are over 30 articles waiting to be reviewed. If you have the time, please take a look and see if there are any articles you can review. If would also be helpful if those who make regular nominations there take the time to review as well. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Second that! With the number of reviewers it takes on average for each completed ACR and FAC, nominators at those levels really should be reviewing four or five others, but each GAN generally only takes one person, so if you just make it a rule to review one GAN for every one of your noms, we'd never have a backlog... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history)

Currently Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history) covers non stylistic issues such as notability and Categories can users here please have a look Gnevin (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I think the name "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide" is more appropriate than Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history). For that reason I reverted your bold move and I suggest that you put in a WP:RM here on the talk page to which its talk page redirects too, if you think it ought to be moved as I do not think it should be unless there is a clear consensus on this page for the move to be made. -- PBS (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it any more appropriate it's not a style guide? It should be fixed by removing the non stylistic content or moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/article guide Gnevin (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the question of what the page should cover is distinct from that of what it should be named; certainly, if we aim to be acknowledged as part of the MoS, I do not think we can (or should) object to naming the page in a manner consistent with the new MoS naming conventions. Whether there should in fact be one guide or two is a separate issue; Gnevin, is there actually any concrete rule on which topics should and shouldn't be in a "MoS"? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(There has, incidentally, already been some discussion on this matter among the coordinators. Given that things seem to be moving in various directions now, I've asked the others to merge the rest of that discussion with this one. In any case, I would ask that everyone avoid making any more moves or major structural changes at this point until we've had the opportunity to fully discuss these issues as a project.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Kirill , there aren't any hard and fast rules but if you look at Category:Wikipedia_guidelines anything that is there (style excluded of course) shouldn't be in a style guide. Gnevin (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is apparently not going to be a localized issue, so lets start at the beginning so we can bring everyone up to speed at the same time.

As most of you are probably aware, our project has had a style guide for some time. It used to be located in the project's main page, however at the encouragement of a couple of editors we opened a discussion to formally have our style guide incorporated as part of the the wikipedia wide manual of style in 2007. The measure passed in November, at which point the MILMOS became a part of the MoS for all intents and purposes. This arrangement has been observed since then, but recently a handful of discussions have cropped up, beginning with a discussion on very specific MoS's, with the leading idea at the moment being to move all of the subject-specific MoS pages into a supplemental style guide that would have the same level of authority as the MoS proper. In addition to these points, question about non-stylistic guidelines hav been raised on the page (WT:MILHIST#Issues with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history)), which has led to a suggestion that we split MILMOS into a style guide and a content guide (but potentially retaining a common talk page for both).

In light of the number of discussions concerning these issues its been decided to consolidate the information here to allow for project-wide feedback on these matters. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What if Wikipedia:Subject style guide was changed to be Wikipedia:Subject specific guide which would allow content from any of the sub categories in Category:Wikipedia_guidelines. Then the only change required here would be to mark each parts parent of master guideline? Gnevin (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide covers more than just those issues which are covered by the Manual of Style. For example the naming of articles which is an area where the MOS defers to the Wikipedia policy article titles. If it is going to be moved under the MOS then the sections which are nothing to do with the style guide should be moved out into another guideline. Personally I think that is not desirable. So better that this remains independent of the MOS -- the argument for stating that it is a subsection of the MOS could equally be used to rename it "Wikipedia:Naming convention (military history))" -- -- PBS (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PBS do you read other user comments or just throw out prepared comments? Gnevin (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh that I was organised enough to prepare comments! I am stating my position here now I could have placed the comment without an indentions but it seemed better to add it to the end of the most recent thread. I am not as concerned as some over organising policies and guidelines quite so regimentally as others are, I am more interested in the content of the policies and guidelines and moves such as this have the potential to cause problems between the demarcation over article titles -- which have their own policy -- and the MOS. -- PBS (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And how have your concerns not been addressed by the recent changes to the SSG proposal? Gnevin (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that this topic be removed from WPMILHIST Announcements. Doug (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Article in need of grading and assessment

I've recently rewritten and upgraded the entire Larne gun-running article which had failed many Wiki guidelines and would like someone to independantly assess and class the article please. The article i believe meets many Wiki guidelines though does still have a issue as stated by me on its discussion page. Northern Star ^(talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times and the Holocaust

Please see the discussion in Talk:The New York Times and the Holocaust#Assessing References. I have suggested some edits which have been reverted, so I would welcome comments from others to help form a consensus.

I originally posted an article on a tragic, but non-controversial topic in Holocaust studies: the New York Times policy during the period of the Second World War to minimize reports of the Holocaust. I relied on two resources: the New York Time’s apology in 2001, and the work of Dr. Laurel Leff.

The issue is not controversial among knowledgable people because the Times itself acknowledged its guilt fully and publicly in its 150th anniversary issue on November 14, 2001, 56 years after the end of the war. Under the title, “Turning Away from the Holocaust”, retired executive editor Max Frankel wrote that the Times knew the accuracy of the reports on Hitler’s persecution of the Jews and the Final Solution, but that from the beginning to the end, chose never to make it a lead story, or the exclusive topic of an editorial. “… to this day the failure .. to fasten upon Hitler's mad atrocities stirs the conscience of succeeding generations of reporters and editors.”

In listing the details of the Time’s policy to ‘bury’ the Holocaust, Frankel cited one outside resource: “No article about the Jews' plight ever qualified as The Times's leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year. The ordinary reader of its pages could hardly be blamed for failing to comprehend the enormity of the Nazis' crime. Laurel Leff...has been the most diligent independent student of The Times's Holocaust coverage and deftly summarized her findings last year in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics.”

Three people originally tried to delete the entire article. they have never made any contributions to an article on the holocaust or world war II, and are not really interested. they came over from the new york times page, where they try to prevent criticism of the Times. when they were voted down re deleting the New York Times and the Holocaust in its entirely, they have proceeded to gut it in place. i don't have any allies on this page. The administrator helping me on my talk page suggested I come here to say i would welcome comments from others.Cimicifugia (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

The article in question seems to be The New York Times and the Holocaust Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Nimitz class aircraft carrier now open

The featured article candidacy for Nimitz class aircraft carrier is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Usage of File:Waricon.svg in article templates

As per WP:ICONDECORATION this image shouldn't be used in article templates. Any objects to removing it ? Gnevin (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I see its misuse in templates such as {{History of Sudan}} where I don't see any reasons for its use. I don't think there would be many complaints to removing it templates such as those. Woody (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, get rid of them. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

Consensus has been reached to use the template:

• {{Good article}}

Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

IRC

Does this wikiproject use IRC? I visited what I thought was the MilHist IRC channel but it was totally empty. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been dead since Catalan (talk · contribs) retired. I sometimes loiter in #wikipedia-en if you need something. Edit: Okay, I've added it to my autojoin. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We've reopened it and I posted a link at the project's page to show people the way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I was granted the founder right so we have an op, and everyone in this project (and outside!) is welcome to join! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

attention needed

Could someone please cast their eyes at these two threads and resolve the issues noted? Griffinofwales (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Indiana class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Indiana class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ordnance QF 18 pounder now open

The A-Class review for Ordnance QF 18 pounder is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut

It has come to my attention that User:ALR has been consistently reverting the inclusion of information about the play Deep Cut on the article Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, citing it as "popcruft". "Popcruft" is defined in WP:MILPOP as a "trivial appearance" or "unsupported speculation". The play is hardly that, as evidenced by the reliable sources which have been added to the article recently. DDM1 (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me like the information and the sources provided are more than trivial. However, take note of WP:3RR, and we can see if we can establish consensus one way or the other either here or on the talk page. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and I understand that edit-warring is not the way to go, so I too hope we can build consensus on this topic. To add more context, I think the play and surrounding coverage have significantly added to public awareness of the barracks and to dismiss the information from the article would be foolish. DDM1 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting approach, pre-emptive complaint about action that I may, or may not have taken.

The key point in the pop culture guidance is notable impact on popular culture and be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic, and I would not consider that a small selection of theatre reviews actually indicate an impact on popular culture. Theatre reviews are just that, they're items of record that merely support the fact that the production happened and that the production itself was good, bad or indifferent. They're not an indicator of significant impact outside the production. I would also say that a promotional announcement of the radio interpretation is not in itself notable, many plays are converted for R4 transmission and it's not an indicator of their significance that it happened.

The only indication of significance is the award by Amnesty, from 41 candidates at the Fringe for the 2008 award. It then had about a three week run in London, in a theatre that specialises in political productions. Given that the suicides are already discussed extensively in the article then it doesn't really add much to the legal assessment that's already included.

It may be appropriate to include a mention in the article about the Tricycle Theatre and if the denizens of the Theatre Wikiproject think that there is enough evidence to support an independent article on the production then it may be appropriate to include a mention of it. If there isn't, then it probably doesn't meet the notable impact criterion.

ALR (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I side with ALR on this one, I fail to see how this qualifies for inclusion in the article. Personally, I am tempted to simply remove it and delete it again, but in the interest of the discussion I'll leave it alone until the discussion reaches some level of consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What about this article? Firstly, it's not a review (The Guardian have already written a few) and love him or hate him, Mark Lawson is a prominent cultural commentator in the UK. A piece like that should add weight to the argument on its "impact on popular culture" - something which can't really be quantified anyhow. DDM1 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a review, just because it's a CiF piece doesn't change that. He talks about how the play made him feel, and regurgitated the view of the families that the existing legal investigations really needed yet another legal investigation to complement them. He doesn't identify the impact that it's had elsewhere. In fact even for a CiF piece it's not all that well commented.

ALR (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be conflating the "impact on popular culture" with the impact Deep Cut could have on "yet another" inquiry. On the contrary, that the play has had this type of discussion in a pop-cultural forum should sufficiently indicate notability (I recall seeing it on Newsnight Review but haven't been able to track the episode down). Furthermore, for a brand-new theatre production, I would say 41 comments makes it a very well commented piece. Moreover, most of the comments seem to be from people (like me) who haven't even have seen the bloody thing yet know of it. Now that's "pop-culture impact". DDM1 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any justification for the play having had any impact on popular culture, essentially has the play had any real impact? The calls for a public enquiry come from a fairly small group of people, most of them closely associated with the families of the four trainees who killed themselves. The play itself does not appear to have had any effect whatsoever, other than to give theatre reviewers something to talk about.

The suicides and associated investigations have had a major impact, the Blake reforms of Army training have made a huge difference to the experience of training, they've also affected the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Air Farce training. There are also a number of unintended consequences of implementing these reforms. The failures of the military investigation, and evidence handling have also led to a number of reforms in the service police, again across all three services, increasing professionalism and independence. In contrast this play has had a fairly short run, and managed to get some theatrical reviews. Lawson talks about the need for a review ignoring the fact that there have been several, and lessons have been identified from these have already been implemented.

Essentially can you identify anything independent of the theatrical industry that can be attributed to the play, rather than the suicides and various investigations?

ALR (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, information on impact of the Blake report etc appears to be quite notable and should be added to article, if you have a source. As for the main argument, I have very little to add, except a definition of how I perceive popular culture to be defined in this situation; it is through instruments such as newspapers (such as The Guardian) and awards given by internationally recognised organisations (such as Amnesty International) that impact is achieved and its non-trivial notability is indicated and an attempt to define "pop culture impact" beyond these terms is entirely out of order.

It's been fantastic thrashing this out but my view is that this should be open-and-shut and I advance that this argument is becoming something akin to an abuse of process.

DDM1 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, you haven't demonstrated significance, so in view of the guidance I've removed the mention. I also consider it pretty much open and shut, given the lack of evidence for the assertions of significance.

ALR (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. Given ALR's decision to declare that a consensus has been reached, does anyone else want to comment on all this? I believe I have given multiple significant examples of notability for the inclusion of information about this well-known and culturally significant production, which I will reiterate now below.

• Significant media coverage in terms of multiple reviews from reliable publications.
  
• A discussion piece in The Guardian (linked above).
  
• Multiple awards, including the Amnesty International Freedom of Expression award.
  

DDM1 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets just be clear here. Theatre reviews are no more than a record of the existence of the production. I would prefer to see something independent that talks about what the effect of the production may have been. That's all I'm asking for, evidence to support your assertion of significant impact.

One evidenced award, by Amnesty, does not appear to be sufficient.

I would observe that an inability to provide evidence to support your assertions does not justify the implications of abuse of process above which I had chosen to ignore.

ALR (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, let's be clear. Proof of "effect", whatever that entails, is not required. Pop-cultural impact should measured by significant coverage, which has been ample. DDM1 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So we go back to the guidance: What is meant by notable impact on popular culture, the key word for me is impact or effect.

In the absence of any independent coverage of the play other than theatre reviews probably constitutes Unsupported speculation about cultural significance.

So evidence is required. What you've presented is merely evidence of existence, not evidence of impact or significance.

ALR (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to add, my position on the matter remains and I await input from other users. However I am interested, let's imagine this play DID have an impact on popular culture, in your terms. How would that look? What kind of sources would I draw on to establish notability? DDM1 (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In terms of moving this forward, the evidence that I'd be looking for is something that's not concurrent and doesn't focus on the performance itself. I'd be looking for something that talks about what the production has brought to the debate.

Essentially has it stimulated any further debate, or has the whole thing died down after the publication of the Blake Review?

I'd also be expecting some independence from the theatrical industry, so not reviews or professional publications. Something from the training industry, professional military, perhaps legal.

I'd also return to the suggestion that I made above that you didn't respond to, work with the Theatre Wikiproject, if the play is considered notable enough to have a standalone article then it may be able to justify mention and a crosslink. That would allow you to flesh out that article with as much as you'd want without needing more than a sentence in the article about the barracks.

ALR (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've created Deep Cut and a single sentence back to the article. DDM1 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you consult with the Theatre wikiproject to establish how to demonstrate notability of the play. I don't believe that it is particularly notable, one run at the fringe and one short run at the Tricycle doesn't seem particularly notable to me.

ALR (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ACR for Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive

Hi, I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that there's a new ACR: Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive. Comments would be much appreciated, thank you. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Action of 9 February 1799 now open

The A-Class review for Action of 9 February 1799 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Posen now open

The A-Class review for SMS Posen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Operation Winter Storm now open

The featured article candidacy for Operation Winter Storm is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

War of the First Coalition

In 2005 or so the name of this article was changed to First Coalition. While there might need to be an article entitled First Coalition, the other articles on the sequence of the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars have similar titles: War of the Second Coalition, War of the Fifth Coalition, etc. The infobox is title War of the First Coalition, the battle box is also. Could someone figure out what to do? It's already been changed once, and someone has added a template I'm not familiar with to it, but I cannot figure out how to deal with this, and it should be done. will take an administrator. Does this need to be discussed, or can we just do it to make this article in line (at least in terms of its title, but not its quality) with the others? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a candidate to move since it is part of a sequence and it is the oddball out here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it. The lede may need tweaking to comply with MOS:BOLDTITLE but the infoboxes etc were already using "War of the First Coalition". EyeSerene^talk 08:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks. I've fixed the first paragraph of the lead and will work on the whole article over the next few months. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Name change requested

I have requested that the title Action of 17 February 1864 be changed to something more familiar, such as Sinking of USS Housatonic by CSS H. L. Hunley. Discussion is on the article talk page. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Usage of User:Xenobot Mk V

I was looking at Xenobot Mk V, and thought that it would be good to have in the scope of our project, considering how many articles fall within our scope. I can start making a page of categories, and help would be good, but I want to make sure consensus exists. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea, but I am curious if the bot would able to tag articles for the respective task forces should we invest in it; if not, then perhaps we would be better off forgoing use of the bot since not tagging TFs would make it somewhat harder for us as we would have to go through and tag for this manually. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the documentation, and it appears to be able to tag certain categories with certain tasks forces, although I'll have to look into it further. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The two things I would be interested in hearing would be the ability of the bot to handle TF tags for the roughly 50 TFs we run, and whether it has the capacity to apply knowledge of the TF parameters we have to the pages it tags. If the bot is unable to recognize which pages belong to which task force then it may create problems for us in the long run since we suffer a perpetual backlog of military history articles needing attention. If the bot is able to correctly tag articles for task force coverage then I would grant the bot the rank of Major and welcome its assistance with open arms, otherwise I'd be incline to pass on the bot or use it in conjunction with a tag and assess drive as the hammer end of a hammer and anvil attack. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it could take a while, it seems that I could define different categories for it to tag the files to. I'm busy this week and next, but I'll drop a message on xeno's talk page asking about it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, there is full support. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like it should be able to handle it, so I'd be inclined to support its use. Unless there is some ghost in the machine I haven't spotted of course. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the main problem will be the same one that plagued the first Tag & Assess drive: if we descend from high-level war categories (e.g. Category:World War II), we quickly run into categories whose main topic is related to the war, but whose sub-topics aren't (e.g. Category:Radar). This makes it very difficult to descend down the category tree in an automated fashion. It would be possible, I suppose, to manually generate an exhaustive list of "pure" MILHIST categories, but I'm not sure that the effort required to do so would justify the relatively minor benefit of catching a small number of untagged articles. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You can exclude certain subcategories, but that is a valid point which would raise the amount of manpower needed considerably. On the positive side once set up it would require a relatively small amount of maintenance. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(od)Do we have any idea how many articles this is likely to catch? EyeSerene^talk 07:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I'm not sure how we could do an approximation. I know there were a substantially huge number of articles caught for WP:BIRDS, but I'm not sure if they were worse tagged or something. I might be inclined to run it for certain large but obviously milhist subcategories initially, and then see how many we caught. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That might make sense, just to see if it would then be worth extending to other categories. EyeSerene^talk 15:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. It would be nice if we could establish if we want it to auto-tag. I have no position one way or the other, although I know we have an agreement with WP:AIR that assessments are the same, and so therefore we could probably have the bot assess it if it's assessed by WP:AIR. I'm going to start making a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Auto-tag categories within the scope of Korean military history, and assault rifles, just so we see what we get history/armament wise. Of course I won't run the tests until we have consensus whether we want it to autotag. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bletchley park

Hi, just seen this on the BBC [1] Bletchley Park WWII archive to go online, will be worth keeping an eye on. May provide that missing link to some articles. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Great find :) Thanks for the heads up. EyeSerene^talk 08:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

request to review article and PROD

Can some of the experts here take a look at Salvador Flores to determine notability, appropriateness of the prod, and clean up if it's notable? I'm not watching this page (MILHIST), so drop a line/tb on my talk page if necessary. tedder (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Recruiting Task Force

Hey, I was looking through all of the task forces and I noticed that there was no force for plainly recruiting new members for the project. I noticed that on one of the discussion pages that it was something for members to do. Does anyone know if there is a task force for this? Or is there a simple way to just invite new members? If not I would like to suggest making a task force specifically for this purpose.Tetobigbro (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Running a task force solely for recruitment seems a little silly to me since our project already lists over 1,000 active users (although I should note that our membership logs are a little...dusty at the moment). I'm not sure I like the idea of whole task force being devoted to recruitment, but I would be open to the idea of having a working group for such matters. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. And how would would you suggest this gets done?Tetobigbro (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well first lets here what you have in mind; I do not want to send you off on a wild goose chase. I'm sure have some some ideas about what you want this group to do, and if you would elaborate a little I can help you firm up where to go. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, its purpose would mainly be to look for some Wikipedians who seem like they could make great contributions to the project. A small group would search throughout Wikipedia for active users who show some promise of contributing to the project. The idea may be pointless, but it seemed like a good suggestion, and it is, of course, only a suggestion.Tetobigbro (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject of an outreach department has come up from time to time, but it's never been something we've adopted (though if you were to ask why not, I don't have a good answer). I agree with Tom that if you're keen to take it on - probably not as a full TF but as a working group or indeed as an "Outreach department" - then more power to you :) the_ed17 has some invitation-type templates he uses and I've borrowed before now, so developing those and perhaps moving them into project space might be a good place to start. EyeSerene^talk 21:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok and if you wouldn't mind telling me, how do you form a working group? I know how to make a task force, but are they the same thing or just an informal group of people?Tetobigbro talk 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that an outreach department would be a fine idea, but make sure that you have a clear idea of how you are going to go about establishing the Outreach Department. Will you focus exclusively on outreach to individuals or will you focus on groups? Will you have an aspect of your Department that focuses on liaising with other WikiProjects? Perhaps the project might try to act as a working group incubator, aiding in the formation of new working groups? I would suggest that you figure out how your outreach group will operate before you establish working group as I think that would give your group a greater chance of success. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. And to answer questions, it would focus on individuals, I planned on having the group be a main task force, so that it could cover all other working groups and task forces within this specific WikiProject.Tetobigbro talk 23:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reservations about forming a new department for the project, all the more so because the last department formed to help the project - our logistics department - has seen little activity since its creation. Project Apathy plays a large role in this concern since I would prefer not to invest in overhead to start a fifth department if that department is going to be crewed by fewer that ten people. I'm not against having an outreach program, but given some past indicators I think it may do better as working group than a department. Working groups, run as they are be a few people and focused as they are on such a narrow and specific area of interest, would seem to be to be the best approach to get some sort of outreach effort up and running. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I would have to agree with you that it would likely be unwise to if this outreach group is established to jump straight into the quagmire of attempting to establish a Departmental-level group at this moment. I would have to agree that it seems as if a working group would be the best place for something like this to start. I would suggest that perhaps a condition for promotion from Working Group to Task Force be the establishment of a dedicated group of participants in addition to the creation of a group page that clearly lays out the group's goals, strategy for completing those goals, internal policies, and so forth. Or does WPMILHIST already have a policy like that?

Well those are my two cents, what do others thinkLeonidasSpartan (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok so wuts the descision? Do I do nothing or something, and if so what?Tetobigbro talk 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Leonidas: In general we ask that a task force be large enough to encompass a broad area of military history, which means that at a minimum we need ten users and 100 articles to classify something as a task force. A working group is free of those requirements since it typically encompasses less than 10 members and fewer than 20 articles. A department, for the record, is a part of the project expected bear a sizable percentage of milhist traffic, and is created to make life easier for our members. We run four departments at the moment: assessment, contest, logistics, and review; adding a fifth to this cluster at the moment would be unwise. Its to this effect that I want to hear what Tetobigbro has in mind, if he is thinking big then I may entertain the possibility of moving a few things around to formally invest in something larger than a working group.

Its just the terminology being used. The hierarchy for organization within our project from highest to lowest in department, task force, special project, working group, with an unofficial fifth being independent user run initiatives that happen to help us. Initial you suggested task force, but I put forth a working group since I think that's probably more realistic for what you have in mind, then all of a sudden we got a department involved in the discussion. All I want is for us to pick one of the three proposed groups and stick with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds great to me, I'm just lost and want to know what this suggestion has become. Tetobigbro talk 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then: its a proposal being made by you to form an outreach group for milhist. Question now is whether we have consensus for the creation something to cover this aspect of milhist operations. Therefore, I would propose that you make a proposal on exactly what this outreach group would do, and then we will put the matter to a straw poll to see if there are others who would support the opening a working group for the purpose of conducting outreach work for milhist. For now, put together a proposal on what you see this group doing specifically, and we will see if anyone else likes the idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok and where should I place the proposal? Back on this same section, a new section, or somewhere else completely?Tetobigbro talk 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Tetobigbro: Just outline your plans at the bottom of the section, including what you want out of group, what its main goals would be, and how it would support us. From there I should be able to run with the proposal, whatever it may be. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is to create a group of people that will invite wikipedians to join this wikiproject and the task forces of this wikiproject. The group would talk to people about joining this wikiproject and look for wikipedians who seem like they show some amount of promise. It would also look for new members to add so that they can be guided through our project. This would make more well-trained wikipedians and greatly increase the amount of members of this wikiproject.Tetobigbro talk 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable idea; even if it turns out to be unsuccessful, it shouldn't consume a significant amount of effort from anyone not interested in participating. As far as logistics go, I would suggest creating it as a working group under the coordinators (e.g. here), rather than under a specific task force; this would fit in more closely with its administrative function, and avoid our having to find an alternative anchor point for it.

As far as an outreach department is concerned, some people might not remember the fact that we actually did have one for a number of years, before it was eventually disbanded for lack of activity. I'm not convinced that anything significant has changed since then; unless the project as a whole is interested in devoting a considerable amount of resources to active outreach activities, I don't think an entire standalone department will be sustainable. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree entirely with both of the points brought up by Kirill above. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got no quarrel with Kirill's sage advice :) EyeSerene^talk 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So what was the decision of the outreach group?Tetobigbro talk 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've followed Kirill's suggestion and set up a working group for you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Recruitment. The general framework is in place but feel free to alter the details as you wish. To help you get started I've also linked to an example of an invitation template that Ed uses; obviously you can develop that or propose your own. I'd like other coord input as to whether the working group should be linked in the navbox, but now it's pretty much over to you :) EyeSerene^talk 07:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Almeria Lykes

I've created the SS Almeria Lykes (1940) article. As she took part in Operation Pedestal it is likely she is mentioned in some of the many books on the subject. Assistance in further expanding the article is welcome. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rank acrimony about the use of rank acronyms

User:Ylee and I disagree on whether to use RADM, LTJG, etc. in Operation Petticoat. I can't persuade Ylee that this is reader-unfriendly. Could somebody else please weigh in? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

MoS says use the full title and give abbreviation, then you can use the abbreviation thereafter. I've edited a couple of the links in the article to that effect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Medieval Weaponry

FYI, there is a proposal to create a WikiProject on Medieval Weaponry, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Medieval Weaponry. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Princess Royal (1911) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Princess Royal (1911); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC for William Ellis Newton could use some attention

Guys, the FAC for Victoria Cross recipient William Ellis Newton has had very little attention some two weeks after nominating; be great to get any sourcing/referencing issues shortly as I'll be travelling overseas in three days and internet access will be limited -- access to references even more so! The article has passed its ACR very recently so I'm hoping there won't be much if anything but it will need the reviews to get up for FA. If a few could stop by soon that'd be excellent... ;-) Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Trojan War

Editors on the page Trojan War are working on a proposal to reintroduce an infobox to the article, anyone interested in contributing to the discussions is welcome to comment on the article's talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 3rd Bombay European Regiment now open

The peer review for 3rd Bombay European Regiment is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Naval battles of the American Civil War now open

The peer review for Naval battles of the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Medalofhonor.com

http://www.medalofhonor.com has been sourced in a number of articles. It was a listing of Medal of Honor awardees, but as of September 2009 the site is now occupied by the game.links ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that. I noticed that a few weeks ago myself and have been changing them to the Army Center for Military History site [2]. Youll ave to determine which conflict they are in but this is a better link than the Medal of Honor one was anyway cause its a better source. --Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a better source. Thanks. I'm fixing some Eagle Scout sources and there are a few overlaps. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how hard it would be to create a bot to do this sort of work. Obviously this is a small time case, but with link rot a constant problem here it seems to me that a bot for replacing bad links with good links provided by the internet archive would go a long way to maintaining article stability. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the Internet Archive does not preserve everything; some users, and some link-owners, send purge orders to the Archives and pages are then removed (and some were never saved to begin with.) Is there some mechanism that could be used to keep a copy of the referenced page(s) somewhere in Wikipedia-land that could be cited in such cases? I suppose we'd have to grab those copies when the reference was first made, rather than running about looking for them later. htom (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WebCite? -- saberwyn 21:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Internet Archive does have archives of medalofhonor.com, but the CMH is a better source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship needs attention

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship/archive1 needs some attention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:USMCportallink

With recent improvements to the logic of the Portals this template is deprecated and I would like to recomnmend it for deletion. Before I do though I thought I would post it here and see if anyone had any opinion on it first. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Since knowone appears to have a problem with this suggestion I am going to go ahead with my recommendation that this be deleted. Once I submit the recommendation for deletion I will post the link here. --Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Popski's Private Army

In accordance with Wikipedia:Official names, should No. 1 Demolition Squadron be moved to Popski's Private Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a Nazi?

The Helmut Lent article was featured article of day on 6 June 2010. Since this was also the anniversary of D-Day the article attracted many readers. On the talk page a discussion was initiated on whether Lent was a Nazi and Wackywace (talk · contribs) took a firm position and stated he was a Nazi. My question here is what constitutes a Nazi in the English speaking community? My definition was always a member of the National Socialist Party. But maybe my definition is askew here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, party membership is a good indicator, I would say. Apart from that there are followers of Nazi ideology who are less easily identified. In the case of Lent, Goering claimed he was an "enthusiastic follower of our national socialist movement" in his obituary (Völkischer Beobachter 12 October, 1944). That would satisfy me. Then there are others who ended up in the NSDAP, like Walter Jens, who apparently never personally applied for membership. It really depends on the circumstances. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, though obviously in the case of a WP article it would depend on how an individual is characterised in the sources. EyeSerene^talk 16:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If the sources describe their membership of the party as more than nontrivial, that'd be a good sign. If, on the other hand, it merely seems to have been something they did because it was seen as the done thing at the time... perhaps not. In this case, I'm not entirely sure the obituary is a good source - it strikes me as potentially more propaganda than anything else. Given that it was the obituary of a serving war hero in a one-party state, it's unlikely that the publicity apparatus of that state would portray him as anything but an ardent member regardless of what his personal opinions or practices were. (In short: it depends, and this one is still pretty fuzzy to me.) Shimgray | talk | 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Membership of the NSDAP should only be used carefully as some were enrolled because of their occupation. Members of the orpo and even the Waffen-SS which accepted conscripts later in the war should not automatically be labelled Nazis. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a copy editor

Hi the Special Air Service article is going through a Good Article review here Talk:Special Air Service/GA1. As you can see it has been pointed out it is in need of a copy edit. A request has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests but they seem to have a back log at the moment. So any WP:MILHIST editor who could assist your help would be appreciated. Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look tonight. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)  Done

Identifying a shell

I'm currently working through a number of old exhibits at Eastbourne Redoubt, which have been stored in storerooms for a while, and I'm trying to figure out where all of them go in the museum. I do this by using our MODES item database...but to use that I need to know what an object is to search for it! I have here next to me two shells, hollowed out after I assume having been fired. They're obviously fired from some sort of artillery piece, but that's about all I can figure out. There are a number of shells in the database, and so I need help in narrowing down what they are. Their dimensions are as follows: Height/length approx. 28.5cm/11.5 in, width at bottom 10.5cm/4in, width at height 9cm/3.5in. Can anyone help identify them? Skinny87 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Any other identifiying features, painted marks or anything? Any codes or datestamps on them anywhere? David Underdown (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Are these actual shells or spent cartridges? If its the latter, it should be pretty easy to work out. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone. Just found a moldy piece of paper inside one of the shells that identifies them as 25-pounder shells. Thanks for the help though. Skinny87 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of armed forces flags may be of interest. Ty 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting event hosted by GOCE

The Guild of Copy Editors is holding their second Backlog Elimination Drive starting on July 1. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Milhist in Video Games

There was a question posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/World_War_II_task_force#WWII-based_games asking whether games such as Call of Duty fall under the scope of milhist. It's a valid question, and I don't have a good answer for it. On one hand, the theme is the same, but on the other hand these games aren't really military simulators. This question applies to all of the task-forces, and to this WikiProject as a whole. Should most military video games be included? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, its a tricky question. had some discussion on this before, and there was another instance (though I can not find it) where I supported the idea on grounds that our project is best suited to handle the historical parts of such articles. I'd be incline to add the call of duty games to the roster since they cover actual campaigns and battles that occurred in WWII, although understandably with some artistic license taken. I recall watching my brother play one of these games and it did seem to me that there was enough going for us there that we could tag them for the project, but I think that in the case of video games of this nature our project should right shotgun for, and provide support to, articles with their scope that cover events important to us. I'd wait to see what kind of feedback we get here though before going forward since this is going to be a issue on which we will need consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see in principle why not. If we admit other forms of popular culture that reflect on warfare, such as novels or films, it is not much of an extension. There are even some interesting questions raised about how computer games as part of popular culture influence soldiers, in a similar way to how films or books have influenced them in the past, which almost certainly do come under the project remit already. My query would be practical. If we don't expect to engage with the development of the articles, there would be little point in bringing them within the scope of the project.

These articles are often written to quite a high standard based on their own criteria. How would we expect them to change by being MILHIST tagged? More emphasis on the historical elements of the game? Will this bring conflict with other projects who currently "own" these articles? Monstrelet (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Last time the point I made is that while such articles are within the scope of the video games project principally the historical content they represent is within our scope, which makes our project the best one on wikipedia for checking the plot for things like historical accuracy but also for fact that we can check and add links to articles that are relevant to the time period (for example, noting that air support in a WWII pacific nature game comes principle from the fast carrier task forces, noting the campaign time period in relation to other events in the war, linking to the articles on the primary and secondary weaponry used, linking to articles about other division that were present to support/oppose players forces, etc). As for conflict with the other projects: that should not be a problem; the video games project actually works hand in hand with milhist in a partner peer review system which allows their editors to seek input from our editors on how an article within there scope could be improved. I'd think that they would be willing to listen to reason for tagging articles concerning historical war-related video games as being within both project's scopes. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm alone in this, but personally I'd rather not see video games included in our scope. They're already well-served by an active project and are a very different type of article from our usual fare. I accept that there's already some overlap if we consider military training simulations and we do have a small precedent with certain narrowly-defined types of historical fiction, but I see no need to expand this further into increasingly tenuously-linked territory. I think our joint peer review system is probably sufficient for any areas of collaboration. EyeSerene^talk 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with EyeSerene here, and with over 100,000 articles tagged by MILHIST this project is already suffering from mission creep. We should focus on historical articles and leave the rest to other projects. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree that works of fiction (or heck, even most non-fictional media) should fall under our scope. For one, there are numerous wikiprojects that are devoted to these fields (video games, TV, films, books, etc.), and their goals aren't necessarily synonymous with ours. Secondly, are we in a position to actually provide much for these articles? I can talk all day about the Pacific War battles featured on COD, but can I actually improve and article about the game itself? Wouldn't noting the historical innacuracies, anachronisms, and other artistic error be pure OR anyway? If some background is necessary to help further the understanding of a reader, then can't they merely link to the article that is under MILHIST's scope? For example, America: The Story of Us was a great miniseries, but I can't add anything there that wouldn't completely bloat the plot description. Thirdly, where do we draw the line when fiction, and especially science fiction, rears its head? Starship Troopers? The Wolfenstein series? The Lord of the Rings?

Lastly, I think this opens up a slippery slope of pop culture influence. We all have pet favorites in media, and not all of them are notable enough for an article; but if an editor could float it with a big coatrack description of the real world event, it might sneak past the filters against junk articles. And of course, we work hard to keep trivial references out of articles in our scope, would we want to be guilty of doing the reverse?

Right now, we coordinate well with other projects when our scopes intersect (WPShips and WPVG come to mind), I say that fine tradition is sufficient for our needs and thiers. If an ACR pops up that could be handled jointly, then we damn well should! Perhaps we can have the coordinators ambassador a bit to the other projects and set up some more firm agreements as to coordinating efforts. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You've set out, rather better than I did, a number of concerns that I originally included in my post but then deleted before saving the edit (mainly for tl;dr reasons). However, I very much share your concerns about OR, synthesis, trivia and pop culture. EyeSerene^talk 17:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't disagree on the "what can we add" question - see comments above - or actually on narrowing the range of articles but it should be done consistently with other popular culture material. I'm not even suggesting "all in or all out" (though that would be simplest) but being clear what criteria are being used and then applying across a range of genres (novels,plays,films, songs - examples of all of which are tagged to the project) as well as video games.Monstrelet (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for No. 6 Commando now open

The A-Class review for No. 6 Commando is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC of Battle of Valcour Island could use a few more reviews

The Feature Article Candidacy of Battle of Valcour Island could use one or two more reviewers. Thanks for your participation! Magic♪piano 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Aquatint now open

The peer review for Operation Aquatint is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) now open

The featured article candidacy for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

78th Army Band

I've just AfD'd another one of these, this one... is this really notable? It needs quite the clean up regardless. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you added the AFD tag to the article? I can't see it. (Maybe its a cache issue from my end). — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for confusion, I meant that I have AfD'd another one of these band articles, and then came across this one and brought it here. The AfD for the other one is proceeding at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/156th army band and there is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/215th Army Band (United States). S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, cheers for clearing that up. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Does China have a nuclear triad?

Hello, the question of whether the PRC possesses today a nuclear triad has been raised; please see the article's Talk page if you are qualified in helping to answer the question. YLee (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment about images in Infobox military person

A user has requested comments about the placement of images in the Infobox for Medal of Honor recipients here Template talk:Infobox military person. I have already made mine. --Kumioko (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A Decline in Page Views on the Main Page

I generated this graph using data generated from Wikipedia article traffic statistics. It some that interestingly enough the number of view to the main page of MILHIST project has been on the decline over approximately the past two and a half years. To what degree this reflects actual participation in the project is hard to say as there could be a multitude of different reasons for this decline such as user familiarity with the project for example. However I though I might throw this information out there so that other users might view it as well and give their take on it. I thought this might spark a discussion.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My initial guess would be that the decline is due more to the gradual movement of editor-oriented materials from the main project page to department and task force subpages; the main page is, at the moment, really just an introduction area for visitors, with most of the actual activity taking place deeper within the project. If we're trying to get a good picture of overall project activity, I think a more accurate measure would be a total of page views for (a) all the subpages in the project and (b) their associated talk pages. Unfortunately, I suspect that the grok.se tool can't easily generate that. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really my place to comment but I would agree with Kirill and although I have no data to prove it my gut tells me that actual user particpiation in the project overall has actually risen based on the number of articles that are being submitted to the various different article review mechanisms such as peer review, B, GA, A, FL and FA. The milhist project tends to have a very high number. Although I also admit that this is partially due to the same pool of active editors. --Kumioko (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on the situation, Kirill. And you are probably right that the grok.se tool can't easily compile that data, but I am a generally stubborn person, so I'll see what I can piece together in the near future. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm nt sure that would be statistically useful, considering that we've been increasing the number of sub pages exponentially over the years. Heck, I just buzzed out about a dozen for OMT last week. In addition, I think there are still a couple of unused pages still out there and a few templates under WP space. That said, it would be interesting to compare it to project membership... Any way to troll the histor of the list of members with a tool? bahamut0013^words_deeds 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable articles?

Charles Miller (US Army) seems to fail general notability criteria for military personnel - he doesn't seem to have done anything to warrant a WP article. The writings noted at the end are not published. Opinions?
Secondly, is William Richardson (Continental Army officer) likely to be notable? The article is currently an unreferenced stub. Gwinva (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• In the first case, the article should get the axe; in the second, their is insufficient information to determine notability. If Richardson held the rank of full colonel during the revolutionary war, given the notably low number of US generals at the time, her may be important enough to stay, but like I said more info is needed. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've listed Charles Miller at AFD. Gwinva (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Richardson (per this entry) seems to have had a relatively undistinguished career. Beyond genealogical records, searches involving "William" and "Richardson" for the time period 1776-1779 are more likely to turn up William Richardson Davie. Considering the article has been tagged for 2+ years for notability, it's probably time for AFD. Magic♪piano 13:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A Challenge

The Fort ships have very little coverage on Wikipedia. There were only 198 of them but none has an article on Wikipedia. The nearest we have is the article on the explosion of SS Fort Stikine. SS Fort Stikine is a redirect, which could be turned into an article. All the other ships need articles creating. Basic info on ships Fort A fo Fort J, Fort K to Fort S and Fort T to Fort Y is available from the Mariners website. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you approach WP:SHIPS to get help on creating a class article, which could include a full list. Do not start creating large numbers of stubs; they would very quickly be merged into an improvised class article which would be done by someone with no knowledge of the subject. Better to get a good class article going first. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot, I agree about stubs. There should be enough sources available to produce at least Start/C class article on almost all ships. I'm currently working through the Empire ships at the moment. WT:SHIPS also issued with the challenge.

Update - there were something over 200 ships, some being renamed as Parks between launch and completion. Two ships have articles - Fort Rosalie and Fort Cataraqui. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTICE - Editor reviewing rights

Many editors are no doubt aware that the Wikipedia community has spent literally years agonising over the conflict between our open editing policy and the need to protect the content of Wikipedia from inappropriate editing - especially in the area of biographical articles.

A system designed to address this conflict—"Pending changes"—is scheduled to begin trial on 15 June 2010 (although this date could yet change). The Pending changes system is basically an additional level of page protection that permits most editing as normal, but queues certain edits until they are approved by a "Reviewer", at which point they become visible on the article.

A limited number of pages are being selected for the trial based on "ongoing vandalism on busy articles, breaking news, high profile BLPs/companies, low profile but vandalized or edit warred biographies (BLPs), persistent targets, long term protected pages, talk/user talk/project page disputes, non-article namespaces". It is likely that a number of our articles will be affected.

Under the current proposals, autoconfirmed users should be able to edit as normal but there may be edits on some articles that are awaiting approval from users with the new "Reviewer" user right. This has already been granted to a number of trusted editors and more will follow, but any editor in good standing with a decent edit history and sound grasp of Wikipedia's core editing policies who wishes to receive Reviewer rights can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer, or contact an administrator. The standards for granting the Reviewer right are similar to those required for rollback; for more information, see Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming_a_reviewer. EyeSerene^talk 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I reposted this on the AWB talk page as well because this change may affect some AWB users. --Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This whole shambles has confused the hell out of me. Am I a trusted editor? Does this affect me as a long-time/term user at all? Where was this voted to be implemented? Skinny87 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but it seems WP has some dark corners left to hide. From what I can gather this only means that you have to get a "Reviewer" permission added to your profile. This additional permission basically asserts you can be trusted to not intentionally screw something up. But I may be incorrect, thats just the impression I got. --Kumioko (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to float this out there: if there are any project members that would like to have reviewer status, I (and I'm sure the other admin coords as well) can enable that tool for you. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I realise it's only a trial and probably won't affect many editors, but as far as I can tell it hasn't been very well advertised. I only found out by accident (via someone's talkpage on my watchlist). Admins automatically have the Reviewer flag set, and as far as I'm concerned any established editor who wants it should have it too. As Parsecboy said, please ask :) EyeSerene^talk 19:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Further update: pages to be included in the trial are here. As expected, it looks like some high-profile milhist articles will be affected. EyeSerene^talk 19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, if you don't know if you have the Reveiewer role aready here is how you can check. Go to my preferences, then look at the User profile. Then look under Basic information for Member of Groups: If you see Reviewers as an option after that, then you already have it and you should be good to go. --Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: In addition to the above, any user who has admin rights is automatically considered a part of the reviewer group, regardless of whether the check appears or not. Therefore, if you are an admin, you need not check to see if you are also a reviewer. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion, US Air Force lawyer

• Kenneth Dickson

Relevant AFD discussion, on a California lawyer and politician. Served in United States Air Force, in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Air Force. Rank of Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeigner's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, NativeForeigner, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of NativeForeigner's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Internal Military History Study and Observations Group Proposal

I would like to propose than a working group be established for the purpose of creating a forum where discussion concerning how WikiProject Military History might be improved. This working group would focus on five core issues.

• 1)Facilitating Constructive Discussion: The MILHIST talk page is not exactly the best place for brainstorming new ideas by kicking them around with other contributors. I would back up this assertion by pointing to the fact that the talk page is a relatively short term forum, especially as notifications of new articles reviews and general discussion also take place on this talk page. A dedicated forum exclusively for the discussion of ideas concerning the state the WikiProject, I feel would help the WikiProject as whole.
• 2)Distribution and Retention of Essays: A dedicated place where project members can post essays on their perceptions of the Project, essays comprising extensive suggestions for how to improve the WikiProject as whole, or their beliefs about the future needs of the project. This aspect of the project would allow for a more readily accessible repository of suggestions, potential policies, and guidelines than attempting to pour back through talk page archives.
• 3)Contribution of News Articles and Academy Articles: This group could also function as a dedicated bureau for coordinating editorial contributions to the Bugle. These contributions could be made either under the editorial section of Bugle or under the group's own exclusive section of the Bugle depending on the amount of participation. Early on it would be likely that contribution would be part of the Editorial Section and perhaps later there would be sufficient content to have a whole separate section in each monthly newsletter.
• 4)Observation and Compilation of MILHIST Statistics: This would also serve as a base for developing and compiling statistics concerning the state of the WikiProject such as page view counts, edit counts, and other statistics which are relevant or which are needed by the WikiProject. These statistics are difficult to compile on one's own, but allowing them to be researched, compiled, and analyzed in a group effort.

Well this is my proposal at the moment. What do others think of it? LeonidasSpartan (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely - this would be very useful and an alternative to this very busy talk page would be of great value. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a good idea. Anything that promotes a broad sense of milhist community ownership of the project is very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 11:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Should we host this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy to be consistent with the new recruitment WG? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense to host the the working group along the sort of lines as the Recruitment working Group. But I would prefer the group not be named Strategy, as I feel that name might be misleading considering that it would be dropped into a category alongside a number of working groups which are strictly about military history topics as opposed to the scope of this working group. While I think that the name Studies and Observation Group better suits the proposed scope of the group, perhaps something along the lines of MILHIST Thinktank or War Room might be more to others' tastes. I think that if the name of the group is slightly ambiguous at to the group's nature, it might pique the interest of users browsing the project, perhaps leading to greater traffic for the group. (Though I must also confess that I also like the name Studies and Observation Group because I think it sounds cool). Anyway those are my two cents. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I had suggested "Strategy" to echo the WMF strategic planning initiative, but I suppose something like .../Coordinators/Thinktank would also work. SOG would, admittedly, be a clever name, but one that I suspect would confuse too many people to be worth it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea; it kind of takes me back to that time I suggested we name the logistics department the strategic development initiative :) Running the working group should be easy, and we can put something in the bugle to announce this to everyone. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Strategic Development Initiative? I like that. I could write an essay concerning what MILHIST project would look like if the project was developed with a greater sense of whimsy (at some point after much serious work is completed on the workgroup). You could call the assessment department the Hall of Broken Dreams or the Guild of Nay Sayers and Articles for Deletion could be called something like The Schadenfreude League. I think it'd be fun to write, but likely accessible what would be one of the smallest audiences possible. But that's entirely besides the point.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Tangential discussions of aside, I have gone ahead and created the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank and have begun filling out the necessary group internal infrastructure and page content. Feel free to help out. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Operation michael

I believe the page for Operation Michael may have been vandalized. The paragraph on March 9-29 (section 3.5) simply says "the front was quiet on that day." I can't seem to find the correct entry to undo it. Anyone want to help? Thanks.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any vandalism. but the entry was slightly more informative in an earlier version so I've restored that. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

John A. Logan

I don't know how you guys at MILHIST call attention to worthy subjects for article improvement, but John A. Logan seems to be a pretty important person that you guys might want to get up to your own A-class standards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry now open

The featured article candidacy for 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Treaty of Ciudad Juárez now open

The featured article candidacy for Treaty of Ciudad Juárez is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick look request on expanded BEF article

Hi all

I have just done an extensive expansion to the BEF article and marked it as Start class.

Can someone have a quick look at it to make sure it is ok and meets standard as I am going word blind from editing for so long on it.

Thanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's the British Expeditionary Force (World War II) article? Start seems a fair assessment to me; thank you for your excellent work :) EyeSerene^talk 09:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

AH B****X ! I forgot about the disambiguation page - yup it was the (World War II) one

Thanks for the scan and the kind words :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Usage of User:Xenobot Mk V

I was looking at Xenobot Mk V, and thought that it would be good to have in the scope of our project, considering how many articles fall within our scope. I can start making a page of categories, and help would be good, but I want to make sure consensus exists. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea, but I am curious if the bot would able to tag articles for the respective task forces should we invest in it; if not, then perhaps we would be better off forgoing use of the bot since not tagging TFs would make it somewhat harder for us as we would have to go through and tag for this manually. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the documentation, and it appears to be able to tag certain categories with certain tasks forces, although I'll have to look into it further. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The two things I would be interested in hearing would be the ability of the bot to handle TF tags for the roughly 50 TFs we run, and whether it has the capacity to apply knowledge of the TF parameters we have to the pages it tags. If the bot is unable to recognize which pages belong to which task force then it may create problems for us in the long run since we suffer a perpetual backlog of military history articles needing attention. If the bot is able to correctly tag articles for task force coverage then I would grant the bot the rank of Major and welcome its assistance with open arms, otherwise I'd be incline to pass on the bot or use it in conjunction with a tag and assess drive as the hammer end of a hammer and anvil attack. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it could take a while, it seems that I could define different categories for it to tag the files to. I'm busy this week and next, but I'll drop a message on xeno's talk page asking about it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, there is full support. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like it should be able to handle it, so I'd be inclined to support its use. Unless there is some ghost in the machine I haven't spotted of course. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the main problem will be the same one that plagued the first Tag & Assess drive: if we descend from high-level war categories (e.g. Category:World War II), we quickly run into categories whose main topic is related to the war, but whose sub-topics aren't (e.g. Category:Radar). This makes it very difficult to descend down the category tree in an automated fashion. It would be possible, I suppose, to manually generate an exhaustive list of "pure" MILHIST categories, but I'm not sure that the effort required to do so would justify the relatively minor benefit of catching a small number of untagged articles. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You can exclude certain subcategories, but that is a valid point which would raise the amount of manpower needed considerably. On the positive side once set up it would require a relatively small amount of maintenance. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(od)Do we have any idea how many articles this is likely to catch? EyeSerene^talk 07:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I'm not sure how we could do an approximation. I know there were a substantially huge number of articles caught for WP:BIRDS, but I'm not sure if they were worse tagged or something. I might be inclined to run it for certain large but obviously milhist subcategories initially, and then see how many we caught. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That might make sense, just to see if it would then be worth extending to other categories. EyeSerene^talk 15:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. It would be nice if we could establish if we want it to auto-tag. I have no position one way or the other, although I know we have an agreement with WP:AIR that assessments are the same, and so therefore we could probably have the bot assess it if it's assessed by WP:AIR. I'm going to start making a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Auto-tag categories within the scope of Korean military history, and assault rifles, just so we see what we get history/armament wise. Of course I won't run the tests until we have consensus whether we want it to autotag. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite busy right now, but I'll have the list up fairly soon. I'm fairly impressed with the amount of articles it caught for wikiproject olympics... [3] NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Baden (1915) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Baden (1915) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured List candidate Army of the Danube order of battle

Army of the Danube order of battle is up for review as a potential Featured List. It passed ACR here a couple weeks ago. Please feel free to visit and voice your opinion. auntieruth (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate - Portal:Terrorism

• Portal:Terrorism

This portal is currently being considered for Featured Portal status. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Terrorism. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Help

Can somebody please find data on Ndwandwe-Zulu War, Dominican Restoration War, and Anglo-Spanish War (1654)?

Here are their Wikipedia articles: Ndwandwe-Zulu War, Dominican Restoration War, and Anglo-Spanish War (1654). --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See also the past discussion here. I'm curious, though. What are the odds, do you suppose, of two people asking for info on the Ndwandwe-Zulu War in the same month? BTW, please sign your posts. auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who made this post. Come on, we have to find information on these articles including French intervention in Mexico. This place is supposed to make war articles better. Let's make them better. B-Machine (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

well, make them better! The old link on the Ndwande-Zulu war has several articles and books. Go for it! auntieruth (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured List candidacy of Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton

I have opened the Featured List candidacy for the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton. There are currently no featured orders of battle for land battles; the only current featured orders of battle are for naval engagements. Your comments and participation are appreciated. Thanks! Magic♪piano 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Category:Religious paramilitary organizations work as an NPOV cat name?

There's been a lot of controversy on Wikipedia over terms such as "terrorist" for various armed groups, prefering terms such as "militant". I've put together a category, Category:Religious paramilitary organizations to see if it's a workable solution to non-judgementally tie together armed non-state actors with a religious commonality/purpose. This could include some of the less-disputed "terrorist" groups, as well as "self-defense forces", "militias", etc. under an objective terminology. I'd appreciate any input, and if the cat name is solid some help populating it would also be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it can be argued that such a category could in many or most cases be called Category:Paramilitary organizations perverting religion for their cause. Perhaps Category:Paramilitary organizations claiming divine right. IMHO "religious" as an adjective is too open to interpretation: organized religion? self-professed? etc. I would have the same problem with the subcategories that would emanate: Islamic paramilitary organizations, Catholic paramilitary organizations, Protestant paramilitary organizations, and so forth. The only one to strictly fit such a category, I believe, would be the Crusaders as a paramilitary organization officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In a spirit of practical compromise, how about wording it Category:Paramilitary organisations claiming religious affiliation? I also think it should be restricted to more modern times - the concept of a paramilitary organisation is pretty meaningless in the Middle Ages when standing military forces of nation states were the exception rather than the rule.Monstrelet (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for No. 6 Commando needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for No. 6 Commando; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation of VC Winners on Commons, et al

As part of a general tidy up and recategorisation on the Commons for the UK honours system, I have just finished sorting through all the VC recipients at Comm:Category:Victoria Cross recipients. I have separated out Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa into their own national sub-categories using the naming form 'Category:Victoria Cross recipients from XXX'. As far as I can tell I have got everyone, but if others would like to cast an eye to make sure, that would be appreciated.

I welcome any thoughts people may have as to whether they need to be further categorised by conflict.

I have also added categories for most of the UK decorations (any I have missed I will get to shortly), these take the form of 'Category:Recipients of the XXX' which better reflects the standard approach to category naming decorations and medals on the Commons (I didn't attempt to modify the VC naming format because it seemed well established). Whilst I have added the appropriate additional decoration categories to VC winners where I was able to spot them from the images, I didn't do a thorough cross-check against the Wikipedia main articles. If you are starting or maintaining military bios, please consider adding the appropriate additional categories to related imagery on the Commons. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Action of 17 February 1864

FYI, Action of 17 February 1864 has been nominated to be renamed. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Indefatigable (1909) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Indefatigable (1909) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for checking article for quality etc

Hi all

I have further expanded the British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II) article. Eyeserene has already given it a going over prior to this latest expansion but I would appreciate if someone could check it now I have added some more detail to it.

The article has grown from 2,700 to 20,155 bytes so I am getting a bit blurry eyed and rather than chance missing simple things would appreciate somone giving it the once over before I start on the "Action" section

In particular the background section and the refs :¬)

thanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest getting a hold of books on the British Army during the Second World War, preferably academic sources, to explain the BEFs faults and strengths. I can recommend David French's Raising Churchill's Army as a basic text, along with John Keegan's edited 'Churchill's Generals' for articles on Gort and other senior BEF personnel, as well as the various books on The Battle of France in 1940. It's a good stub at the moment, but it needs analysis of the BEF's performance, especially what it was like before and during the campaign. Skinny87 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The following may help too: HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, UNITED KINGDOM MILITARY SERIES; THE WAR IN FRANCE AND FLANDERS 1939-1940 The official history of the campaignEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the British Army during the Second World War#Organisation article provides more fuller details in regards to the strength of the British Army (regulars, TA, and conscripts) on the outbreak of the war and how it evolved during the years; it will be able to reinforce the point made at the end of the BEF background section. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all that info guys - I will continue tomorrow with renewed vigour !

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the official history of the campaign is now in the public domain, so its maps and images can be reused on Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that the History of the Second World War? It was been published in stages between 1949 and the 1990s so some parts would still be less than 50 years old. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, only the older volumes are PD so far. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Which should cover the volume in mention, it was first published in 1954. Somewhat off topic, would that also cover reprinted volumes from 2004?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though I think that the date the work was first published is the key factor for UK Crown Copyright. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone need any help?

I'm trying to get back into the swing of editing, but after a few failed attempts at writing a new article or finishing a few of my unfinished ones, I've contracted writers block; too fast too soon probably. But I think that something smaller might be easier - copy-editing, hunting down references from my library, spell-checking and reading through and so forth. Therefore, I'm opening this up to see if anyone needs a hand in those areas - I'm quite good at hunting down images from the IWM as well! Skinny87 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tower of London article underwent an overhaul recently and could probably use some copy editing if you're interested. Nev1 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You are also more than welcome to edit or expand any the existing Medal of Honor recipient articles. Or create one of the missing ones as there are still quite a few that need articles created. If you prefer working on some that are at a higher level of quality there are several that are Good class or better such as Smedley Butler, Douglas MacArthur, or others that can be found on my user page. Please feel free to contact me if you have any comments or questions. --Kumioko (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your page, you look like mainly a WWII man, which is a pity as far as my evil schemes go. However, if you fancy doing any work to provide something in Spear, it would be gratefully received. A few more folks have dropped by to broaden the content (thanks everyone) but I'm still in search of someone to put in some African stuff (Masai, Zulu, Sudan, Egypt anything)in particular. Even if you don't take up my suggestion, thanks for the offer. Monstrelet (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Skinny87. I'm trying to find more images for Maori Battalion, (particularly of its time in the UK, Greece, North Africa and Italy). If you were keen, I wouldn't mind seeing if anything came up in the IWM's archives on this New Zealand infantry battalion. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm (slowly!) working on developing the Battle of Arawe and John Treloar (museum administrator) articles to A class and both could really use a fresh pair of eyes. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha, wow, I knew you lot wouldn't let me down! Plenty of projectas for me to get started on, cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're offering to proofread, Hill 262 could do with a look over too. I think it's approaching an A-Class candidacy but needs an uninvolved pair of eyes. EyeSerene^talk 10:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to take a look at User:Buckshot06/4th Command of VVS and PVO and make any changes or suggestions that you can think of? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Request help to reach a consensus in Continuation War article

As it appears that the current result which is listed is edited to something else periodically I tried to start discussion on changing it from single word result into " see 'aftermath' and 'analysis' " so that wider or conflicting views of the issue could be properly handled and discussed as suggested in the guidelines of template infobox military conflict as it appears that current result is not such.

There was a discussion ongoing about the change but it appears that the person why was arguing against the change (seemingly part of milhist group) first decided to drop out from the discussion and then after couple of weeks silence when i made the discussed edit he immediately reverted it, demanded in the edit summary that a talk page consensus must be reached (though he himself had left the discussion - and there were apparently no others), made no talk page changes though demanding a discussion and left again (apparently).

I was suggested to 'draw wider attention to this article' in hopes of gaining consensus/resolution on the matter and as it is military history article this might be the place to ask for it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Company (military unit) needs content

The article right now discusses only the British, Canadian, and American company organization. It doesn't at all discuss the history of the military unit, which I think is rather lacking. I'm not sure if this is the place to request someone with expertise in military history to address this, but this supposed military history article is rather lacking in history. ;) RobertM525 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one place to bring such concerns, although whether or not someone with expertise, interest and free time will pick up your suggestion is another question! Your note on the article talk page might get better results in the long run. Thank you for bringing it to our attention though :) EyeSerene^talk 11:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict lengths

Just saw this edit. Think there would ever be a need to use the age templates to list in infoboxes the length of conflicts? Could use a "partial date" parameter for the ones where there are no exact months or days. Anyone? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

FA counter on entry

You may want to update the FA counter at the main page, it is over 500 easily, check out http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Military history&quality=FA-Class . Sadads (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That category includes Featured Lists, via our assessment template, the counter is just the Featured Articles listed in our showcase. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Input from the WikiProject on Major John Pott

Greetings, project members. I recently became involved with the fairly recently created article Major John Pott (just from seeing it pop up on the Recent Changes page). Military matters are a bit out of my area of expertise, so I'd like some help. I'm concerned that the subject of the article doesn't meet the criteria listed for notability at WP:MILPEOPLE. Normally I would have left the article for someone with more knowledge, but several things about this article struck me. The first, and perhaps most telling, is that the user who created the page is the self-identified flimographer of a documentary about the subject of the article, or, more accurately, the subject's grandson who wrote a song about Major Pott. Which leads to the second problem--I feel that the article is more focused on the song/video/documentary than the subject himself. That is, I believe that the band itself, as well as the lead singer and likely even the song meet the notability criteria associated with musical acts/works, but that doesn't make the subject of the song itself notable. Thus, if the Major is determined to be notable, the article will need to be trimmed to keep those references minimal; however, I hesitate to do too much editing on that regard if the page doesn't meet notability guidelines in the first place. So, what I'd like is for someone from here to take a look at the page and see if what Major Pott is said to have done qualifies by itself under the WP:MILPEOPLE notability guidelines (in particular, see my final notes on the Talk page). Thank you very much in advance for your assistance. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My initial impression is that the article doesn't meet WP:MILPEOPLE. It doesn't really do itself any favours - as you say, it comes across as a WP:COATRACK for the video and not a biographical article, but even with an expanded bio and trimming of irrelevant information I'm not sure the article would make the grade. Major Pott was clearly a courageous and dedicated individual, but his best claim to notability in WP terms is probably that he "commanded a notable body of troops in combat". Personally I don't believe this is strong enough, and more importantly all the items listed at MILPEOPLE are subject to our normal notability rules. One obituary and two short articles aren't, in my view, enough to cross the "significant coverage" threshold. (BTW, I've trimmed out some inappropriate external links) EyeSerene^talk 11:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside from the usual notability guidelines, I can add that his name does crop up fairly frequently in Arnhem books, so he does meet the requirements for coverage in sources. However, his role in the battle wasn't hugely significant next to other officers who don't (yet) have articles. I could easily flesh out his Arnhem bit with some RS, but then I could do that for quite a few people who really wouldn't warrent articles. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Although... I'm starting to think that combined with the Athlete connection... I would probably vote keep at an AFD. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I am not 100% sure if this individual meets the notibilty criteria either. Does the fact he got an MBE or other military award qualify him. I am not sure how that would affect his notibility for a member of the United Kingdom. Since I am in the US he isn't particularly notible but that doesn't mean he isnt' either. --Kumioko (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko: an MBE isn't particularly significant and not enough to establish notability on its own.

Steve: is that coverage significant or in passing? I've read a few Arnhem books (though nothing like the research you've done) so his name was vaguely familiar, but is there enough for a WP:BIO article? I wonder if it's worth rewriting the article and seeing how it develops... EyeSerene^talk 12:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The the MC and MBE (if it was awarded for bravery) do not rate highly enough to make a recipiant notable. It seems that this is best mergerd with the page about his son.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't have those books with me at work I'm afraid (it's all forts and guns here), but I'll check when I get home. Off the top of my head, at least some of it is significant, and I might have some stuff about his escape (John Waddy's role wasn't exactly significant either, but it gets a lot of coverage in sources). Like Waddy though, it will almost exclusively be about Arnhem though. The Black Swan theme is snagging on something in the recesses of my memory, I'm sure I've seen it as the title of something else Arnhem related, but can't think what now. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he meets MILPEOPLE, but I think that's probably moot given the fact he got an obit in The Daily Telegraph, and The Daily Mail article about the song/video contains a fair amount of biographical information on him, I would be inclined to vote keep on the terms of WP:GNG. It's borderline, I'd be happier if a couple more of the nationals had also given him obits, but a delete would be harsh, and the song probably has brought him to wider attention. The Telegraph only prints 3/4 obits each day (fewer if someone particularly high-profile dies), so it's pretty selective (though The Telegraph is more likely to give an obit to military figures than most of the other British national papers). Combined with sources like the London Gazette, and the citations for his decorations, which aren't independent of the subject and/or are primary sources, there is plenty to write a decent length article. David Underdown (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite, MILPEOPLE cuts both ways in that significant etc coverage per WP:N can trump our guideline. I still think it's probably borderline, but it's looking a lot more hopeful than when I first commented a couple of hours ago (as I said, unfortunately the article doesn't do itself any favours). I've come around to the view that an AfD would be premature at this point :) EyeSerene^talk 13:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The citation for his MBE reveals he was also in command of C Squadron Trucial Oman Scouts, and seems to have been involved in some interesting actions supporting the SAS during that period, in particular the assault on Jebel Akhdar (Oman) under the command of Anthony Deane-Drummond, commanding larger forces as a result. If anyone has any sources covering this, they would probably be helpful for assessing his notability fully. David Underdown (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Pott gets a cursory mention about his MC in Italy in Saunders' The Red Beret. He gets quoted at length in Waddy's book (fellow company commanders), but as Waddy doesn't use an index I can't be certain how much more he is referred to. Middlebrook's bible, Arnhem 1944, describes his company's action over 4 pages with quotes and specific details (including the brother in law connection and the attempt to write a letter). Certainly enough there to flesh out a section but, being totally unbiased, not necessarily enough to establish notability. However, my personal feeling is that there is enough notability elsewhere (being the subject of a music video that's reported in quite a few diverse reliable sources for example) to justify this, and the Arnhem sources just add to the large picture. On the other hand, this shambolic article, written by the director himself no less, describes a film that has very little notability by itself and should be probably be deleted. In fact if no-one else has by tomorrow, I'll try and find time to nominate it myself. That said, I'm off to watch it now... Ranger Steve (talk)

(od) Not at home right now, but in a day or so I can look at my SAS post-war sources and see if he crops up significantly. Skinny87 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to sincerely thank everyone here. The information and comments added have really transformed this article. Eventually, I still think it needs to get less coatrack-ish, especially now that it seems like there is at least a reasonable likelihood that the subject is notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also noting the superb job you chaps have done on the article. I think AfD is fast receding over the horizon :) EyeSerene^talk 13:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested, you might like to know that I've nominated the related article Black swan story for deletion. Any input is always welcome. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mystery Rifle

I present to you all this gallery of images of a mysterious rifle that was just donated to the museum this week. It's rusted to hell and back and only the metal remains, but the donor found it at the side of a field in France aftera farmer had dug it up and tossed it away. It was found in the Somme/Arromanche area of Northern France, but that is all we know. Any ideas in identifying even who used it, let alone what model/type it is, would be much appreciated. A barnstar will be awarded to anyone who can help. More photos can be taken and uploaded if required. Skinny87 (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the sigting, I'd say a Lee-Enfield MkIII*. If you can provide some measurements I can hopefully confirm it for you. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a tape-measure right at hand, Steve. What exactly do you want measured? The whole thing, or certain parts? Skinny87 (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Looking at the barrel length, I'm not so sure now.... The distance between the locking ring connecting the chamber and the barrel and the sights looks to be about right... but then the barrel is huge! This is a MkIII (not a star) and it bears many similarities... it's just that length! Can you measure the barrel from the ring to the muzzle, and from the trigger to the muzzle? I'll check some books at home tonight. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't say it bears any resemblance to a breakdown of an S.M.L.E. in Skennerton's Small Arms Identification Series. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the sight looked very similar at first glance! Anyway... Aha? Ranger Steve (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, not quite sure which bit the ring was, but here goes: Muzzle to front edge of trigger guard (roughly) is 34 inches/85.5 cm, and muzzle to ring is (I think) 26 inches/66.5 cm. Again, more photos can be taken if required. Skinny87 (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Close enough to quite possibly be the Gewehr 98 perhaps. Those pics above look awfully convincing. The full site is here. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) I had a look close-up at the rifle, and I don't think it's a '98 - the trigger guard of that '98 example is square/rectangular, and ours is definitely rounded. There are also no signs of those extra bits on the '98 example, not even marks where they might have rotted off. Skinny87 (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

How about the French Berthier? The sights look about right and it had a long barrel and a rounded trigger guard. EyeSerene^talk 13:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit): Link to gallery EyeSerene^talk 13:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it perhaps the Lebel_Model_1886_rifle ? Nah - I take that back if this [4] is accurate - the trigger is not in the right place.

Seems to be a cpl here that match but in Russian [5] No6, 7, 8 and No13

One seems to have the same stock attachment, forward sight and almost oval trigger guard

Also maybe try here [6]

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I dunno Skinny, the breech end looks pretty similar to the '98. Admittedly the muzzle end is missing the attachments, but I'm struggling to see any difference between your rifle and the '98 down at the trigger end (aside from the bent trigger guard). Of course I'm probably just clutching at straws after the embarrassment of getting the Lee-Enfield wrong, and being desperate to get the barnstar! Ranger Steve (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I think that you're right; it is just a slightly bent trigger guard. I'll get it labelled at the weekend. Cheers for that - I'll distribute barnstars to all and sundry shortly. Skinny87 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Template for Miltary History articles

In the past few months, I've noticed (and I'm sure you all have as well) that a number of milhist articles have been nominated for deletion in an AfD, only for the poor bewildered writer to come to the AfD and try and defend their work without knowing why it's been nominated. Often they only get the standard generic 'Your article is being deleted' notice on their talkpage, which is vague and very unhelpful to new users. Several times I've gone to their talkpages and given a more detailed explanation, and they've been most grateful, and I know several other users have done similar. As such, I've developed (with EyeSerene's help) a MilHist AfD template which we can copy into a users talkpage. The template is here, and I'd like to see what people think of it, and what improvements can be made before we use it. Skinny87 (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Has any directed said writers to the academy? We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Deleting an article, which was penned with this exact scenario in mind, so I am somewhat surprised to see that this is an issue. As far as the template itself is concerned, given the information present in the second paragraph of the template it seems intended only for biographical deletions. If this is not the case a little more info on the rest of the guidelines related to the deletion subject in question would be useful to whomever the template is heading out for.

Well, it definitely seems to be an issue, but I'm more than happy for the template to be altered to include more info on non-biographical guidelines - I only included them as the MILMOS didn't say anything specific for non-biographical articles, just to follow GNG as usual. I had no idea the Academy link existed, and although useful it seems quite long and daunting. I want this template to be something that can be added to a users talkpage as a simple introduction - though adding the Academy subpage as a link at the end for further reading/ideas seems a great idea. Skinny87 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understood it not to be a replacement for the Academy article but a handy boilerplate text that, as Skinny suggests, might save typing out the same explanation ad nauseam :) I agree a link to the Academy article would be useful too. Tom's right about the bio comment giving a possibly misleading focus to the notice, but my hope is that this is only temporary. I think we're probably overdue to start work on expanding our notability guideline (I think we put it on hold while other reorganisation was taking place elsewhere on WP?) I believe we were going to put something together for Battles and Military Units... maybe something for the thinktank to get its teeth into. In fact, I might go over there and write up a to-do list :) EyeSerene^talk 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we create a generic {{subst:milhistafd|X}} template, and replace the X with bio, vehicle, battle, etc? In this manner we can create a series of more specific afd explanation templates and alter the one user based on the need of the afd at the time. We can add a link to the academy page at the same time, as well as links to the arguements to avoid at afd. How would that work? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very workable to me. It would avoid overload of information too - at present I think the notice is wordy (largely my fault!) and that would only get worse as we develop and include other notability information. EyeSerene^talk 13:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea, that way we can tailor the explanation to the type of article. I seem to have created the biography one already inadvertently, so we just need the others - Vehicles/Aircraft, Battles and units...any others? I don't think a lot of work is needed, just copying the draft in my sandbox, appending the Academy page and altering the guidelines - maybe just examples of notable/non-notable battles and vehicles and units instead of people. Skinny87 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Indiana (BB-1) now open

The featured article candidacy for USS Indiana (BB-1) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the 295th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (FA) - Unwarranted

I am the author of the 295th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (FA) and the web site 295th.com [7]. This page is currently up for deletion, which seems absolutely unwarranted. Yes, the page itself could use some re-work, but the story of this company is also important, regardless of them not being front-line soldiers. Why? These men supported the front line, they helped liberate the prisoners at Dachau, and the fact that they were a non-airborne company training at Camp Toccoa and also running Currahee Mountain should be enough to warrant it staying put! Please, visit the Wikipedia page, the 295th web site, and give your support. Thank you in advance. 295th (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

With very few exceptions, companies are not deemed notable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Declassified UKUSA Agreement

For those who read the news often may have recently seen the secretive UKUSA Agreement declassified yesterday/today. The Wikipedia article is at UK–USA Security Agreement. I have made some updates, added links to the declassified documents, and also requested that the page be moved to a new name as used by government sources. I would appreciate help in digesting this news as I have little knowledge about this topic. Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I never thought I'd see that document declassified! (though it's good that its now available) Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for ARA Moreno now open

The A-Class review for ARA Moreno is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese-Indian War

A discussion thread has been started at Talk:1961_Indian_Annexation_of_Goa#Title regarding the title of the article (i.e., whether to use "Invasion of Goa" or "Annexation of Goa" in the title). If you are interested in the topic, please discuss the issue there.XavierGreen (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Postmaster now open

The peer review for Operation Postmaster is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Siege of Godesberg (1583) now open

The featured article candidacy for Siege of Godesberg (1583) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Masnieres British Cemetery, Marcoing

Hello Military History team! Can you help me? I was doing some tidy/update work on the Thomas Neely VC article, and noticed that he was buried at Masnieres British Cementry, Marcoing. I can't find an article with that title, do we have one? A small cemetery, it was also the place where the ashes of Henry Tandey were scattered. More details here on the CWGC website Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have one for that yet. I've looked over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military memorials and cemeteries task force and can't seem to find it. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We do now: Masnieres British Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery. Just a stub though - needs work :) EyeSerene^talk 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Suitably expanded. Hehe. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You All! Best Regards, - Trident13 (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Very impressive stuff; all done without an hour of the call!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I just created one myself. Masnieres British Cemetery, Marcoing. I was having cache issues and didn't see the above threads. I have removed the content from mine and redirect to the other one. Well, that's half an hour of my life I'll never get back (not to mention the grief I got from my wife for being on the computer). Oh well. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that :( I've merged elements of your content into mine, so your time wasn't wasted. EyeSerene^talk 12:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally my fault. Anyway, thanks. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Cross of Honour

I just came across the Category:Recipients of the Cross of Honor. Now I am wondering if there is any use for such a category. Essentially the Cross of Honor is the equivalent to the British War Medal, having been issued to anyone who fought on the German side in WWI. Frankly, I do not see a point in categorizing all German (and Austrian) WWI veterans who were considered worthy of wearing this medal (i.e. not Jewish nor Socialists/Communists). --Dodo19 (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) featured article candidacy

Hi all, The FAC for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) (which I nominated) is languishing with relatively few votes and comments. Any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)/archive1 would be much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate - Portal:Terrorism

• Portal:Terrorism

This portal is currently being considered for Featured Portal status. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Terrorism. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just retrieved this from the archives. The review still has no comments so if anyone could spare the time to take a look that would be massively appreciated. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 21:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident

I have nominated Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Bombardment of Papeete now open

The featured article candidacy for Bombardment of Papeete is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

POsts in the middle of sections

Hi all

Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous that blaa is posting inbetween older posts requiring others to reply there and making it impossible to follow the thread of any "discussion" also I just noticed that he put words in the middle of a previous post ! [8]

Can someone clarify what the hell the position is on this - should we not simply put:

@persons name + Date + Quote at the bottom of the whole section?

I understand that there is a need for simple little posts to go inbetween - such as Trekphiler at 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC) when he was simply posting a small note rather than part of the discussion

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

whats your obective? i added something to my post 5 minutes after i printed it before somebody responded , thats normal i added something to my point behind this particular point. wheres your problem? I also want to remind u that trek added something between older posts an i responded to him!!!! with this post u hurt your reputation more than mine i guess. please dont try to make problems where no are Blablaaa (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to smile after i checked your last 2 posts. I saw that u did exactly the same and added something in the middle of your old post :-) Blablaaa (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here the edit of another editor in the middel of a finished discussion: [[9]] . So i hope u are satisfied now, it wasnt me. Kindergarden... Blablaaa (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Kindergarden ? and so the insults start again

I object because I had an edit conflict which I could not sort out as I couldn't see where your post was that caused it (as there is no method to your posts and their dates) you read something that gets you stirred up and you stick an answer to it right there even if the post is a week old.

Normally people put their posts at the end, not in the middle, at the top, then the bottom, the middle, the bottom and lastly the top

I was trying to reply to your message when I got another ec which yet again I could not find your post so just gave up.

I am not hurting my reputation - I have asked you to be more normal on placing posts in the correct timeline before and yet you persist in this shambolic manner.

As for your comment "I had to smile" that was put in because after searching for a few minutes and havng to look at your contributions I finally realise what the ec had been caused by.

I no longer wish to be part of any discussions you raise as the way in which you conduct your discussions is not acceptable to me. I gave you leeway before when you used those ridiculous comments about noobish and swore but that "Kindergarden" is the final straw, especially as your bottom post was a paragraph of a thousand words.

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

you: Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous that blaa is posting inbetween older posts requiring others to reply there and making it impossible to follow the thread of any "discussion" also I just noticed that he put words in the middle of a previous post ..... Can someone clarify what the hell the position is on this.. for me it sounds like unnessecary at all. Not to mention that another user started this posting in the middle and i only posted a response.... . Kindergarden inst insulting , at least not in german... I hope u admit that making an extra section to talk about blas posting in th middle is kinde kindergarden, isnt it? Blablaaa (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

and this Kindergarden ? and so the insults start again is also a bit "kindergarden" :-) . Dont overreact . That u got edit conflict because of my posts is not good. So i apologize for posting in the middle where u cant find it. I was also a bit confused when trek responded, but thought i will post below with enough ":::" ... Blablaaa (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Such comments are clearly in violation of WP:NPA and you have been warned repeatedly. I have flagged this now at WP:ANI#Repeated violations of WP:NPA by Blablaaa. Anotherclown (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Midshipman now open

The peer review for Midshipman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Stone

Is there a way to bottom out his military experiences? The lead states that he was in combat in 'Nam as a US infantryman, the prose says he was a teacher there and a wiper on a Merchant Marine ship. The article on Platoon states he was basing it on his infantry experiences. There has been a cock up somewhere.... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Indian Air Force now open

The peer review for Indian Air Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg FAC

Siege of Godesberg FAC could use more reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Princess Royal FAC

This FAC needs more reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of Gunpowder

I've opened a discussion about moving Gunpowder, which presently covers historical potassium nitrate gunpowder, to Black powder and making Gunpowder a disambiguation page for black powder and modern gunpowder. Any comments are welcome, and should be made at Talk:Gunpowder#Requested move. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Lucas Bend

Could one of you people from across the pond possibly look over this article? I have no idea where the Mississippi flows in relation to Columbus, Tennessee, Cairo and so on. I think some of the disambiguation links may be a bit off and the river geography a little nonsensical. It's on the main page for a DYK today so someone is gonna notice that I know not my American geography! _{Long live the Queen!} :D S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

US Air Force expertise needed in assessments

Just popped by the assessments section and saw the huge backlog. Someone has raised hundreds (literally) of USAF related articles. I wouldn't even know if these were notable, let alone assess them, but I'm sure someone here has the skills and knowledge to help the regulars Monstrelet (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover now open

The A-Class review for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

White Shadows's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, White Shadows, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of White Shadows's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

War and popular culture queries

Two questions which sort of follow on from earlier discussions on computer games. 

• I assume that wargames as a research or training aid come under the remit of MILHIST but not wargames as a hobby. Is that correct?
• I think the consensus of the previous discussion was not to allow computer games because we were already suffering mission creep. I suggested we have a wider look at the popular culture field, being clearer on what we included and what we declassified as MILHIST as a contribution to the problem. I'm not sure there was an answer to that, so I'd like to raise it again. If there is no interest, then we can file it under NFA.Monstrelet (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first would seem to make sense to me, although what type of wargames are we talking about? Computer, tabletop, or both (not that it really matters I suppose).

Your second... that might be a good topic for the thinktank, as it could have implications for the project's existing scope. No objection to discussing it here though :) EyeSerene^talk 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On the firsrt point I have strong objections to wargames being here (excepting such things as Kreigspiel and other training aids). I do not see a doifferanced in this respect from Board wargames, computer games or playing with toy solders.

I see no reaso ot to0 discuse the inclusion of computer games, I just dojn't think we should include them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a case could be made that tabletop wargames are closer to military simulations than they are to computer games - many training aids in use now started out as hobbyist wargames. I don't think the same case can be made quite so readily for computer games, although even there the boundaries blur when looking at computer-based training simulations. Obviously we have to have a cut-off somewhere though. EyeSerene^talk 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends, for example whilst say Anzio might be an excelent simulation of the italian campiegn of WW2. But what about (lets say) WWIII, both a bad game and a terrible simulation (even at the time). I agree that were something starts out as a training aid (or in the case of Phoenix Command a forensic simulation) there is justification for its inclusion is good. But if its just a commercial wargame then no I don't think there is a case.I have dbouts that if we allow the idea that a game is a form of millitary history then every one who has played they third Reich will feel that their version of reality is a valid as Liddle-harts. I just so not se any benifit but a lot of potential trouble. The 'Hey I played battlefield Vietnam, I'm a vet man' mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree; we're perhaps best treating [hobbyist]^{added clarification} wargames as out-of-scope with the occasional exception decided on its own merits. EyeSerene^talk 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wargaming and simulation is a standard element of both training and operational planning and should be covered, ISTR that red teaming already is. The individual games used in training aren't really all that significant, and the models used in strategic planning are sensitive so any discussion probably can't be sourced.

ALR (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree. Wargaming is a military method as well as a recreation - insofar as it's a military method, we should cover it. Individual games shouldn't be covered, regardless of their sales/authenticity/whatever (though there might be exceptions). The Land (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To summarise, then, the initial query is correct - Wargaming is only within the scope of the project in as far as it has a professional military, rather than hobby, context. Hobby games can only come in where there is cross-over e.g. Kriegspiel, originally a staff training aid which crossed over into hobby circles in the later 19th. century.

I think thats fair.Slatersteven (talk)

I would be happy to take the other part of question to the think tank but can't find the link on this page or the main project page - could someone enlighten me? Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The link is WP:MHTHINKTANK. The pages are still in the process of being set up, so if you wanted to continue here that might be best for now. I don't know what others think? EyeSerene^talk 13:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to "Polular culture in milhist articles" section below. EyeSerene^talk 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Warburg

Please check the article de:Schlacht bei Warburg which has been reworked recently and which was qualified excellent.--Warboerde (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gallica images

Just wanted to point out this resource: http://gallica.bnf.fr - it contains an extensive gallery of French PD images, including quite a lot of military ones! Regards, The Land (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is there any task force dealing with war crimes and atrociites during World War 2? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The WWII task force would be the main one here, as we don't have one on war crimes or laws of war specifically. If you're looking for something with a more concentrated focus, you might consider starting a working group within the WWII task force to cover WWII war crimes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

New category: Category:Battles of the Chaco War

I'm working up some stubs, translating the ledes and infoboxes (many of which have pix) from the es.wiki articles from Category:Batallas de la Guerra del Chaco, covering battles of the Chaco War, a war fought between Paraguay and Bolivia in the early 1930s. If there are any Spanish-speaking editors who want to help expand the articles with the remainder of text from es.wiki, that would be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution

There's currently an effort underway to set up a long-term collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution; since we cover some of the topics that would be involved, I'm wondering whether there is any interest in the project for taking part in the collaboration efforts?

A couple of topics we should consider:

1. What topics within our scope would be suitable for this collaboration? U.S. military history and military aviation seem like obvious fits—each has, effectively, an entire Smithsonian museum associated with it—but are there other good topic areas that we should pull in?
2. What would be the best way of setting up collaboration efforts from our end? Do we want to create one or more working groups that would cover individual groups of topics related to the Smithsonian, or set up some more centralized structure for the entire effort?
3. Aside from working on articles directly, what other forms of collaboration are of interest? For example, do we want access to images, exhibits, etc.?

Any comments on these or any other related issues would be appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We definitely want acess to images, exhibits, etc. That information helps us improve on the material here, and I know that some of the things in the Smithsonian are valuable for reasons beyond simple display (The RQ-2 Pioneer that they have, for example, is the one that was aboard Wisconsin and captured the Iraq forces on Faylaka Island surrendering). On point 1, it may also be a good idea to include their science museum, if they have one, since R&D work both directly and indirectly related to the military has produced lots of civilian advances (like nylon, for example). Some of that material would fall indirectly within our scope. As for the best way to set up collaboration; I think that a special project would be the best way to go about it - unless we can obtain a rough figure for the articles that we have on there displays and such; if its over 100 and we have enough interest in the collaboration attempt I would be open to considering a full fledged task force for the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There's probably several hundred articles if we consider everything on display—and even more if we include the items not currently publicly displayed, which there has been some talk about as well—but there's probably not enough of a common theme to really create a full task force from this. A special project would probably be a good middle ground; the set of articles is (notionally) limited, and probably lends itself to a phased approach similar to what OMT is currently doing. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have worked for the last couple weeks categorizing the articles for the SI and there are quite a few articles and images that relate directly to both projects (such as aircraft at the air and space museum). There are also a lot of indirect scope articles such as the misc unnamed aircraft, weapons, equipment and vehicles related to the military, as well as military related art and images. Also of potential tie ins are first and signifant events for applicable minorities such as Medal of Honor recipients, famous firsts, etc relating to the African American museum in anacostia and the American Indian museum. As Kirill mentioned there are a lot of items not currently on display that may also be valid. The SI has about 150 million items in their collection, and they only display about 1%. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How deep will they let Wikipedians into their archives? I agree that photographs will be one of the first and most obvious benefits of the program. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Smithsonian Institution is also a significant, and high-quality, publisher of books on military matters (particularly aircraft). Is there any prospect of them releasing the text of their books and magazines (presumably older/out of print editions in both cases) into the public domain? In addition to the requests for photos above, maps from SI publications would also be wonderful. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I took part in the British Museum collaboration and had some thoughts about how to make this model of collaboration work for military history topics... here they are...

• There is a basic difference between the way museums present information - object-by-object - and the way an encyclopedia does. The British Museum was keen to help Wikipedia have better articles about objects in its collection, because that's what their curators care about, and also helps drive traffic to their website. For unique objects like a Cyrus cylinder, Royal Gold Cup, or a find like the Hoxne Hoard that works fine because there is a 1-1 correspondence between objects and Wikipedia articles - and also because the curators are genuine experts in the subject matter. This is much more difficult with military history because no museum is able to exhibit the Battle of Passchendaele; if a museum has a Spitfire it will be one of many, and their exhibit is not independently notable; and while they might have an exhibit about General John J. Pershing they won't necessarily feel that they are leaders in the field of knowledge about him. So I think there is an extra challenge for military history collaborations with museums. Not an insurmountable one hopefully.
• Wikipedians need to make a conscious effort to help fill the Museum's priorities - this kind of initiative will only take off if we can show to the museum staff that they are getting something out of it. It might be worth getting the Smithsonian Wikipedian-in-Residence to talk to the people in charge of their aviation and military history and get them to suggest subjects which are a high priority for the museum which will also benefit Wikipedia, rather than trying to do it the other way around.
• It's much easier to get access to experts from a museum, and to their libraries, than it is to convince museums to put a lot of photos which currently generate revenue for them into the public domain. So it works better if you think of the collaboration as an opportunity to learn about subjects, get articles peer-reviewed by experts who normally wouldn't bother with Wikipedia, and improve the factual content of the articles, than as a smash-and-grab raid on a lot of photo resources.

If there is a Milhist collaboration with the Smithsonian I will happily take party (though, obviously, only remotely!) The Land (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are all really good points. The Smithsonian has a number of remarkable objects relevant to military history which could be a suitable initial focus - the Enola Gay for instance. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

They also have whats left of the USS Philadelphia (1776), several other named aircraft in addition to the Enola Gay such as Flak Bait, along with the hundreds of unnamed aircraft, several of which are the only remaining of their kind such as the Aichi M6A and the Dornier Do 335. Even some animals related to the military could potential fall within scope such as Sergeant Stubby and Cher Ami. Additionally, there have been discussions regarding articles regarding the museum that are "indirect scope" articles which the museum may want to collaborate on that relate to their museum (such as the SR71 blackbird, other generic type aircraft on display, possibly even biographies about artists with works on display, the Wright brothers or various indian tribes). Its hard to say at this point exactly what they are going to deem as important to them and in fact my guess is that will vary greatly depending on the individual museum within the SI group. --Kumioko (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wonders never cease! I was just planning a trip to DC for this autumn... If I can use my position as an editor to maybe get some "behind the scenes" access for research and photography, I would be a very happy man. I think I will brainstorm up a "wishlist" of things I would want to take a deeper look into. And, it would be amazingly pleasant to get some outside peer review by experts, though I imagine there may be some growing pains when it comes to referencing some of the discrepancies. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to see another institution follow in the footsteps of the British Museum; sounds like a lot of good could come from this. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We could also see if we could get involved with the Museum of the American Indian to try to improve our coverage of the American Indian Wars and related topics. – Joe N 23:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone knows anybody at the Imperial War Museum please let me know ;-) The Land (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Joe, the Museum of the American Indian is the one we met with and the one that currently seems the most interested in collaborating at the moment. --Kumioko (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture in milhist articles

Broken out from "War and popular culture queries" above. EyeSerene^talk 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At present, AFAIK, the project's guidance on popular culture articles is restricted to a paragraph under category 8 of what the project covers. The main thrust of this is about historical content of the cultural product (book, film etc.) There isn't an article guide or a specific notability guide. So two questions

• Should there be some content element we would expect to see in a MILHIST tagged popular culture article, such as a section commenting on historical accuracy, or an expectation of reference to historical sources, not just ones connected to the arts or popular reactions to the cultural product?
• Should we specify something on notability. Some fictional or artistic pieces are probably notable as they are produced by veterans and describe or reflect on the experience of war. But what of popular art - are all the current crop of historical novels about the Ancient Roman Military all sufficiently notable, or some, or none. What criteria do we use? Sales/box office, literary or other awards, public reaction to the pieceMonstrelet (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been mulling these questions over and still don't have very good answers :) However, I think the first is basically addressing the same issues as we discussed with war-related games; what are the chances that such articles will contain sourced commentary and analysis that isn't WP:OR? Item 8 of the scope on our main page states "the project generally covers only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable". This doesn't actually specify that such discussion is present in the article, only that it would be relevant if it was present, so maybe we should look at tightening the requirement?

Re notability, our gold standard must obviously be WP:N, which states "a topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." We can expand this with our own guidelines and advice (eg WP:MILPEOPLE) but we can't weaken the site policy. With that in mind I think we could usefully set out more detailed guidelines - in fact, we're overdue a project-wide discussion on developing notability guidelines for battles, units etc so this could be bundled up as part of the wider proposals. EyeSerene^talk 09:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Smolensk (1812)

I wonder if anyone could advise? This article self contradicts in terms of casualties. I suppose that isn't too surprising as neither side wants to exagerate own losses. I can't find any non commercial online sources let alone an authoritive one but note that the German, French and English versions also differ. See Talk:Battle of Smolensk (1812). Any suggestions on this -and getting consistency across different versions. Thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

David Chandler (The Campaigns of Napoleon, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. 1990. Pg 786) states French casualties to have been 10,000 and that of the Russians being between 12,000 and 14,000 men in the two days fighting. Farawayman (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this prompt reply. JRPG (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga now open

The featured article candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Westfalen now open

The A-Class review for SMS Westfalen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WW2 Casulalties - Re Rudiger Overmans

User User:Stor stark7 started a thread re:Rudiger Overmans on my talk page, I moved his comments and my replies to Talk:World War II casualties Other editors need to get involved.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting category idea: Category:Battles and Conflicts Without Fatalities (rename for proper caps pending)

I ran across this whilst cleaning out WP:UNCAT, and the concept is somewhat interesting. Worth keeping and expanding, listify, or just delete? I do have a Speedy Rename request in at WP:CFD to fix the capitalisation issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If we view "conflicts" as referring to military conflicts specifically, then is there likely to be any significant number of articles in the category? Off the top of my head, I can't think of many battles or wars with no fatalities (and even fewer with no casualties); this might be more suited to a list, since that won't have the size issue, and can be annotated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Cod Wars?Monstrelet (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I think it would be a worthy category for milhist purposes, if there was anything to put in it. Like Krill I struggle to think of many military conflicts without any form of casualty. That said, I imagine there might be some in the wider world (the great cod conflict aside) so it might have some value with a refined name. Bloodless confrontations perhaps? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling there is something that can be done with this cat, and it's an interesting idea in that it covers conflicts of a military-type nature (where one would expect bloodshed) that turned out peacefully. There's also the Pig War, where no British or US troops died (though technically not bloodless since the pig died). MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And the classic Emu War. That article's come on a bit in the last year I'm happy to see. Not necessarily bloodless either though! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Yarmouk now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Yarmouk is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Forces

A discussion is currently underway at Talk:Canadian Forces#Maritime Command, or Canadian Forces Maritime Command regarding the use of "Canadian Forces" in the article titles of the Canadian Forces Air Command, Canadian Forces Land Force Command, and Canadian Forces Maritime Command articles. Any input from the projerct would be welcome, whatever your views on the issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Russian battleship Slava now open

The featured article candidacy for Russian battleship Slava is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional eyes needed

I have just reblocked User:Rivenburg, who was blocked back in 2007 for strongly biased editing of Michel Thomas. Ultimately, his block was reviewed, and was reduced to a ban on editing that specific article (talk page editing permitted). He has recently returned and edited the article using the Rivenburg account; however, a review of the article's history compared with available checkuser data strongly indicates that he has continued editing while logged out for much of the time of his topic ban.

This article needs review by people with some knowledge of the historical period involved, and I will cross-post this to the Polish and Military History wikiprojects; however, in the interim, it would be very helpful if a few folks would add this page to their watchlist and keep an eye out for further biased logged-out edits. Thanks. Risker (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Plassey now open

The peer review for Battle of Plassey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) now open

The A-Class review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for FN P90 now open

The peer review for FN P90 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for ARA Moreno needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for ARA Moreno; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Forts in the United States

Category:Forts in the United States contains many different fort articles in its subcategories. But there is an unanswered question. What should actually be included in this category? Just forts that were actually used for combat defense? Army facilities having schools or training areas but not used in combat? Anything named a 'fort'? Also things named camps used by ground forces? Only Army facilities, but not U.S. Marines and so on? Hmains (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that there are the two main diversions on the subject.

In english the word fort comes from "fortify" - old english it was forte and before that the laitn was fortis (strong)

Fortification - works that are erected to defend something (fence, pallisade, rampart, embankment, big thick stone walls etc)

Fortress - That which has been fortified (like fortified wine which means "made stronger")

Whhich gives us:-

1. Fort - something which has been fortified (with fortifications) and is only used for troops

So basically if it has a fence or a fence and a ditch or a fence and barbed wire or a wall and its used for troops its a fort.

2. Interestingly the British in North America (prior to the 4th July lol) used the term Fort for a trading station that was fortified. The Americans then took over the style (cavalry indians etc) and I suppose it became normal even without a trading post there - places like Fort Lauderdale, the city, and Fort Bragg, the army camp.

Bragg was first Camp Bragg as there were no army personnel there. It started out as a artillery training ground and artillery range and the first thing established were cantonments followed by an airfield. It wasn't until it was 4 years old that it was renamed Fort as a permanent army post.

Chaosdruid (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have seen it said, in a novel rather than anything that would be counted as a reliable source, that so far as the US Army is concerned, the difference between Camp Bragg and Fort Bragg is taht while it was called the former it was considered a temporary installation, and once it was accepted as a permanent base, it takes the title Fort instead. David Underdown (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think thats about right sort of lol - the camp accomodations were cantonments - big tents and things - with some permanent structures. The airfield had buildings and hangars, although I cannot finda pic unfortunately, and there was an office buulding. The bit about the camp v fort is probably better assigned to (in the case of Bragg) the official history which stated that once the barracks were in place and the army units went in the camp was renamed to fort.

Perhaps the permanent part that was inferred in the novel was a permanent billet. THe reason I mention this is that it also says Bragg had "the artillery personnel and materiel from Camp McClellan, Alabama", yet was still called a camp, and "Camp Bragg became Fort Bragg, a permanent Army post" although that part is not very clear on what a permanent army post is, whether it is they were put there permanently, the fact that naming it "Fort" made it a permanent post, or that it was only temporary (due to the war) or the threatened closure etc. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

US succession templates

Just noticed {{US Cavalry}} being added to articles, and {{US Infantry}} has been around for a while. These templates go under the main infobox to link to numerically previous or next divisions or regiments. The problem is that this creates an artificial sense of order— there is no particular precedence based on numeric designation. For example, 3rd Cavalry Division (United States) links next to 15th Cavalry Division (United States), which then links next to 21st Cavalry Division (United States). This also illustrates that articles are missing for those historical divisions.

If we really need some navigation aid for these articles, then it should be a standard navbox at the bottom of the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is less of a problem than you think since there were no 4th through 14th Cavalry Divisions, nor 17th through 19th Armored Divisions, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I had created {{US Cavalry}} based on {{US Infantry}}, because the header text is hardcoded. Have also found {{US Regiments}} as well. But after further investigation we should probably use some kind of a more generic box where the nationality, "US", "German", etc, and type "Infantry", "Cavalry", etc. are parameters along with the unit size "Division", "Regiment", "Army". — MrDolomite • Talk 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would be quite easy to create a single template that would allow people to substitute in the relevant terms in the text. However, I'm not entirely convinced that this is the best solution. If the intent is simply to provide navigation among all related units, then using a normal navigation template, as Gadget850 suggests above, seems more useful than only providing links to the "neighboring" units and forcing readers to follow the entire chain. On the other hand, if the intent is to showcase an order of precedence or similar relationship among units, then it would probably be more useful to just add those items to the unit infobox and eliminate the need for a separate template below it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Rivadavia class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Rivadavia class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Russia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Russia/archive1 needs more reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Acra (fortress) now open

The featured article candidacy for Acra (fortress) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

MILMOS reorganisation proposal

Further to discussions here and elsewhere, the coordinators would like to put a proposal to our members:

• Background: Wikipedia's site-wide style guide, the Manual of Style (MoS), has recently been reorganised to provide a more logical structure and better integration with the many subject-specific style guides developed by individual WikiProjects (such as music, biographies, mathematics etc). The new MoS page structure can be seen at Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style. As is obvious from the category link, we are the only project that now lies outside this structure. However, at present our in-house guide—WP:MILMOS—addresses three areas: content, notability and style. Only the style sections would technically come under the MoS.

• Proposal: to split WP:MILMOS into three separate pages, one each for content, notability and style, and to move the style page into the new MoS structure.

Support

1. As proposer :) I think this would also facilitate expanding our notability guidelines to include some of the other subjects that it has been suggested we develop guides for - units, battles, fiction etc. EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Eyeserene. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
4. I don't see a downside, but none of those subcats seems to fit us ... maybe a new one for history? (Not that that's a great fit, but if we get too specific, we'll continue to be a category of 1.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   At one point it was moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history), but a bit of a tiff developed - hence this proposal to get consensus (or not) for the reorganisation. I don't believe anyone's wedded to a particular title yet though, so anything you can suggest would be welcome. EyeSerene^talk 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   I don't have any preference for the name, I just think we should find some kind of subcat that seems to fit in with their subcat scheme. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   So if no one is attached to a name yet, let me ask this question: Can we name it after me? LeonidasSpartan (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   Absolutely ... when it comes to MOS, the more spartan, the better. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   Is this the time to mention WP:MILHISTFIRINGSQUAD? EyeSerene^talk 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

5. Support The less confusing any MOS guide for users the better. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
7. Support, will make these guidelines easier to maintain in the long term. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
8. Support It sounds like a good idea - I think he meant copy it to the new MOS rather than not have it around for us to play with :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
9. Support Having finally got around to digesting it. Seems sensible enough to me. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Can't see the harm. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I think that this is largely a good idea, but I think that it is also important to reinforce the idea that this MILMOS is still underneath the custodianship of the MILHIST project. Perhaps we should develop some sort of template to slap onto any MOS guide which is specific to any topic within our project's scope to reinforce the idea that the project as whole is still looking after that manual of style.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What we can do is maintain a copy of the milmos and ask that those wishing to gripe about some part of the mos check and see if its the main mos or our mos; then direct inquires to the appropriate group. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the three components of the MILMOS will still be interlinked among each other and through the project pages; I don't think there's any risk of people not knowing where to go for discussion.

As far as military-specific material on other MOS pages, the MILMOS page already cross-references most of them directly; there's probably no need to do anything beyond that. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of P'ohang-dong now open

The A-Class review for Battle of P'ohang-dong is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Discussion

This discussion appears to be hitting a stalemate Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_15#Category:Civil_affairs_units_and_formations_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps, please comment Sadads (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS König now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS König is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Citadel of Arbil now open

The peer review for Citadel of Arbil is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall now open

The peer review for List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages

I have initiated a conversation about a suggested change to the way we display the BLP banner on article talk pages at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages. Please take some time and leave a comment about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

General Question

When i have a text about a battle, and the source talks about casualties of one participant ( in my case , they are actually far lower than the casualties of the other participant ) and says he believes that battle was a improvement for the other participant due to various reasons ( captured ground for example ). Can i take the historian/text to claim the historian claims the inflicted casualties were a major reason to call the battle a "tactical victory". Blablaaa (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If the author does not specifically make that claim, then unequivocally no. You are not allowed to put words into the author's mouth, nor are you allowed to draw your own conclusions from what the author does say. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa, please don't keep forum shopping until you get the answer you want. See the discussions at: Talk:Operation_Charnwood#sentence_in_the_lead_.28problem_solved.29, User_talk:EnigmaMcmxc#Operation_Charnwood, User_talk:EyeSerene#Charnwood, User_talk:Nick-D#Operation_Charnwood and User_talk:Blablaaa#Enlighten_me. EyeSerene^talk 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Eyeseren i searched for somebody not involded, and he says exactly what i expected of an uninvolded editor. And please dont start to affect him like u tried already Blablaaa (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

U also should not list talkpages which were not opend by me. Nick talk page enigmas talkp for example were not even started by me :-D Blablaaa (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, you haven't posted to Enigma's talkpage so I've struck that one - my apologies. You have joined in on Nick's though.

I hope Parsecboy doesn't mind me responding further, but he was replying to a hypothetical situation based on your post and in the circumstances you've described he's absolutely right. If I came across that situation I'd say the same too, as I'm sure would any experienced editor. However, you've not really given the full picture and enough editors have explained by now the problem with picking a single phrase out of a single sentence in a potted summary of an article and taking it out of context. My sincere advice is to drop the stick. EyeSerene^talk 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If u mean with "full picture" that i did not tell here that other editors are already commited to their false arguments, yes correct. I guess my statement is very simply summarize of the main factors ( two unconnect claims of an historian become a connected claim due to OR of wiki editors). And we all know how correct iam. Give the quote for the claimed correlation. U have no quote for a correlation?---> u are doing OR. And in this case pretty wrong OR. Iam aware of the full situation. The situation is so clear: VERIFIABILITY. Blablaaa (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What are my possiblities if i introduce somebody in the situation and he sees who supports which opinion, ia lost. Do i post the question without irrelevanrt background-infos i get exactly what i said. Blablaaa (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is going to carry on; it’s not an opinion of a single historian, the intro was not wrote by me and it is based on the sourced information in the article; i do not believe anyone, who worked on the article, has manipulated the information to fabricate the lede. Furthermore i do not subscribe to this whole notion, that seems to be getting raised, of spin or attempting to influence the opinion of other editors into gaining consensus; i believe people can see the facts for themselves. As it may have already been gathered this stems from the talk page of the Operation Charnwood article.

A quick glance through the article and a few sources at home highlights around six historians (at the least, i don’t have the time or inclination to go through everything i own) noteing the heavy personnel, equipment and tank losses the two principle formations took during the battle. Once again this is noted in the article and sourced. Of importance is a quote from Simon Trew and Stephen Badsley, albeit not mentioned in the article; “... Hitlerjugend Division’s incomplete records... . ... Hitlerjugend also reported losing eleven Panthers and seen Panzer IVs. Losses for other German units are not known”.

Thus the basis of the OP’s argument is rather flawed due to the incomplete records for one side not to mention how we do not know what size this force actually was. Additionally several sources note how the elements of the Luftwaffe division, based in front of Caen, suffered 75% losses; this is noted in the article. The tank losses, sourced in the article, provide a range of 29-52% loss rate of what was deployed.

Finally at least two sources, again i have not the time or inclination to look further, note in a separate point that the tactical position was improved by the capture of the city yet strategically nothing had changed.

I welcome further opinion on the matter although i doubt i will be able to reply today or tomorrow on the matter due to above mentioned lack of time.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

U do the same again, u try to distract. The statement is not sourced and cant be sourced because no historian claims this correlation. U try to list german casualties which is not more than a try of distraction and a very cheap on. First off all german lost far less euqipment and personnel. The lead is not based on sourced material. The statment is OR if the assumption is sourced u could easly give me the quote. U can not so its not sourced. Stop distracting stop listing casualties stop trying to affect other people face the point. The correlation is OR of an wiki editor and nothing more. In my opinion are u violating wiki rules when u claim the statement is sourced because two parts of the statement are sourced but without context. Bring the quote and stop talking blablablablablabla . My intention here was to find somebody who was not involded and not distracted after i found one , 2 of u immediatly banged into and distracted and threw useless comments in. But after u both disabled my try to get a complet objectiv opinion my plan failed Blablaaa (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment i seriously doubt that u understood the point. Blablaaa (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We understand your point just fine, but I wonder if you understand WP:LEDE? The first section of an article is a summary of the following sections, and the sentence you're objecting to is fully supported in the text. Your argument about WP:OR would only apply if the lede made assertions that were unsupported in the rest of the article. However, if you read the "Analysis" section you'll find lots of detail about historians discussing the battle in terms of both the territorial gains made and the increasingly serious consequences to the Germans of the losses they were sustaining. Summarising related arguments in a single sentence in the lede to try to express the broad thrust of many paragraphs of detail is not original research, it's economical writing. EyeSerene^talk 20:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What u write hgihlights that u dont understand the point. I doubt that u understand what tactical ( your sentence about german losses is simply unclever while it highlights the strategic situation and not the tactical. U dont understand tactical u are unskilled) means , really i think u dont know it, u try to give your opinion about somethin what u simply dont understand. Give me the quote of a historian claiming the german losses were one reason for the tactical victory. A sentence in the lead must be verifiable , because he summarizes the rest what must be verifiable. But the statement in the lead is a conclusion which is not printed anywhere. U claim the text is full of sources but give me one supporting the claim. U are simply wrong i call u bias and u are, your sentence on the tractable talk highlights perfectly. U are wrong eyeseren. That this is your final replay is logic u dont have arguement u dont have sources thats why u trashtalk without bringing a quote for a statement. Blablaaa (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to bring me one single quote of any historian that the german losses on charnwood were one major factor for the allied tactical victory BRING IT WP:Burden Blablaaa (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Remaining neutral for the moment (until I've fully understood this chat), could I please ask everyone to keep their comments civil and constructive (here and on related threads). This discussion bears all the hallmarks of descending into a bitter battle - totally unnecessarily in my opinion. Blablaaa, I appreciate that English isn't your first language (apologies if I'm wrong on that) but comments like "what u simply dont understand" and "U dont understand tactical u are unskilled" come across as fairly insulting, and you are in danger of destroying any credibility your argument might have. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not insulting it is important for the discussion. For example, somebody at charnwood page comes to the dicussion and says "blabla is wrong: the text doesnt say victory he claims sucess". Then i read this and think omg who is talkin to me. Victory in warfare is the definition of sucess its exactly the same , look here victory . Than eyeseren comes here and wants to give his "opinion" and shows clearly that he did not understand what tactical means. What shall i do , teach him ? I try to show all objectiv readers that he not even understand the basis of the issue. Maybe this sounds insulting but i dont see the value of people who dont have the knowledge about the topic they talk about..... Blablaaa (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To make myself clear it is essientially to understand the basics of the issue to give an opínion with value. Eyeseren for example clearly and undisputable showed he lacks the requiered knowledge. Blablaaa (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone didn't fully understand the terms they were using, then it is of course important to the discussion. It would be perfectly acceptable to question that editor's understanding or knowledge. What it isn't ok to do is accuse editor's of "trashtalk", deliberately miseleading or distracting the conversation or being biased, and making challenges in bold font, which merely makes it look aggressive. You might have a point in this thread, but stooping to such phrases doesn't help. For what its worth, I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this particular argument (I refer to your opinion of other editors and not the main issue at hand, which I am still digesting). EyeSerene in particular has written or contributed to most of these articles, is particularly well read and, as I understand it, has a far more thorough military background than most editors here. Just my opinion, but I will once again reinforce my belief that you are coming across as very insulting. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What i said about distraction is also very important enigma for example is deliberately distracting. He is fully aware of the fact that german losses were far lower but he is over and over repeating german % losses which were far higher simple because they had much less troops involded :D . Hes repeating to imply the opposite. Furthermore for the tactical outcome the % losses are pretty irrelevant compared to absolut numbers everyone knows this. Thats why i claimed i guess no historian supports the statement in the lead of charnwood, and i was totally correct when i see they are not bringing any quote who supports this uncommon statement. Distraction and lacking knowledge nothing else and a bit ad hominem beginning of every discussion to affect the "neutral" readersBlablaaa (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes maybe i look insulting. But understand my point i go to a talk page and write that something is obviously not correct, what follows? a overlong dicussion where nobody wants to admit that the annoying blablabla is correct. All question my faith but at the same time they show they talk about things they didnt fully understood. So maybe sometimes i sound pretty annoyed. But u are correct its up to me to change this. I apologize for that. Blablaaa (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just time for a quickie and two points:

1. It seems the discussion is being drown out in regards to a discussion on casualties. Two historians have been cited that state that the military position, the tactical position/situation was improved as a result of the battle. If we cannot suggest that this was some sort of tactical success, what was it?
2. A quick glance for articles that uses the term and that i have not worked on dig up contradictory statements to what one is over the, imo confusing, Tactical victory article. The victory article, while unsourced contricts it. During my brief search i found several articles: Battle of Wavre notes equal casualties among the attacking French and defending Prussian forces but gives the tactical victory to the French; one notes that the Prussians suffered heavier losses on the whole when compared to the French due to the size of forces deployed. The Battle of the Coral Sea article notes the tactical victory due to the losses inflicted on American warships but highlights how the Japanese suffered more personnel and aircraft losses. Higher British naval and manpower losses during the Battle of Jutland again provides a different tactical outcome. A further example i have noted, an article that i have worked on, is Operation Brevity which resulted in lopsided casualties but no historian putting a label on the outcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

U only reinforced my opinion that u not get the point. If charnwood was a tactical victory isnt the point i not even doubt that it was one . There are multiple factors which maybe make a tactical victory . Inflicting more casualties for example is maybe a reason to call a battle a tactical victory. But in this operation allied suffered heavier casualties so in this particular case the german casualties were not the reason for the tactical victory. Thats the point. I assumed this when i read the statement and that nobody brought a statement of a historian claiming that, showed clear that iam correct. That charnwood was a tactical victory and german had casualties are mabye 2 facts but that german casualties were a major reason for the outcome, is not said by any historian, so this is OR of wiki editors. Thats what i claimed and thats correct. Nobody brought a source to support the claim despite WP:Burden . The fact that there are 1 million battles in history and u searched 3 to show that a general rules does not always fit looks very strange for me and highlights that u not talk about the same like me Blablaaa (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

and battle of jutland is indeed a german tactical victory. somebody should change it on the english sideBlablaaa (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I am a little confused. The article says that the intent was to take Caen with a secondary objective of drawing forces away from the American front. Is this correct ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:51 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding coral sea, dont be confused, the sinking of the a fleet carier is a much bigger tactical value than the sinking of a normal destroyer. and the german article says Draw.... Blablaaa (talk) 23:55 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PLease do not edit your posts after people have replied nor insert between other posts. Your last post was not made before mine at 23:55 it was after my post of 23:51 (UTC) (which you managed to remove the time stamp from !!) I have corrected the order... Chaosdruid (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

didnt plan to do something like that dont know what happend, when i refreshed the page i saw your post Blablaaa (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that there are 1 million battles in history and u searched 3 to show that a general rules does not always fit looks very strange for me"; you will have noticed that i stated numerous times that i have limited time at the moment, it also highlights the multiple factors that appear that need to be taken into account.

Balblaa, have you not just shot your argument in the foot with the following remark: "There are multiple factors which maybe make a tactical victory." The lede and article state such.

Chaosdruid, thats the general idea: Second Army tactical/operational goal was to seize the north of the town and secure bridgeheads to the south and take advantage if opportunity presented itself. The general overhead strategic plan was to halt the shifting of German divisions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now u already explained your mistake. Here look your words " it also highlights the multiple factors that appear that need to be taken into account " , correct the casualties are not the only reason for a tactical outcome thats why on charnwood casualties werent the reason for the outcome they were side effect, but a side effect in favor for germans. The lead implies they were the main reason beside northern cean. No historian claimed this corelation. your quote "Balblaa, have you not just shot your argument in the foot with the following remark:" , absolutly not i showed that your OR, -----german had casualties + allied tactical victory = german casualties made allied victory ---- is wrong. After rethinking the issue and with assuming that u are no complete amateur in warfare i think the problem is maybe the understanding of the sentence in the lead. Can u maybe read the sentence again. Maybe u read him only once and missed the implications Blablaaa (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

convenient break

It may be that some alteration is needed then as the article states nothing about only capturing the north of the town and the bridgeheads:

"...drew up an offensive with two goals: to capture Caen and to prevent a large scale redeployment of German forces from the Anglo-Canadian sector to the American front." and "...he sought control of Bourguébus and the commanding high ground to the south."

Bourguébus is around 5 miles south of the centre of Caen, and two miles outside its southern boundary. I do not think that you are correct in your last statemnt according to the article.

It seems to me that neither of these objectives were fulfilled so it would appear that the operation was not a success at all.

THe article states that the operation failed to draw german forces away from the american front and it also says that "mid-afternoon on 9 July, Operation Charnwood was over" with only the northern half of Caen being taken.

It may be possible to say that securing the northern half led the germans to withdraw more quickly but the eventual taking of Caen in August was surely down to operations Goodwood and Jupiter?

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are directed to enigma or to me? Blablaaa (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They are directed to anyone interested in correcting the article to properly reflect events and outocmes. I think it is time for you both to co-operate on getting the article right instead of arguing over which sort of success it was (strategic v tactical)

In my opinion as the article stands there is too much contradiction and I would not call it a success of either kind.

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a general problem on normandy article, when it comes to the outcome. Fulfilling objectives was not a cretaria for allied. If some germans where there do defend it always was a strategic victory because they were "missing" somewhere else. The fact that outbreak was only a madder of time from the very beginning seems to be irrelevant. Even if battles achieved nothing and resulted in heavy casualties they were victories because german were there. Please take a look at Second Battle of the Odon, this battele was a strategic victory because german units were held on the line and could not participat in goodwood, while goodwood itself was a tactical victory of german and they didnt need these units. Funny, isnt it? take a look at the talk of this battle. And we are not arguing about the outcome.

I feel like I'm missing something. I read the lead, & the analysis, & they look to be in agreement, so the "no support" argument falls IMO. As to "more Allied casualties equals German victory", that's a non-starter; attacker casualties are always greater. That's the nature of the beast. As to "limited success", I'd agree with the historiographers quoted (& here, I must confess a strong bias against Monty in the interest of full disclosure): the objectives were not entirely achieved, but things were better at the end than the beginning, & that is a functional definition of "limited success" IMO. I also see (not having carefully read the entire page) no strong criticism of Monty for said failing; IMO some wouldn't be out of bounds. At bottom, however, I really don't get Blablaaa's complaint. This looks to me like a pretty good example of a tactical victory for an Allied army in Normandy: front not shattered, Germans not in rout, but situation better for Allies than before. (BTW, don't try & tell me I don't understand what "tactical" is.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No i tell u that the outcome is not the point. Cant believe how often i already explained it :-) please see charnwood talk. Off-topic: And regarding your statement "attacker casualties are always greater", this absolutly not correct. In ww2 the "rule" that an attacker suffers generally more casualties is far away from truth. Not even talking about the fact that an allied offensive in normandy was always supported with enormous firepower which inflicted so much casualties. In battles with good schwerpunkt its high likly that the defender suffers more casualties because he is commited to counterattacks if not he losses much troops which are taken POV. A good example is german attack at kursk, according to nearly all sources, the germans attacked the biggest and most fortified "fortress" ever .... . In ww1 this rule was a bit more accurate. Second quote of u "BTW, don't try & tell me I don't understand what "tactical" is." sorry but the fact that u think charnwood was a perfect example for a tactical victory because the strategic situation of allied improved, indicates this. Blablaaa (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should leave these unanswered. However...

"In ww2 the "rule" that an attacker suffers generally more casualties is far away from truth" This isn't a "WW2 rule", it's an operations research reality. If you like, you can consult Numbers, Predictions, & War & see for yourself.

" the fact that u think charnwood was a perfect example for a tactical victory because the strategic situation of allied improved, indicates this." This suggests to me it's you who doesn't understand. The outcome was tactical victory for the Allies. The strategic situation was unchanged precisely because the victory was tactical & not operational or strategic. (Also, notice, I never said anything about the strategic situation being better; care to read what I actually wrote? Which is, "situation improved", & it was, over the situation pertaining before CHARNWOOD was executed.) Which is to say, the COBRA breakout was at the least an operational victory, & arguably a strategic success.

Care to reconsider your position? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

its an operation research reality that maybe in overall ww2 the attackes has higher casualties but this is because some armies didnt very well in attack, if you read my post carefully u will see that i said with good schwerpunkt its high likly u suffer less casualties. Everybody with understanding of mobile warfare is aware of this. That means for german for example this rule doenst apply so good like for others. When a attacker in mobile warfare suffers more casualties than this is because of his flawed tactics and not because you think their is any rule saying this they have to have higher casualties. Please rethink the whole issue. The outcome was tactical victory for the Allies. The strategic situation was unchanged serious? please read again why people start tactical offensives.... Blablaaa (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"with good schwerpunkt"; Operation Charnwood was launched on as wide a scale as possible there was no narrow focused attacked. "When a attacker in mobile warfare ... because of his flawed tactics". Charnwood was not mobile warfare; it was a direct assualt on fortified positions. "why people start tactical offensives...." The operation was primarily launched to improve Second Army position, the strategic worth of Caen had already been rendered usless by the Germans digging in on the ridges to the south; this had been noted and is mentioned in the article. The secondary goal of the operation was to halt the trickle of German forces eastwards.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

i didnt talked about charnwood. I said in general its a myth that an attacker has higher casualties. This mostly applies for bad tactics. But u are correct charnwood is an example for flawed tactics or maybe and more likly for bad objectives. Blablaaa (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"I said in general its a myth that an attacker has higher casualties. This mostly applies for bad tactics." And if you'd bothered to actually read what I wrote, you'd see, you're wrong. Historically in all eras, for all commanders, the attacker has higher casualties, often much higher. The German casualties were frequently lower because of superior doctrine; that this often produced better tactical results is a separate (but related) issue: namely, Heer tactical responses tended to be better because of better doctrine & training. By contrast, B.A. doctrine & training were substandard, even for the period. (Infantry & armoured forces trained separately!) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

in mobile warfare the attackers has less casualties than the defender. The only reason because your old and wrong statement applies for ww2 is the Red Army. Germany inflicted higher casualties in Poland in France in Russia. England inflicted more in attack on africa. Germany inflicted more on attack in Africa. Allied inflicted more in italy despite beeinf inferior in tactics. Allied inflicted more in western front. Japanese inflicted more in asia while attacking. Soviet inflicted more in asia while attacking. Allied inflicted more in asia while attackig ( while this could hardly be called mobile warfare. German maybe even inflicted more casualties in Bulge attack( at least during the attackphase ). Nearly everywhere and always did the attacker more dmg. Thats mobile warfare. The only reason the old rule applies for ww2 is the "extreme" tactical qualitydifferencen between wehrmacht and red army. I now what i talk about please dont try to explain me such wrong stuff. The sense of mobile warfare is to avoid attrition battles which are won by production thats why its the inherent logic that mobile warfare has to inflict more damage to the opponent. Cant even unterstand how somebody can argue against this. I also want to highlight that u brought this myth argument for charnwood which was "tactical" attack with enourmous artillery power and air power. The only reason for higher casualties in this battle was the handling, you responed: to explain this with the old rule, which in this case is absolutly inapproiate. Historically in all eras, for all commanders, the attacker has higher casualties, often much higher please look 85% of ww2 :-). Now after u called me a "twit" on a talkpage somewhere and got teached by me, please not argue with me. Regards Blablaaa (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"in mobile warfare the attackers has less casualties than the defender. The only reason because your old and wrong statement applies for ww2 is the Red Army." Wrong both times. Casualties are a function of forces deployed & firepower, among other factors. Your examples are limited to one era & often to special cases. (The Chinese army was sadly deficient in artillery & training by comparison even to IJA, Red Army attacks in Manchuria were against a defeated enemy, & the 1941 Red Army had more SOs in Lubyanka's basement than in service, so these are hardly representative samples.) As before, you've conveniently ignored the thrust of the argument: it's not a WW2 rule, it's an operations research reality. And if you bother to look at Dupuy (which I can't find my copy of, or I'd quote the damned ratios, which would run something like 25% A>D for the period IIRC & around 50% for USCW & WW1, as firepower outstripped doctrine). And Heer didn't need to inflict more casualties on the Red Army; they had a 2.5:1 tactical performance advantage. "The sense of mobile warfare is to avoid attrition battles which are won by production thats why its the inherent logic that mobile warfare has to inflict more damage to the opponent. Cant even unterstand how somebody can argue against this." Where did I argue against that proposition? More to the point, what part of the battle for Normandy to the date in question (i.e., before COBRA) qualified as "mobile warfare"? (It wasn't quite positional, but bocage was not conducive to anything remotely resembling blitzkrieg, & if you think it was, you need to re-examine the geography. Or your definition of "mobile warfare".) Contrary to what you evidently beleive, tactical succes is not all about inflicting or taking casualties. Did the Brits take more casualties in CHARNWOOD because their doctrine & training were deficient? Unquestionably. Did the Germans take fewer as a result of better doctrine & training? Certainly. Did the losses decide the outcome? Don't be ridiculous. Losses alone don't decide anything. If they did, the battle at Verdun would have ended in the first couple of hours, & Bomber Command would have given up bombing cities in 1941. Your inability to understand that, plus your evident unwillingness to actually read the arguments when they're inconvenient, leaves me wondering at the quality of your reasoning. (I also wonder at the good sense of my bothering to answer....) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To end your arguments before u bring new. Here is your first reply regarding charnwood a operation done in mid 44 : As to "more Allied casualties equals German victory", that's a non-starter; attacker casualties are always greater. That's the nature of the beast . this statement in combination with a mid 44 operation is military nonsense. Blablaaa (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"this statement in combination with a mid 44 operation is military nonsense" Indeed? So you believe CHARNWOOD was a German victory, do you? Despite the fact the Germans failed to hold the northern part of Caen & their local situation was worse? Interesting definition of "victory". Sounds a bit like the one IJA appears to have been using at the time. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Try of distraction? Never said something about battle outcomes when we talked to each other. After i said allied had higher casualties u responed with : As to "more Allied casualties equals German victory", that's a non-starter; attacker casualties are always greater. That's the nature of the beast . This is, like i explained absolutly wrong espcially for mid 44. Please read what u said and what i responded. Your statement in general is wrong and particular wrong regarding an allied offensive in the west. The conclusion is based on million of soviet casualties. I also want to highlight here that relativ casualties were far higher during Barbarossa ( defense ). And the first major soviet numbers victory ( stalingrad ) was achieved with attack. If u look the eastern front alone ( major theatre ) u will see that in the first years ( german attack) soviet casualties were maybe even 7-8 : 1, when red army were attacking, this ratio was falling down. Thus every major theather supports my opinion.... Like i said u may think about the sense of mobile warfare or maneuver warfare , schwerpunkt , battle of anhilation. But maybe we end this off topic, iam sure u are not willing to admit the truth of my position nor iam willing to give u a "you are correct" while u are not. So maybe u go down this page and give your opinion to my comments regarding infoboxes maybe this is our last chance to get something constructive out of this long discussion :-) Blablaaa (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Chaosdruid; re the plan for Charnwood see "The objective ... to clear Caen ... up to the Orne river, and if possible to secure bridgeheads in southern Caen.[17]" and "it was hoped that I Corps could exploit the situation ... towards the Verrières and Bourguébus ridges," and finally "...two goals: to capture Caen and to prevent a large scale redeployment of German forces from the Anglo-Canadian sector to the American front.[2]"

Blablaaa re Charnwood outcome, it is stated in the article that the capture of portions of the city had no effect the strategic situation.

Re Goodwood, considering your arguments here - plus the fact that the article has received much less attention and is an "unfinished state" - the outcome probably needs to be looked at more carefully rather than what appears to be accepting it on face fact due to the positive German result. The note states: "Hart states that Goodwood "...despite being [an] immediate tactical failure".[1] Dempsey is quoted stating the battle was not tactically very good ...".[2]". If accusations are to be thrown around it probably should be for this part; because the sources dont call it a German tactical victory they talk of the failure on the side of the British tactical handling of the battle.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

I think you are taking things a little too personally bla - we are discussing things and you are constantly replying as if we are talking about what you said - we are not. We have moved past the discussions you were having.

@Trekphiler - I can see now how that would be measured as a tactical success - although the original operational objectives were not met they still got half the city and got rid of half the german defences. There was also some success in recapturing a major French city as the populated side rather than the industrial was in the north half. Also I guess that would have caused logistical problems for the germans as they would have had to divert their heavier equipment quite far south to Vassy/Vire, or risk using the smaller roads, quite a detour - Thats not as contradictory as I thought then :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@Enigma - I was trying to suggest changing the lead slighty from "operation was intended to capture the German-occupied city of Caen" to "operation was intended to capture the northern part of the German-occupied city of Caen.

That was what I was talking about when I said it didn't quite match sry :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "capture Caen" wasn't over-reaching too much, as there were contingencies for following up into southern Caen depending on how the assault developed, but I take your point. I've tweaked the lead - it now says "The operation was intended to capture as much as was feasible of the German-occupied city of Caen...". Is this a reasonable compromise? EyeSerene^talk 09:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"I can see now how that would be measured as a tactical success" I just noticed that. Thank you. I'm glad I persuaded somebody. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mouthful lol but yup :¬) Sorry but it's an FA - I'm not normally that picky...Chaosdruid (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked again :P EyeSerene^talk 10:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence: "With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success." Maybe my english is the problem but for me this means the casualties were a major reason to call the battle a tac victory. But this is wrong and unsoured . That german suffered casualties is sourced that charnwood was a sucess is sourced but not the correlation . Charnwood was no tactical sucess regarding the inflicted damaged because they suffered more. Lord can somebody fix this OR finally or give me a simply quote for this claim. Iam getting mad seein people dont understant this incorrectnes Blablaaa (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You are choosing to ignore the "northern Caen's capture" part of the sentence.

It seems to me that there are around 6 or more editors who, after checking the refs and quotes, agree that "it was a tactical success" is correct.

Consensus is therefore that the facts and the information in the article are correct.

Capturing half the city (and the network of road junctions it contained), forcing the Germans over the river, removing half of the German defenders and establishing a base for the next assault which took the rest of Caen, Bourguébus and the commanding high ground was indeed a tactical success.

It may be that your understanding of English is not the problem as the article clearly states "northern Caen's capture" first and the "heavy casualties" second which would mean that the casualties were indeed not the main reason for the tactical success.

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I ignore the capture of northern cean because i dispute the second part of the statement and not the first. No they were not the reason they were maybe not even a minor reason maybe they were even a contra point. because no historian claimed this. Thats why its must out of the statement because the correlation between the outcome and german casualties is not support by historians!!!! The statement is simple orignal research because no historian claimed the german casualties as beeing crucial for the tactical outcome, and its not up to me to explain this its up to other editors to giving sufficient sources WP:BURDEN. DO u see anyone giving a quote of an historian claiming this correlation?? No!! german casualties are sourced and the outcome but no conclusiion. Iam getting mad ..... Here out of the OR article " It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." this is pretty perfect description of what happend on charnwood. Two sourced facts become a new synthesis not support by any historianBlablaaa (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

1

"In two days of savage fighting I (British) Corps incurred 3500 casualties. In the process of securing Caen, however, I (British) Corps mauled the 16th German Air Force Field Division. Thus, the victory at Caen had been a hard-won affair that owed much to the resolution of the ordinary Allied soldier."[10]

2

From Der Weg 21.Panzer-Division (The history ofthe 21st Panzer Division) by Werner Kortenhaus, a surviving German veteran.

At 16:30 hrs, the division commander of 21 Panzer division Generalleutnant Feuchtinger got the following information:

"The enemy has been successful after heavy bombardment and occupied the northern part of Caen. The situation is still unclear. Familiarise yourself with the situation and go to the position of the 16 GAF, which is in Caen. Release the commander of the 16 GAF and take command yourself. All parts of the 16 GAF are under your command. Regarding the situation you have to lead a couterattack with 21 Panzer Division and get in charge of the stuation."

Generalleutnant Feuchtinger reached the command post at 18:00 hrs. It became immediately obvious that the enemy was already in Caen and that all the infantry of the 16 GAF, who were meant to defend the city and prevent the enemy to get a further hold, were not there. The 16 GAF had suffered losses of 75% and all battallion and most ot the company commanders were dead or wounded. Demoralised parts of the division had already retreated over the Orne.[11]

3

Night of 8/9 July 1944 from "The 12th SS: the history of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division, Vol2 by Hubert Meyer"

Soon after midnight the Divisional commander visited. He recalled:

"I found the survivors of I./25 in a bunker at the edge of town. These totally worn out soldiers had fallen into a deep sleep...The soldiers of 12. SS-Panzer Division were at the end of their physical endurance....TOday, mud-covered steel helmets threw their shadows on sunken faces whose eyes had beheld the beyond all-too-often."

The Division issued orders to leave the assembly areas at dawn, and to take up the new positions at the southern bank of the Orne...The enemy (Allied forces) had reached the majority of his attack objectives on the wings, although some centres of resistance held out...In thecentral sector, at the 59th InfantryDivision, Malon, Couvre-Chef,la Folie, Bitot, parts of Galmanche and Ardenne had not been captured, but abandoned by German decision. However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses."[12]

I trust this will suffice for you

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nr 1 allied suffered higher casualties!!!!! No quote regarding tactical victory and casualtie correlation

Again noobish comment. Here from charnwood article "With support from the 10th Canadian Armoured Regiment, by noon Buron had been taken, although the 9th Brigade's assault companies suffered 60% casualties in doing so" , WOW 60% !!!! of a fully equipend brigade WOW. omg u didnt get it, hu ?

FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

getting mad iam out. Blablaaa (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you strike those comments now, you might just be able to spare yourself a block. Calm down please. I was on the verge of posting something to help, but am rethinking it now. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to help, the is right or wrong. Nobody brings the quote all claim it is sources but when i ask for the explicit quote nobody respondes and then claims he dont respondes because some other reasons. Nobody brings the quote, guys going around and making jokes about "blabla" instead of investing this time in bringing the quote and clearing the issue. What the word for this? Blablaaa (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Again noobish comment. Here from charnwood article "With support from the 10th Canadian Armoured Regiment, by noon Buron had been taken, although the 9th Brigade's assault companies suffered 60% casualties in doing so" , WOW 60% !!!! of a fully equipend brigade WOW. omg u didnt get it, hu ? "

The sentance doesnt state the brigade suffered 60% casualties; it is not comparable to an entire Brigade being made combat ineffective per the quotes regarding the Luftwaffe boys. The sentance specfically states the assault companies suffered these losses. Depending how the battalions attacked it could make the losses, while high, overall sustainable i.e. units attacking with one company up, two in reserve or whatever etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

enigma i dont care who suffered how much % because its totally irrelevant. i simply copied to show how useless this % are when we have overall numbers. i hoped my WOW and !!!! made it clear. and off topic: suffering 60% casualties against a dazed company is kinda tactical desaster, but thats not the point. Blablaaa (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

final try

is somebody willing to explain in 1 sentence what he thinks my problem is. Rethinking the whole problem iam not ready to accept that the people here are not able to understand the in my opinion very obvious mistake. So it is now high likly that my words are not wisly chooses. So please can someone explain to me what he thinks what i mean. if he understood what i mean i will quit the discussion and "accept" that their is no support for my opinion, while iam 95% sure that iam correct. So show your good faith now Blablaaa (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You think that linking the assertion that there were heavy German losses with the assertion that it was a tactical victory is wp:synth? Ranger Steve (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

hm No i guess: i think that "the assertion that there were heavy German losses" and the "assertion that it was a tactical victory" are 2 source parts but the conclusion that the first was a reason for the second is wp:synth, does this sound different for u ?

i did some research because the 75% seem dubios for and found that , the 16 LWFD had 500 infantrymen in 8 companies and reported the loss of 375 men mainly POW, so they reported 75% loss, sounds a bit different now doenst it? "the whole division was steamrolled and lost 75% of their men" is one way to describe , and the neutral military way is saying 375 men which is the value of 2 companies and not more. Somebody so honest to say that this sounds complety different. It all comes down to the presentation of the facts... Blablaaa (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

this is not correct the statement regarding the 375 is about a battle before, the 16 LWFD reported 800 men lost at charnwood Blablaaa (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

additional infos: many battalions of the 16 LWFD were already transferred to other divisions to bolster their infantry strenght. Blablaaa (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

i followed the link of ranger steve and i think this is exactly what i mean, two correct facts are put in one sentence to imply a correlation. Blablaaa (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an apology - your comments were extremely baseless and in very bad taste. I spent three hours trying to help you and I deserve better than the language you chose to use. If this is the way you treat people that are trying to help then do not complain when they turn round and chew your nuts off.

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

i apologize Blablaaa (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I will think about accepting it as you havent even deleted or struck out the insults yet...

Did you understand that in the post (where I have labelled them 1, 2 and 3) the only thing that I have written which is by me is "I trust this will suffice for you" ? Everything from the 1 to the "I trust..." is taken directly from the sources. It is what they said and is a direct quote.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

they dont deal with the issue. Blablaaa (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe it is a language problem then. I will try (once more) to simplify it for you.

1 - "mauled the 16th German Air Force Field Division. Thus, the victory at Caen had been a hard-won affair that owed much to the resolution of the ordinary...." - This means that the mauling led to a victory (Thus means due to what I said in the previous sentence/s)

2 - "The enemy has been successful and occupied the northern part of Caen...the 16 GAF, were not there... had suffered 75% losses" - he is saying that the occupation of the north part was sucessful because the GAF suffered 75% losses and left

3 - "However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses." - he is saying that the Germans could not hold the positions because of the heavy losses.

I do not understand why you cannot accept that - it is not OR or SYNTH - it is merely the opinions of sources which can be quoted to support the statement "it was a success due to XXXX and the high German losses"

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first, sure was the 16 LWFD defeated , that also not the point and only a part of charnwood. It also reflects not the cost of the operation. The statement is claiming nothing near the statement in the lead it claims it was a hard won victory. I also want to highlight that the 75% are 800 men, because the 75% sound so "extreme". To the second, hes claiming the allied took cean and reports the casualties of 16 LWFD, also no correlation. I also want to highlight that this is only a part of charnwood. To the 3rd that simply strategic when german losses slighlty lower than allied ( like they did on charnwood ) its a strategic problem for german , this is far from being relevant for the tactical scale. All your statements dont take the 12 ss inot consideration which inflicted very heavy casualties on the allied. Blablaaa (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe u think about the following. An example, u have only the fact a battle took place and party X lost 3500 and party Y lost +2000. What do u think who won at the tactical scale ? Party x? Nope , no historian will think this. A tactical victory is in general seen as inflicting more casualties ( or more valuedamage ), this is a very "simple" describition but fits in general. Now u get more facts like caputred ground etc and now u hear; it is considered a tactical victory for party x. Would u now assume the casualties of party Y were a reason for the tactical outcome ? Nope, no historian would claim this. Thats why u find no historian ( hereby i want to point at the fact that u quote stories of participating soldiers and officers ) claiming this, thats why enigma , eyeseren and so on dont take the 1 minute and type the quote of a historian into the editbox. Nobody brings the quote. Nobody silence me with bringing the quote. The only thing we have are german casualties ( far lower than allied ) and the tactical outcome. And a statement which is wp:synth, maybe this helps understanding the issue finally. Blablaaa (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to flipping back and forth, one moment you are in agreement that a tactical victory has many factors and then you are entrenched in the position that it is purely down to casualties. As previously stated a quick search finds articles that do not conform to such rigid thinking. I also point out that the notes in the actual infobox, IIRC, are soley down to the tactical improvement of the situation as a whole; your issue appears to be with simpley just the lede.

In regards to purely a casualty argument you dont seem to want to engage the point that regardless of figures, per the article and per comments and quotes from others, the losses were more serious for the Germans. You seem to scoff at the 75% loss rate for the GAF regiment - " because the 75% sound so "extreme"." - if i havent got my maths wrong, would have made the unit 1,000 men strong with 200 survirors available to the German army. That seems pretty extreme (although what is this source for this figure?). Up to half the tanks available in the area were knocked out. Simon Trew states HJ incomplete records suggest around 500 men lost during the operation while Meyer places it closer to 600. Where did the rest of the losses come from, how badly did it affect those units? This type of argument opens up more questions than answers imho.

Furthermore the tactical handing of the battle from the British perspective is called on; we have quotes from Buckley stating how combind arms somewhat fell apart and led to higher casualties. One could argue the bombing raid alerted German defenders, plus the article notes how the German troops were well dug in. On the whole i think a lot is getting brought up to distract from the issue.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats not what i wrote ..... Blablaaa (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

U are switiching my words. I never claimed a tactical victory is soly based on casualties, never claimed this. but i said if there is no other factor, the party with less casualties is considered victoriuos in general. And when a party with much more casualties wins tactical that this doesnt come from the casualties but from other factors, thats what i said and thats what the issue is on charnwood. I repeat me over and over again no historian claimed the tactical sucess came due german casualties, iam still awaiting a quote for that. Iam wondering that u are biting on the 75% , the %losses are pretty irrelevant for the tactical scale. i think 800 sounds better than 75% because 75% is a relativ number which can have much meaning. And u see that people who lack arguments sometimes over focus on % numbers. The combat unit of 9th brigade lost 60%, and now ? what does this say about the tactical outcome ? nothing.... . That german had more serious losses regarding their strenght is no tactical issue its a operational or strategic. I hope u know this. Regarding your off topic question. 600-700 for 12 SS 800 for combat troops of 16 LWFD and the rest for 21 panzer and auxillery troops who got shelled. does this seem strange for u ? for me not... Blablaaa (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet I already told you that the quote you were using says "northern Caen's capture" first and the "heavy casualties" second  :¬)

BTW those quotes: 1 is from the Ministry of Defence (England) and 2 & 3 are from German sources with 3 being from Hubert Meyer. It is that officer who states "However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses" and as he was the man in charge of the division I tend to believe he is an authority on the matter! The first quote (1) is from a Ministry of Defence article written for the MOD by two very well respected authors Lloyd Clark[13] and Dr Stephen Hart[14], Department of War Studies, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst so lets ignore your comments about "from soldiers and officers" and change it to "from a soldier in that battle, the head of the 12th division Jugend and 2 respected authors on WWII.

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless they dont address the point. i only questioned their reliability as addition Blablaaa (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The first is primarly a story told by soldiers with painted pictures.... Blablaaa (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And u clearly forget that all sentences like "because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses" simple means german had less troops available. This is no tactical issue its a strategic/operational Blablaaa (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If a certain number of troops, from those available - the strategic picture; have been assigned to an objective: sit and hold that village, sit and hold that hill/trench etc etc how is that then an operational issue? In the tactical battle to gain control of the outskirts and the northern half of the city, the Germans had deployed fewer troops this appears to be the entire tactical level. Operationally, if i understand correctly, a good chunk of I SS Panzer Corps had been put into reserve and to dig in south of the city. Strategically there was only the troops slowly being fed into the armies from other sectors of France etcEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dont understand what u try to sayBlablaaa (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tactical diversion

I’ll probably regret getting involved in this, but here goes…

As I understand it, Blablaa believes that assertion A (that the Germans suffered heavy casualties), assertion B (that north Caen was captured) and assertion C (that it was a tactical victory) are all fine (sourced to reliable historians etc…). However, he feels that the wording of the line currently in the lead (“With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success.”) is a case of synth (or thereabouts), because it isn’t directly explained in the article’s analysis section, nor backed up by a reliable quote. Have I got that right Blablaa?

( replied after ranger by blabla ), awesome, thats it.

I think that if this was all there was to it, I wouldn’t really question the line too hard. While the German losses (A) alone might not constitute a tactical victory (being lower than the Allied), the other half of the sentence (the capture of northern Caen (B)) apparently did (I’m assuming you agree with that as well Blablaa). If the capture of Caen made it a tactical victory (B = C), then the large losses sustained by the Germans (lower than the Allies or not) only helps to reinforce that victory (B (& A) still = C).

( replied after ranger by blabla ) kinda. i think allied loses were even a negativ factor, regarding them alone they lost tactical but other factors outweighted the casualties. Thats why already suggested to say "despite allied casualties" and not "with heavy german casualties".

On the flip side, I’m not too keen on the whole use of the term tactical. The articles Victory and Tactical victory don’t really match up well and neither are particularly well sourced. Could someone explain or improve the tactical article for the benefit of someone like me, who knows nothing of war or military manoeuvres? Unfortunately all of my books seem to refuse to do so and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of respectable authors aren’t 100% sure themselves!

( replied after ranger by blabla) , i guess its not so well sourced because there is no real dispute of this. tactic is about handling battle values and destroying enemy value, oversimplyfied. Tactics means beeing efficient. but off topic

As it is, the word tactical only appears three times in the Charnwood article (twice in the infobox and once in the lead). I would very much like to see the phrase used in the Analysis section as well, and be sourced. It must be said that Beevor doesn’t use the term tactical on p. 273, and yet the same reference is used in the infobox to support tactical victory as is used in analysis to describe partial success. I’m afraid I don’t have D’Este, so I can’t comment on that one.

So, is it original research for us to assume or infer the result of “tactical victory” from the main outcomes of a battle, when those words aren’t actually used by historians? I don’t know personally, but I think that would be a far more worthwhile conversation than this one. It does strike me that sometimes an article seems to use a fairly standard term in order to describe a rather unorthodox result for the sake of a tidy infobox (I am not pointing any fingers here, it is merely something I’ve noticed occasionally when battles far more complicated than this example seem to be so simply described in the box). Equally, sometimes an article uses a relatively convoluted description that isn’t actually used by any of the reliable sources in the article’s bibliography (I could use Operation Market Garden as an example here). I personally believe we should only use terms directly reference-able to reliable sources. This will inevitably lead to more complicated infoboxes on some articles (Charnwood being one), but it has to be verifiability over truth as always.

( replied after ranger ) the tactical scale is very losly connect with overall outcome sometimes, so in general it should always be explicit said by the author if he thinks is was a tactical victory an operaiton or even strategic. Most historians i follow divide mostly in tactical operational and strategic outcome of a battle.

However, this is only my take on it, and I welcome some patient discussion about how much we can infer a result when summarising an article in the lead and infobox. In this instance, Charnwood is described as a tactical offensive, so its result would (theoretically) be a tactical victory/defeat. It might also be that a partial victory and tactical success are pretty much the same thing in military circles. If this is the way things go though, I think we need to really spruce up the relevant victory articles, and that way our summaries are directly explainable.

I’ve read this and the 3 or 4 related threads over the course of nearly 2 days, so apologies if I’ve got this quite wrong (please correct me accordingly!). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time and the attempt to understand my point. Really appreciate this Blablaaa (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is only really the American version unfortunately - it is the one i try to use though for now...

Simplified version from the site DOD Glossary extracts

DOD online Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Does not appear to define a Level III threat though)

The DOD dictionary as a PDF (Only 699 pages lol!)

(For Tactical diversion see diversion...)[15]

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice summary Steve :) I can't provide any neat definitions of "tactical success" (or "Tactical victory") because I don't know of any; the linked article is unsatisfactory and I can't find much elsewhere. There are wargame-type definitions but these don't really make the grade for real-world situations because they're far too prescriptive (rather like casualty-based definition Blablaaa has been using). However, I was taught (many years ago!) that there are basically four levels of military endeavour: the overall political (grand strategy) level, the military strategy level, the operational (or theatre) level, and the tactical (or battlefield) level. Each is linked, so the grand strategy decides the military strategy, which guides the planning of operational goals, which are achieved (or not) by tactical means. Unfortunately this is dredged up from memory (though I did find something here to refresh my memory and support the analysis). It's worth noting that the usage of "tactics" seems to have changed over the years, so postwar historians might refer to "tactical" where modern doctrine would use "operational"... just to confuse things further :)

The upshot of all that is: "tactical" refers to the lowest level of the hierarchy, and a tactical success is basically a battlefield "win". Did the Allies win the battle? Yes, as supported by the refs. Does it matter that they took higher casualties? No, because that was the price they paid to win the battle. Were the German casualties sustained having serious repercussions? Yes, again as supported by the refs. Did those casualties contribute to the tactical win? Clearly (backed up by the sources Chaosdruid has found). Did the Allies prevent the Germans reinforcing the US sector? No. So... Charnwood wasn't a strategic success (we should probably be careful using "operational" becuase the concept wasn't really in use by the Brits at the time). What are we left with?

I appreciate the point that this doesn't appear to be explicitly sourced, but I'd argue that it's a non-controversial term (bar the one obvious objection, consensus supports it), the text supports it, and it's what this type of victory is called. It simply doesn't need a cite (see Wikipedia:When to cite).

I hope this helps, and apologies for any incoherence (it's getting late...) Best, EyeSerene^talk 23:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please rethink this statement by u "Were the German casualties sustained having serious repercussions? Yes, again as supported by the refs.Did those casualties contribute to the tactical win? Clearly (backed up by the sources Chaosdruid has found)" , First of all the source dont claims tactical victory, u added this word. Why ? Sorry but anyways thats very senseless ( i dont want to sound insulting but that is the proper word i guess ), every time u achieve a victory the casualties of the enemy contributed to it?!?!? :-) ??? thats inherent in fighing. This fits for nearly every victory ever achieved :-D. I also claim u misquote the source when u claim that the source claims the german casualties contributed to a tactical victory at charnwood. I also see that u ignore the fact that major allied casualties were suffered against the 12 SS and not the 16 LWFD. Thats why overall allied casualties were far higher at charnwood ( and we talk about charnwood and not the 16 LWFD ). I said above the "source" only covers the sector of 16 LWFD, but u ignore this. Why? It does not help, to discuss selektiv. We will not find consense if older established facts are ignored and iam forced to repeat. Please consider all relevant facts which are presented in this discussion! U missed again the point explained by ranger ( i guess he is maybe more clear as nativ speaker as iam ). The statement in the lead is claiming german casualties were a reason for the tactical victory, they were not , actually they were a contra factor but were outweighted by other factors like captured ground... . The statement in the lead is a claim of correlation which is actually not correct and also unsourced. Best regards Blablaaa (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I try again. There are multiple factors which affect the outcome of an tactical battle. For example, the casualties , the taken ground , maybe special and vital positions. If u reduce a battle to not more than casualties, the victor is "always" the party with less "value" losses . But if u add more factors like taken ground u can maybe achieve a tactical victory despite suffering higher casualties. Thats what happened on charnwood , despite suffering heavy casualties the allied won a tactical victory because they captured ground? So the claim in the lead exactly claims the opposite which is very uncommon, thats why i asked for a exact quote . it implys the casualties "factor" were in favor for allied and a reason for the tactical outcome. But thats not the case. But iam not even the editor who must proof it. Other must proof the statement is sourced but nobody does it. Blablaaa (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa, I do understand your point and have since you first posted. I just happen to mostly disagree. It's arguable that casualties should come under 'strategic' rather than 'tactical' because many historians support the idea that Montgomery's strategic aim was to draw down the German forces to the point where a breakout was inevitable (which was what eventually happened). However, the article doesn't really go into this debate so including it in the lead would be a step too far. I accept that you don't believe the lower German casualties should be in the same sentence as "tactical success", and like Steve I'd agree if that was all the sentence said because it would present a misleading picture, but it's not. I also accept that 'tactical' isn't cited, but in a general summary of a detailed article I believe it's a justifiable term and as "subject-specific common knowledge" I'd argue it doesn't need a cite (Wikipedia:When to cite). In the interest of clarity I've tweaked the sentence to also mention allied losses, but I should also point out that your aggressive and accusative approach has again done you a disservice as it has on many articles before, entrenching positions instead of facilitating discussion. Even if you were 100% right, why should other editors submit to being harassed and insulted? EyeSerene^talk 10:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to get too involved in the discussion on this particular article, I am very unhappy with the use of "tactical victory", "marginal victory", "Japanese major tactical victory but strategic disaster ultimately resulting in Hiroshima being nuked" etc in infoboxes. In almost every single battle article I am involved in editing, the result is a matter of controversy - often bitter controversy. Often it is possible to summarise those issues in the lead section. It is almost invariably impossible to summarise them in the infobox. IMV the "result" section of the infobox should be scrapped. The Land (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Eyeseren u said many times u understand my point but than u say things like It's arguable that casualties should come under 'strategic' rather than 'tactical' because many historians support the idea that Montgomery's strategic aim was to draw down the German forces to the point where a breakout was inevitable (which was what eventually happened) , seeming u dont completly get tactical outcome , the tactical outcome is nothing else than battle performanc, the aims of the parties are pretty irrelevant. if montgomeries aim was to destroy 10 panzers and he losses 100 doing this he fulfilled his objectives but had a tactical defeat from a neutral point of view. I want to raise another issue maybe u and enigma thing about, why we have wasted 3 three days instead of changing the statement to something better? u thinkk the recent statement is perfect and we cant find a better? even when u think iam not really correct why not changing the sentence to another wording. I also want u to look at charnwood talk and who started bringing aggressiv attitude into the discussion. The new statement sounds not optimal in my opinion and for somebody with a good understand of warfare it sounds contradicting that it was a tactical with german heavy casaualties and despite aliied casualties. It can not be a tactical victory with german causltias and despite allies it can only be a tactical victory despite allied casualties and with allied ground gains. And that is indeed the correct version like i explainded above. I also want to highlight since we recognized that no historian claims this correlcation and so we cant find any quote supporting the statement ( i claimed this from the very beginning ) , now u say it needs no citiation, to avoid wp:burden. First u and enigma said its completly sourced since we know it is absolutly not, u claim it now needs no sitiation. Without trying to push u in a corner, maybe we should simply search a new sentence which is better than the old and satisfiing for all. what do u think ? Blablaaa (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling now... Blablaa, what would you want/expect the sentence to say? Ranger Steve (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt madder for me, the sentence can say anything what sounds good and is sourced in the article and reasonable. But the sentence should not claim the wrong correlation anylonger. My english is bad iam not right person to rewording it :-) Blablaaa (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If somebody absolut wants to reflect on casualties and the tactical outcome, in one sentence, it should indeed say: despite allied casualtiea and with the caputre of northern cean. But thats only my opinion Blablaaa (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Victory Chaosdruid (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I support TheLand here. I have read numerous discussions about trying to simplify very complex, often historically differing accounts', views on various outcomes of battles which go over and over disagreements merely to come up with an infobox result. The result is enormous amounts of wasted time. EyeSerene, is it plausible to delete the results section from the battle infobox? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the field is optional, so it can potentially be removed from individual articles. I think it would be unreasonable to remove it from the infobox entirely, however; most historical battles—particularly those before the modern era—do have a clear and obvious victor, and readers expect to see that fact indicated in any summary of said battle. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that infoboxes have the problem that they oversimplify issues and tend to "fool" the reader. The general reader is no expert, a victory will always draw the same picture in their heads. Espcially for battles which are far away from being clear victories or losses. The analysis section should explain the outcome of battles more complex, some articles on normandy do this very well. The infoboxes are a general problem in my opinion. Maybe here is the correct place now to raise this issue. If we look normandy we see that all german units for example are listed in the strength section. The strength section has the task to give the reader an idea of strenghths this means he wants to compare the participating infantry tanks planes etc. But on normandy we get the funny resultes that german units which were battalion size are counted as full divisions in the box, this applies for nearly every battle. German units never get real replacements. This meant 3 german division against 3 allied division in august 44 meant mabye 4:1 infantry and 5:1 in tanks. When the reader gets the counted units in the box he will always assume they are equall strengths. This is nothing else than fooling i think. I raised this problem already but i was ignored. Now we get the next problem. when 2800 bombers and other aircraft take part in an allied operation they are never mentioned in the box, when i ask why i get the answer : " because we dont know german aircraft", the simple reason that we dont know how much german aircraft participated, is that there were 20 or something like this. why not mentioning the 2800 aircraft? same for artillery. When a german battalion sized unit is listed as full division , then i wonder that 2800 aircraft are not mentioned. The infobox on normandy article is so useless its persuades the reader some kind of equality in strenght which is wrong (there are more problems but this is the most obvious for me). Please take a look at any normandy article its everywhere. Best example was verriers ridge. 3 days before this battle the charnwood article said the 12 SS has battalion size now and on the next article the 12 SS is again listed as full Panzerdivision in the strenght section. Thats a simple lie, isnt it? I raised the issue but got no answer, i changed it now. The strenght section is for comparing strenghtes and if the division are very unequal in strange than u cant put them in the box. thats undisputable. My idea: use the infobox only for clear facts. Dont imply something . If german strenght isnt availabe than dont count any battlaion which took part as full division!!! I want also to give some input , on german wiki all new featured articles for battle in ww2 no longer have an infobox please take a look at cholm or wjasma-brijansk for example. On german wiki they came to the conclusion that for battles in ww2 its pretty useless to use an infobox which is so easy to manipulate. ( strength section on normany for example). All relevant issues are detailed explained in the article. Blablaaa (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with The Land. It's so often difficult to summarize in a couple of words, & so often subject of contention, which so infrequently leads to really satisfactory results. We've all got better things to do than argue over it. (Tho the discussion in progress may put the lie to that proposition...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In a few articles where the result is complicated we substitute "See analysis" for a result. However, I don't think Charnwood needs to be one of these :) EyeSerene^talk 20:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody an opinion ? Blablaaa (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree Blablaaa. The infoboxes are a major problem on WWII articles. You made some good points about this that had already caught my eye before. I think it's a good idea if the infobox was only used for undisputed facts. That way readers are not mislead. Currently the way (most) infoboxes are set up (on quite a few WWII articles), I find it to be misleading to readers. Personally I think we should get rid of the boxes all together. The German Wikipedia has done it the right way. Why have the infobox when it can be so easily manipulated? Caden ^cool 06:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The charnwood article still has OR in the lead with an statement which contraticts military logic and which is still unsources. Can someone change it now ? Correlation between allied sucess and german casualties was never claimed by any historian. please change it now and search for a better statement. The recent sentence is even worse than the old because u cant win a battle with german casualties and despite allied casualties. The sentence is weird now. Blablaaa (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for such a slow response, although fortunately things don’t seem to have moved much in my absence : )

EyeSerene and ChaosDruid, thanks for the details, its largely what I’d expected (and always believed). Re your point below EyeSerene, I do agree, but I have to admit I would always prefer to see a direct citation for results like these. There has to be a point where we summarise what the sources say in the easiest way, but at least a citation would prevent instances like this! The only thing that occurs to me is that perhaps the infobox could say tactical success instead of victory?

TheLand and Buckshot, I’m not too sure that removing the result from infoboxes altogether is all that necessary. For every article with a contested result there are 3 or more with a very plain, obvious and sourced outcome. I think it might be overkill to remove the result section altogether.

Blablaa, perhaps it’s a language thing but I see nothing wrong with the current sentence. You can win a battle even if your casualties are worse, if only because the win is defined by the objective. In a paintball match of capture the flag say, even if all of your teammates get splatted, if you get the flag then you win (and hopefully get free beer), even if not a single opposing player has as much as a drop of paint on them.

As an aside, but one I can’t quite ignore I’m afraid, I’m not quite sure about one of your last comments. You say that you don’t really have an opinion on what the sentence should say, which I must confess leaves me puzzled. To have gone to this much trouble to get a sentence changed but to have no opinion on how it should be changed, leaves me a little confused. I hope that you just enjoy reading these articles and spotted what you perceived to be an inconsistency, but it would be better if you brought an alternative to the table from the beginning.

At any rate, if we are agreed that this was a tactical operation, I think EyeSerene’s adjustment to the sentence in question is more than accommodating enough and should, based on all of Blablaa’s previous comments, be enough to satisfy this issue. I think an example like this shows a need to tighten up our definitions of various results, as ChaosDruid is already doing with the victory articles. Hopefully, something solid can come out of this massive discussion other than minor adjustments to a solitary sentence. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You can win a battle even if your casualties are worse, if only because the win is defined by the objective. In a paintball match of capture the flag say, even if all of your teammates get splatted, if you get the flag then you win (and hopefully get free beer), even if not a single opposing player has as much as a drop of paint on them. yep and nobody would summarize the paintball game with: "they won with the caputre of the flag and heavy casualties inflicted on the enemy". thats exactly what happend on charnwood they. Exactly the same situation, victory despite higher own casualties. nobody of this paintball group would summarize the match this way, he would maybe say despite our heavy casualties we achieved victory with the caputre of the flag. exactly what happend on charnwood :D . lol. Ok i see, the statement will stay in the article. i will stop moaning about maybe the issue will be brought up again if a editor, with military history or some kind of title in study, joins wikipedia and reads the lead. But anyways thanks for all people who invested time to deal with me. the infobox nonsense will also stay i guess so that every reader will see how u can imply people german were not outnumbered at normandy. Thats wikipedias mission: bringing information to the readers...Blablaaa (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, but one I can’t quite ignore I’m afraid, I’m not quite sure about one of your last comments. You say that you don’t really have an opinion on what the sentence should say, which I must confess leaves me puzzled. To have gone to this much trouble to get a sentence changed but to have no opinion on how it should be changed, leaves me a little confused. I hope that you just enjoy reading these articles and spotted what you perceived to be an inconsistency, but it would be better if you brought an alternative to the table from the beginning. i saw the sentence, i saw that the sentence is military nonsense and no one with military understanding would write such sentence. i went to the discussion page to say it must be changed. my good old friend enigma immediatly took the opposite opinion. i was still correct and said " ok show me any historian who says this ", he searched and searched but found nothing so he brought some quotes which are not supporting him but he thought his job was done. So, no quote; and i went here. explained exactly the issue but without details, now i was supported until the people saw who is against me and that iam blabla . Then a prolonged discussion about this issue with nobody bringing a quote of a historian and many editors proving they have limited knowledge about warfare ( this is not insulting thats fact.. ). And i dont need an idea about the new sentence my only objective was removing nonsense from wiki and what did we get? weeks of discussion some appearens on the ani board, some people who wanted a block for me. And no improvement. If my name would not be blabla the statement would be changed to something not wrong and everything would be fine. Blablaaa (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That nobody respondes to the infobox issue shows that nobody wants to take position for the status quo, because its bad. But if i would start changing it i would be reverted. So many people have opinions to topics where they lack the knowledge to participate on a academic level. But the infobox issue is so obivous allied bias that nobody wants to risk to get himself attackable. The best option is to wait until blabla shuts his mouth... . Thats an easy way to avoid changes. Ignore the guy who moans and revert him if he tries to change the status quo. And then use his reputation to slander his points. Blablaaa (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I answered above in regards to the infobox Blablaaa. Caden ^cool 06:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"That nobody respondes to the infobox issue shows that nobody wants to take position for the status quo, because its bad. But if i would start changing it i would be reverted. " Yep, & so you should be, until a consensus is agreed. Status quo need not be defended; it has the status of precedent, & if you intend to overturn precedent, you need good arguments & to achieve consensus. FWIW, as noted above, I agree, it should be taken out. I also notice, as usual, you ignored comments (which, in this instance, were supportive). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok i see, the statement will stay in the article. i will stop moaning about maybe the issue will be brought up again if a editor, with military history or some kind of title in study, joins wikipedia and reads the lead. ... i saw that the sentence is military nonsense and no one with military understanding would write such sentence. ... proving they have limited knowledge about warfare ( this is not insulting thats fact.. ). ... they lack the knowledge to participate on a academic level I find it quite bemusing that when you don’t find agreement you fall back on insulting the intelligence of the editors who have taken the time out to look into the issue. You have no idea of our own experience, military, educational or historian wise, not to mention our own common sense etc; yet you claim that every single person here is unsuitable to the task and apparently only you can rectify these problems while at the same time apparently ignoring everything that has been presented to you or the various points made. If the other editors have tighten what has been stated in the article and on the whole generaly agreed with what has been stated, i dont think the problem lays with us. On top of which TBH i think Steve has gone above and beyond attempting to hash out something positive with you so i feel you could at least put the thinly hidden insults on hold.

my good old friend enigma immediatly took the opposite opinion. Past experience has seen you raise all sorts of points, which on the whole have been groundless and took up a lot of wasted time justifying to you why xyz should or should not be stated; You will note that this time I initiated conversation with you asking you to clarify your weasel words then pointed you to the article were the various points discussed are noted – not automatically taking the opposite position to you. This was followed by personal attacks by you towards me coupled with completely groundless statements that i wrote what you objected to accumulating with you threatening me. But we can all wear rose tinted glasses and remember it differently i suppose.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Enigma, past experience has shown that Blablaaa brings up good strong valid points that you can't handle. You go out of your way to oppose Blablaaa regardless of the fact that he's been 90% right most of the time, while you have been dead wrong too often. Let me remind you as well that you have been disruptive with rude, incivil, never ending personal attacks, and empty threats. We have talk pages filled with your weasel words Enigma. Keep wearing your rose tinted colored glasses dude. You don't fool me. I remember well. Caden ^cool 06:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dont draw conclusions which are wrong . when i question the skill of editors to participate on a academic discussion than this is not insluting i hope to improve the situation. the problem on warfare articles ist that so much people who wrote a book, think they are able to write articles on wiki. on mathematical articles we have mathematics who write the articles, same for medicine. but here on warfare we have people who like their armys and then go to wiki to write articles. Thats not insulting thats a major problem... Blablaaa (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Past experience has seen you raise all sorts of points, which on the whole have been groundless and took up a lot of wasted time justifying to you why xyz should or should not be stated that the point most of my points are against allied bias and we get always same resultes because i always talk to u. same happend on allied warcrimes article where i was correct too, and discussed with u and nick. i always discuss with you and finally you are the guy who decides what happens, my concerns are correcrt in 90% Blablaaa (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

the perfect prove for my opinion is that u ignored the infobox issue but immediatly came back to dicuss me and my opinions. thats so obvious. Blablaaa (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's all Enigma ever does. The fact that he's back here yet again discussing you is evidence. Caden ^cool 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

here my statement at the start When i have a text about a battle, and the source talks about casualties of one participant ( in my case , they are actually far lower than the casualties of the other participant ) and says he believes that battle was a improvement for the other participant due to various reasons ( captured ground for example ). Can i take the historian/text to claim the historian claims the inflicted casualties were a major reason to call the battle a "tactical victory". Blablaaa (talk) this was the summarize of your wrong point. i got support until everybody saw who is involded etc.... Blablaaa (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c - multiple it seems!) Blablaa, please. Reading your comments is like watching someone wind themselves up. Please don't expect everyone to respond ASAP, we are volunteers here, not enemies locked in a room trying to reach a compromise. To start with, you've misunderstood my comment above. There are something like ten posts on the Charnwood talk page before you get to the main gist of the problem. If you clearly identified your problem with the sentence and suggested an alternative wording then these sorts of long winded problems may not arise. Wikipedia is collaborative effort online (which in many places would be considered absolutely impossible). It requires everyone to work extra hard to accommodate and improve the articles, so I recommend you do your best to make yourself clear from the off. As for the infobox issue, I noted (about an hour ago when I read it) that no-one has reverted you on the Battle of Verrières Ridge article. I happen to think you might be right, it would be odd for us to contradict ourselves in articles. But its because of contradictory reliable sources - here's the problem; how do we decide which reliable source is correct when we apply this to articles? If one source says a division was only a battalion, and another says it was a division 3 days later, how do we pick between them? The bigger question might be "who are we to pick between them?" Our mission is (perhaps annoyingly) verifiability, so we require historians to get it right first. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

your premise is that enigma and eyeseren want to think about my concerns and handle them as real concerns rather than attempts to disrupt wiki. Your premise is wrong so are your conclusion. sorry...Blablaaa (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

you think my words are handled like words of all other editors they are not. and please look eyeserens talk page i brought up the verries ridge concern he was against and against and against until we reached a point where he was in such bad position that he would make himself attackable, he immediatly cut the discussion and never responded again. And now please read what i wrote above about editors who avoiv taking their position again when it become obvious that they are wrongBlablaaa (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

same happend on allied warcrimes article where i was correct too... There, as with other articles, and in fact this one; the sources support what the articles state. In the allied warcrimes article you attempted to apply modern stats on the whole modern German population to a 60 year old issue, that only included a portion of the then German population, in an attempt to discredit an acedemic study that you did not agree with.

the perfect prove for my opinion is that u ignored the infobox issue Mainly because i was attempting to stick to this one topic, as meandering as it is, where you have announced your right and everyone else is wrong followed up by a sly dig at me. I do not have to address every little problem you decide to raise. So can we please attempt to stay on topic?

The bigger question might be "who are we to pick between them?" Our mission is (perhaps annoyingly) verifiability, so we require historians to get it right first Steve, you hit the nail right on the head; we can only reproduce, albeit generally worded differently, in the articles what the historians have said. When the lede was wrote for this article it reflects the various comments made by historians in the article. Consensus throughout this discussion has generally supported that point, that it reflects it and is not original research; various editors have already tighten the prose as well to ensure the message the various historians have made is conveyed over in a more clear fashion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

thats a blatant lie u know exactly what the point on allied warcrimes was, you lie when u claim this was my point. what a cheap tatica. please everyone who read enigmas post go to the article and read the discussion. Enigma this was the prove for everything i said about u. really what a cheap lie.Blablaaa (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

some more pressure: please folks go to the discussion of Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II and read the dicussion. You will see how blatant this lie is and how exemplary for enigmas attitude towards me. Please invest some minutes to read the discussion there and than read again how enigma summarzied my points, above this postBlablaaa (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your second post, a point that you make several times, supports practically everything i have just said. Sorry that i forgot to mention how you stated the acedmic study was worthless and of no value because you believe the author should have based his stats on a year by year basis (post 3). We can carry on the back and forth but its been going on far to long and am bored of it. Can we please contuine with this discussion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why the rush to change the subject Enigma? Oh yeah it's because Blablaaa proved what a big liar you are. It's all there on the talk page for all to see. Just follow this link Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II and read the section "Death rates of POWs held by the Allies". Caden ^cool 07:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope many people will go to the article and read the discussion and then come back to read your post again. Everything what i claimed regarding your behaviour towards me is proved then. Finally i think i have to say thank you. After reading this i guess people will understand. Blablaaa (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

When the lede was wrote for this article it reflects the various comments made by historians in the article :wrong. the lead draws conclusions which is not support only the parts of this conclusion are sourcedBlablaaa (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So the various positions in the lede are sourced? Therefore how does it not reflect the article?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dont know how to answer such question. you claim three sourced aspects can be brought in any correlation and this is always correct because the aspects are sources?!? Sorry iam speechless i dont know how to handle you Blablaaa (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

addressing ranges question for my suggestion: here my idea "Despite I Corp's losses, operation charnwood became a tactical sucess with the capture of northern Cean." this summarizes the article better than the old. allied had much higher losses but achieved victory with the caputre of northcean Blablaaa (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not said anything before, but I find the language being used here unacceptable. I don't care if you disagree with what someone's position is or opinion is, there is a respectful way to say it. Wikipedia's policy is to assume good faith. Whether someone is right or wrong, I don't care but to label any editor a liar is to act in bad faith. I ask all editors to be mindful of WP:AGF in their posts. This applies to everyone and I'm not singling anyone out. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'll go one step further and actually single one editor out: Caden. This user's only contributions to this topic appear to be highly-critical attacks against Enigma and have not aided this conversation one iota. They just seem to have an axe to grind, and I'd ask them to stop these attacks. Skinny87 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cant understand why people question my faith after this comment without reading the allied warcrimes talkpage first. Please read the talk page there and then enigmas comment, and then tell me which word would be more appropriate? Blablaaa (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa's uncivil language and WP's gutless response

I am completely uninvolved in the discussion above, and to be honest couldn't care less who is right or wrong, but I find this editor's language to be uncivil, offensive and unjustified. For those that haven't followed the discussion, I quote from the thread above:

FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when have we tolerated such language, especially from an editor with 5 previous blocks? Are we all so gutless now following the previous episode that we allow this behaviour to go unsanctioned? It seems that way... (still waiting for his mate Caden to chime in and award him another Barnstar).

Bloody bad show all round. Why wasn't this reverted immediately and a block applied? The apology is hollow at best until the comments are removed by the editor in question, and quite frankly he is still deserving of at least a 24-hour block. Perhaps only Nick-D had the stomach to do it, but then we saw where that got him didn't we? His integrity unfairly called into question... Disgusted. Anotherclown (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of Blablaa's contributions are quite heated, but it does seem that there is still a constructive discussion going on on a talk page, and Wikipedia policy is that we do not issue blocks as a 'punishment' for rudeness (or indeed anything else). Probably the best place to raise this kind of issue is at WP:ANI - there matters will get the prompt attention of an administrator. The Land (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A society that doesn't apply sanctions against those that flout its rules of behaviour... the vultures are circling. Anotherclown (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to let people's comments speak for themselves. I wouldn't club and gag someone if they had an outburst in a real life conversation/argument, I would let everyone else draw their own conclusions from that behaviour. If someone else wanted to do it, that's their decision, but I personally try to avoid editing other peoples comments. I have suggested to Blablaa (twice now) that he strikes his comments though. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I warned him that if the behavior continues he will be blocked. I've got my eye on him; the next time he makes comments like that he'll be blocked. If I'm the one who issues the block, it'll be a minimum of 6 months, given his history. Wikipedia is not therapy for people who can't interact socially. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said lads. Climbing down from my high horse... Anotherclown (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your concern is a valid one - we've always been a welcoming and friendly project and in my experience our members are some of the most reasonable, patient and tolerant people on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the flip side is that our goodwill can be open to abuse, so you're right that there has to be a limit. Whatever opinion we might have of the outcome of Nick's perfectly correct block, WP:CONSENSUS is the system we agree to abide by... and WP:ROPE is perhaps also worth a read ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I didnt deleted my comments because i didnt wanted to conceal my words. If i had deleted them at least 2 editors would responded fast as possible with mentioning this! If somebody has eyepain with seeing my useless eruption i can delete. I was asked for apoligize, the concerns were correct so i apologized immediatly. That i didnt deleted the comment was no provocation or something like this. So again apologize to chaosdruid :-) Blablaaa (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Eyepain" indeed... a rather patronizing response if ever there was one, although I expected as much. Quite simply strike your comments out using the <s></s> mark up. This course of action has already been requested of you twice by another user, so I suggest you do so. Anotherclown (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought eyepain sounds funny, in german it does :-) .Regarind eyeseren attempt to raise old stuff. nicks block was indeed unjustifies which we saw when u eye, were not able to find any edit jutifing an block. mostly involded editors later said it was not correct u as heavly involded editor supported nick , maybe u think about. only a suggestion. regarding my eruption yesterday , it was far more a reason for a block than everything done before nicks "block". So maybe i have to say thank you to parcey for not blocking me again. cheers Blablaaa (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I originally referred to the previous issue, not EyeSerene... and I had nothing to do with any of those discussions. Regardless it is tangential to the issue at hand... Anotherclown (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I note that the comments in question have now been struck so I guess that's about as much as we can expect. Anotherclown (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I ask that Anotherclown strike the dirty cheap shot that he directed at me and apologize to me for his unjustified personal attack. It was rude, incivil and completely uncalled for! Caden ^cool 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed at ANI and I stand by my comments. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes at normandy articles

The infoboxes are a general problem in my opinion. Maybe here is the correct place now to raise this issue. If we look normandy we see that all german units for example, are listed in the strength section. The strength section has the task to give the reader an idea of strenghths this means he wants to compare the participating infantry tanks planes etc. But on normandy we get the funny resultes that german units which were battalion size are counted as full divisions in the box, this applies for nearly every battle. German units never get real replacements. This meant 3 german division against 3 allied division in august 44 meant mabye 4:1 infantry and 5:1 in tanks. When the reader gets the counted units in the box he will always assume they are equall strengths. This is nothing else than fooling i think. I raised this problem already but i was ignored. Now we get the next problem. when 2800 bombers and other aircraft take part in an allied operation they are never mentioned in the box, when i ask why i get the answer : " because we dont know german aircraft", the simple reason that we dont know how much german aircraft participated, is that there were 20 or something like this. why not mentioning the 2800 aircraft? same for artillery. When a german battalion sized unit is listed as full division , then i wonder that 2800 aircraft are not mentioned. The infobox on normandy article is so useless its persuades the reader some kind of equality in strenght which is wrong (there are more problems but this is the most obvious for me). Please take a look at any normandy article its everywhere. Best example was verriers ridge. 3 days before this battle, the charnwood article said the 12 SS has battalion size now and on the next article the 12 SS is again listed as full Panzerdivision in the strenght section. Thats a simple lie, isnt it? I raised the issue but got no answer, i changed it now. The strenght section is for comparing strenghtes and if the division are very unequal in strange than u cant put them in the box. thats undisputable. My idea: use the infobox only for clear facts. Dont imply something . If german strenght isnt availabe than dont count any battlaion which took part as full division!!! I want also to give some input , on german wiki all new featured articles for battle in ww2 no longer have an infobox please take a look at cholm or wjasma-brijansk for example. On german wiki they came to the conclusion that for battles in ww2 its pretty useless to use an infobox which is so easy to manipulate. ( strength section on normany for example). All relevant issues are detailed explained in the article. Blablaaa (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i should mention that allied division, in general, were bigger then their german counterparts in normandy. Thus even at the beginning of the campaign german strenght was lower when the same numbers of divisions were involved. Blablaaa (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So i wanna do a little example. Operation goodwood one of the biggest battle of normandy gives 3 allied armoured divisions and 3 german armoured divisions. 2 allied infantry divisions and 4 german infantry divisions, the german had additional 2 heavy tank battalions. So sounds german outnumbered their opponents. Every reader without knowledge will think this, i guess nobody disputes this. So now lets take a look . the 12 SS listed as full panzer division. here the quote from charnwood article: "The 12th SS Panzer Division (by the end of the battle reduced to a battalion-sized infantry unit)[75]" , so the battalion sized unit become a panzerdivision again in the infobox. Remeber the 16th LWFD? the division which lost "75%" casualties during charnwood and was "virtually destroyed" during charnwood. But now the division again become a full infantry division. in addition the 16 LWFD was never a full division, it was always an understrenght division. Now the 272nd Infantry Division, this division was also never planned as fulldivsion comparable with allied division it field maximal 12000 men. Same with other german divisions. The fact alone that german division had less manpower than allied divisions in general makes this use of the infobox absurd with the fact that german divisions got no replacements had sometime a third of the strength of an allied division , renders the infoboxes hillarious. Finally: aircraft, i guess 2000 or 3000 took part? no mention of them in the box... . Summarize, the box now lets the reader think german had more stuff in the battle while actually the opposite is fact. I guess this illustrats the problem quite well i hope. Blablaaa (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This issue has, if I remember correctly, come up before on occasion. It might well be worth discussing further if we hope to standardise infoboxes to some extent. Some boxes list specific units, others use military measurements (ie. 1 battalion or 1 division), others just show a manpower count. If different country's unit sizes are radically different then that adds another factor, as do the relative strengths of such units. Stuff like airpower and naval power is also often hard to incorporate. Any thoughts from anyone else on this? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The section is called strenghts the reader wants to compare strenghtes. If units have different manpower they are inapt for comparing menpower, sounds logic, doesnt it? The normaly way to use infoboxes is giving exact comparable numbers like nearly all eastern front article. If the menpower is not known that the manpower is unknown! Blablaaa (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, this issue has been raised before on a number of occasions but noone has ever got back with solid figures for us to use in the infoboxes. If the various historians who have wrote about these battles have not been able to glean how many men fought in X battle, or have failed to mention it what can we do other than reproduce the information they give us?

Case example Operation Epsom. 8 Corps own official history details the strength of the Corps before and after the battle however we have no figures for XXX Corps (their own OH does not provide such detail) so we do not know how many fought on the British side. In regards to the German side no figure is any of the sources i have. From my own OR i have a good idea of how many men fought on each side and that the German losses were infact higher - but i cant include that information due to it not being any secondary source (not to mention the fact i dont have the various primary sources to hand either).

The Epsom example basically covers the rest of them; we could also talk about one of the most discussed battles of the campaign - villers-bocage. Not one historian has yet to provide the detail of how many men were in the 7th Armour Brigade group and they have never established what sort of manpowerthe the German fully threw at the town; nor their overall casualties.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought Enigma. It's like my comment buried somewhere in the tangled discussion above - we can only really use the descriptions that the sources give us in their own descriptions of the battles. There is also the added problem of distinguishing roles within a unit. Even if we knew that a division had 10,000 men for example, its doubtful that all of them had a part to play in a battle. Only 2/3 say, would actually be trained combat troops, the rest would be admin and support staff. In a front line battle they would probably be well away from the actual fighting, although in others they might be involved. At Arnhem, 1st Airborne landed most of their HQ staff - admin people who hadn't handled weapons since basic training. As it happens they all had no choice but to fight, but in other battles (such as the Normandy ones, where there was a front line and a reserve area) staff were probably well away from it. It would be nigh on impossible to correctly run up a number of combat men involved in a battle unless sources did it for us, so assuming a number would be tantamount to OR. Best to stick with sources' descriptions again, unless anyone else has some thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma: "If the various historians who have wrote about these battles have not been able to glean how many men fought in X battle" , thats called unknown! Why do u add the divisions to the box while u know that german division were heavy understrength. Can u explain your thoughts please? why do u aad this stuff to they box which implies much higher german menpower. There must be a reason, if not, lets take it out of the boxes and write unknown. The aim of the strengthsection is to compare strenghths. Counting german division will always lead to wrong conclusion by the reader. Because he cant know they are heavy understrength. Please go in detail why u support this method which is uncommon on all ww2 articles except the normandy articles u work on. Blablaaa (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranger, nobody wants OR in the boxes i want correct sources numbers or unknown because german "Panzerdivision" in normandy is relative word it can mean 3000-170000 men. Its useless for comparing strengths. Its only misleading because a reader always assumes a allied panzerdivisions is as big as a german one. Blablaaa (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@Enigma why do you ignore my goodwood example? the battlionsized units which come as full panzerdivisions to the box ? Blablaaa (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"thats called unknown!"; we could edit every single article were we do not have solid figures and write unknown in them - although that would be practically every article of the Normandy campaign and possibly quite a number more across the entire Second World War scope. However the people who have sat down and researched these fields seem quite content to suggest x number of divisions fought etc

"Its only misleading because a reader always assumes a allied panzerdivisions is as big as a german one" That is pure speculation on your own part. The point that the divisions were of various sizes takes us into a field outside imo the scope of the articles considering they are only an overview of what has taken place, not a detailed study. Any figure is truley misleading and outside the scope: we would need to sit and explain away if the divisions were at full strength, the difference between organisation of an American, British/Canadian, and German divisions (both armoured and infantry); combat strength amd divisional slice i.e. just how many men within a division were frontline infantry, and how many men in a 60-100k Corps were actually supply/admin etc i.e. just how many people of this large force were actually engaged in fighting. People are coming to these articles to get an overview; the relevent information as best as possible is presented in them i.e. V-B, Epsom, Charnwood, and yes even the Goodwood articles; You prod about Goodwood: the simple answer is because is what the source states.

On that subject it would seem entirely reasonable to change the Charnwood box to note elements of one infantry division because the source notes this; that particular information is actually present in the article already.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma: "we could edit every single article were we do not have solid figures and write unknown in them" , if the figures are unknown then they are unknown?!?

enigma "That is pure speculation on your own part" u will dispute that on normandy battle german units were nearly always understrentth compared to allied ? Blablaaa (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

i ask u one question please answer with yes or no. are u aware of the fact that on normandy articles, counting divisions will nearly always imply the reader an untrue picture about the strength relation ? please yes or no Blablaaa (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

iam highly concerned that a editor who admits that german strengths are unknown and german units were understrength wants that the quantity of german divisions comes to the box for the reason of comparing strengthes Blablaaa (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

While i claim german units are understrength and you know this is anbsolutly correct u claim this is speculation to undermine my point. No search for consense in my opinion.... . Lets wait for other editors. If u really claim it is speculation to claim german panzerdivisions in normandy were understrenght compared to allied than i dont know. You are complete aware of this fact but you call it speculation.... . I wait for other editors.Blablaaa (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering what your asking isnt a stright forward yes or no answer, would you come out and state were you are attempting to work me into?

However to answer your question: No, because i believe the readers are smart enough to glance the rest of the article like they would do for any other article that stated for example 1 million men vs 1 million men, they would read to find out the context of these figures; numbers alone, weather it is a solid figure of the number of men involved or the number of divisions, are basically usless without context (i.e. explaining every little detail per my previous reply, which i doubt the sources would even provide). Simpley stating "unknown" would imo be even more unhelpful (i could probably bet you bottom dollar that if we removed any sort of division count (in absense of an actual precise figure of men involved) it would be replaced by another editor or annon user who have read the article and wonder why it doesnt state xyz), and would be ignoring what the historians themselves have to say on the matter pre my previous posts.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I note how you have made three more posts between your question posing and my reply; its clear as day what i called speculation: you speaking on behalf of the thousands who read the articles every day, not the situation between divisions being understrength etc. You infact highlight your own bais with your post on '16:51, 11 July 2010'; the coin flips both ways - the sources simpley do not state if the allied divisions were at full strength etc, nor how many men were engaged in fighting. The only partial exceptions i have came across is Epsom and Charnwood: 8 Corps history shows that the Corps was just over 60,000 strong on the eve of the Epsom offensive but doesnt nail down just how many of those men were in engaged in the fighting: it talks of divisions and brigades fighting, it provides daily casualties reports and thats it. We know that I Corps was over 100,000 strong on the eve of Charnwood but do not know how many men were involved etc.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma: "No, because i believe the readers are smart enough to glance the rest of the article" , ok this means you know the figures are misleading but u claim the reader will read the article and see how misleading they are LoL. Sorry but.... Blablaaa (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox shows useless even misleading figures and the reader has to go to the article to see that they are useless. Good... Blablaaa (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Summarize, you admit strength is unknown , german divisions were understrength. You count german divisons to compare strengths. Why we dont count regiments enigma? Allied units had more regiments can we count regiments on good please? Thats it.... Blablaaa (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is going round in circles and if i may be so bold you are putting words in my mouth to attempt to further your pov.

If you want me to go an edit the various articles dealing with the Anglo-Canadian articles and tell everyone they had up to nine regiments per division then fine ... still doesnt get the real picture across.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a fast count. For goodwood 31 allied regiments and 45 battalions VS 22 german regiments and 15 battalions. Can this come to the infobox it is far more preciseBlablaaa (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You obviously counted too fast: Its actually nine infantry battalions, 30 infantry battalions (from at least 23 different regiments) in the Allied force...

What ? who said infantry battalion, i overflew this and counted every "battalion" for both sides same with regiments. Even if i counted its doesnt change the fact that german had more divisions but far less real units. This perfectly illustrates how bias your divisioncounting ist. Your post is distraction.... Blablaaa (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma: "its clear as day what i called speculation" yes u call specualtion that allied divisions had more menpower which is actually well known and you know it 2 but you cant admit because it would immediatly proove your intention. THats why i think you dont search for consense. U really dispute the fact that german divisions were smaller in size then the allied, that u dispute this shows clearly what your intention is, doesnt it? the infoboxes are misleading... please lets find a better solution Blablaaa (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma : " may be so bold you are putting words in my mouth to attempt to further your pov." no i use exactly what u say. u said its speculation to say german had less manpower per unit, but you this is trueBlablaaa (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma "and tell everyone they had up to nine regiments per division then fine ... still doesnt get the real picture across" counting german battalion sized units as panzerdivisions is cool but giving the correct amount of regmients which is far more precise , "does not get the real picture across"? so the more presice counting which shows the truth is bad but the oversimplified wrong counting is ok ?

you now multiple time called me bias and povish, i did the same not one time. please lets stick as calm as possible. And also avoid posting in the middle, because it looks like i dont respond to your points. i try to address every point u make when u add additional points in the middle this is maybe not clear for other readers. please avoid this. thanksBlablaaa (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering you have argued that counting the divisions is so wrong, but counting the regiments/brigades and battalions is much more precise; am sure you would agree that would still not tell you how many men were involved, would not answer the question of how under strength these formations were, nor the difference in their organisation i.e. nothing changed the same "problem" remainds. Likewise it’s essentially the same problem that arrives when stating the total number of people ala the Battle of France – it does not tell you anything about organisation, deployment, how many men were involved, etc. All methods would still require the reader to look at the article to gain a full understanding; a stright up comparison is irrlevent on a modern battlefield however at least the infobox allows the reader to gain a quick understanding of roughly what forces were put into the battle - a division is still a division, a battalion a battalion regardless of what side, each side organised differently.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma "Considering you have argued that counting the divisions is so wrong, but counting the regiments/brigades and battalions is much more precise" , german morphed smaller units to one unit or bolstered them to another so yes it is more precise!!. Please dont mix this problem up with the problem " how much units were involved in direct fighting" that their are multiple problems doenst make the other problem better, we are able to solve this specific problem so focus on this and dont distract from the point. THe specific problem ist the misleading counting of unequal sized formations. Blablaaa (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

and i dont claim counting battalions is good i claim its Better than the recent method, and indeed it is. But than u actually see that the allied used far more units. I guess this will not come to the box .... Blablaaa (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think anyone here has claimed the Allied forces didnt contain more men other than you. Regardless you seem to be missing the point that different organisation and different levels of casualties still provides "the misleading counting of unequal sized formations", even when looking at brigades or battalions. Did the British and Germans organise their infantry section on the same basis? Did they have the same number of men per platoon, per company? Did they have the same number of men in the various battalion support, logistic, and admin sections? The problem doesnt disppear its clouded in a higher figure of smaller units.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma: "The problem doesnt disppear its clouded in a higher figure of smaller units" , when did i say my aim is to include battalions in the box? i said counting regiments and battalions is far more precise. So i said if u want quantity of units than take regiements, but this would lead to a far more correct picture with bigger amount of allied units so you will not agree to put this in the box. Your aim is to protect the status quo which is misleading in allied direction. You oppose every change which uses the same method but decreases the amount of misleading Blablaaa (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma : "Did the British and Germans organise their infantry section on the same basis?" no thats why it is so hillarious that u count s.Pz.ABt in the box and every unit which is not attached to a divisions. So you get a big amount of german units and many "high" numbers which actually totally mislead. thats why i say out of the box with this useless stuff. But the involded units in the order of battle section and write a section called "strenght" were it is explained that nobody for sure knows how much units were involved and maybe an estimation. This will stop misleading and bring readers valuable facts Blablaaa (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

An easy axample to show how nonsense the recent method is. Allied units sometimes got whole brigades attached additionally .At the moment they are attached u only count the division. If the brigade is independent you count the brigade apart. The same amount of troops but totally different picture delivered to the reader. Like i said it is really kinda nonsense. Du you agree? Blablaaa (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(Inevitable e/c) I'm half-heartedly following this thread while I work. Blablaa, perhaps you don't realise but in the British Army of the Second World War, Regiments were not units of a particular size, but were formed into battalions. Thus 1 division may contain 9 different regiments; each regiment representing 1 battalion. For example, at Arnhem the 1st Airlanding Brigade was made up of 3 battalions. 1 was a battalion of the South Staffordshire Regiment, 1 was a battalion of the Border Regiment and 1 was a battalion of the King's Own Scottish Borderers Regiment. Therefore counting regiments in the infobox almost by default means counting battalions. However, the 1st Parachute Brigade was made up of 3 battalions of the Parachute Regiment. So just counting regiments is totally meaningless when considering the strength of a British Army unit. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So we see counting units is "meaningless" if we want to compare strenghts. After your reply iam not sure what is more unclever, counting divisions or counting regiments. And no, i did not realize that. Blablaaa (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Its of topic but if u claim regiments arent units of particular size but in the same sentence you claim the normally consistet of one battalion then u contradict yourself. But like i said, off topic :-) Blablaaa (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In the British Army a regiment is more of an administrive thing; each regiment raised infantry battalions. A regiment could be one battalion in size it could 10 battalions. These battalions were then posted and moved around various Brigades - what you would consider a regiment.

Three infantry battalions make up a brigade; for example the 131st Infantry Brigade was comprised of three infantry battalions all from the Queens Regiment whereas the 22nd Guards Brigade at one point was made up of three battalions from three different regiments: the Coldstream Guards, the Scots Guards, and the Rifle Brigade.

A British infantry battalion was not organised in the same way as a German one, there were differences in the same way there was differences between the brigade and the German regiment. A British brigade.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

am afraid all participants, at the moment, try to find weak spots in my edits. My points are very clear and valid but we always drift into off topic. When my points are wrong than it should be easy to attack them. I also saw nobody taking the goodwood examples. I explained that on charnwood the article claims the 16 luftwaffefelddivions was virtually destroyed and on goodwood the divisions is listed as full division . This alone is proof enough for the failure of the method at normandy articles. But i see always people attacking my weaker aspects but dodging my undisputable. If people avoid talking about my major points i assume there is no will to find consense. Attacking weak spots in argumentation is exemplaric for a battle and not for a discussion which tries to improve something. The major problem is explained with strong examples but nobody faces this examples. Sorry but i dont think we search for improvement here.... Blablaaa (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

i also want to highlight that my "failure" to assume a british regiments is equal to a german regiment, illustrates in a funny way that people in general will always think one german panzervision equals a british if they are counted in the box. Thats why people are misleaded with quantity of units particulary in normandy where german divisions were sometimes "battalionsized units". Blablaaa (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If we are to make progress i think you need to stop acting somewhat arrogant and claiming to be able to speak on behalf of the entire readership and always being correct. If you dont understand the differences, that doesnt mean everyone else will not either but it also means some people might; is an article on the battle the right place to discuss these differences? No, thats why we have various articles dedicated to such.

You highlight the German armoured divisions, this is actually covered in one of the articles to do with them - the German ones may have had less tanks but they sure had more frontline manpower; this is the point, regardless of what unit may be more "precise" to count they will always mean something different to each nation involved we cant change that. The historians dont mind doing so when figures are not around so what is the issue really other than the need to be more specific - which we do see V-B, Epsom etc

The only valid point you have thus far brought up, imo, is that we need to reword the wording on the Charnwood article to highlight that it was only part of the Luftwaffe division that was there (in the infobox) and suffered serious losses (in part of the main body of the article); i will ammend that later after rechecking the sources to ensure as close to 100% accurecy as possible.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c once again) "Its of topic but if u claim regiments arent units of particular size but in the same sentence you claim the normally consistet of one battalion then u contradict yourself. But like i said, off topic :-)". It isn't off topic at all, its actually very relevant. Like I pointed out, a regiment can be of just about any size, depending on the number of battalions each regiment contributes to a division. If for example, we used the 2 brigades I mention above as an example, we would list 4 regiments. 1 Regiment would be 3 times the size as all of the others though, so it doesn't make any sense to list strength in this way. As for your following comment "am afraid all participants, at the moment, try to find weak spots in my edits", like I've told you before I am trying very hard to remain neutral and get some agreement out of this. All I've done in this thread so far (and given that there are only 2 editors other than yourself contributing, I assume you mean me as well as Enigma) is explain to you why one of your ideas is unworkable. I'm trying to gain a positive outcome here, so please don't push it. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So u claim that the normal readers coming to a normandy article seeing 3 armoured divisions for both parties will not assume "parity" . Sorry but if u claim this you show that your mission is far away from finding consense... Blablaaa (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

ranger: u say the size of regiments is varying so its unworkable to count them but meanwhile the normandy article counts totally varying german units which are sometimes 5 times lower than their max . You see how ironic this is? thats what i meant with searching weak spots and off topic. While u explained my failure u aslo explained the failure of the infoboxes. but instead of talking about the major points u talked about my minor points. the problem is the same, variying units which are unsuitable for comparison but u preferred to "attack" my minor point. You dont need to be neutral choose the side which seems correct for you. Support the side u see as more valid. Blablaaa (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You explained why counting regiments doesnt work if we want to compare strenghts meanwhile u explained why it doesnt word to count varying german divisions... Thanks for that even though this wasnt your intention. Blablaaa (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I also want to highlight, that a historian who says "this three german divisions took part" doenst say german had the strenght of 3 full panzerdivisions but this is exactly what the strenght section in the box claims. So please finally stop claiming this is sourced by historians. No historian whould seriously claim german had 7 full divisions !!! if u claim any historian said this than please give quote! You will find none... Blablaaa (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough Blablaa, please. I have not attacked you, or your ‘minor’ points – all I have done in the 4 posts above is briefly try to summarise a potential issue (in your “support” I might add) and then explain to you why one of your suggestions isn’t a workable proposition. It isn’t about “failure” or preferring to attack your minor points, all I did was point out something that – by your own admission – you were unaware of. At the moment I am wayyy to busy to start dissecting the intricacies of army units or the best way to display them, but I saw something that wouldn’t work and – trying to help you – explained why it won’t work.

You seem to see this as some sort of competition with people choosing sides and manoeuvring against you. I can assure you that isn’t my intent and I fail to see anything in my above comments that would suggest it. But, if you continue to claim this sort of ill-will, then I’m not sure how long I’ll be able to assume good faith on your part. I have not as yet made any “claims” or suppositions about specific articles, nor do I have any “intent”, rather I am looking for a workable way of displaying things in infoboxes.

May I, in all seriousness, recommend that you take a break for a while. Have some coffee, sit back and re-read this thread slowly and carefully, and don’t assume any tone or attitude on anyone’s part. Then start again. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You explained that regiments vary in size so it doenst work to compare this, same applies for german divisions in normandy. You preffered to explain my point doesnt work instead of explaining the infobox now doenst work. Thats all what i claimed. I then ask u directly u claim counting regiemnts doenst work because they vary in size. why do you think counting german divisions, which varyed in size, does work ? actually they were sometimes "battalionsized" ? Blablaaa (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And iam, in all seriousness, a bit annoyed that you persistent claim i wrongly believe that people "maneuvere" against me but when i present you the proof for this you simply reply "But this isn't a problem related to the issue at hand" . So maybe u start being neutral this would include not moaning about my alleged wrong behaviour while you ignore wrong behaviour of others. I dont know whats the proverb for it but in german its called "mit zweierlei Maß messen" , thats what actually happens here. Show your good faith and tell me why u think counting regiements wouldnt work but counting divisions would work while both are varying in size and thats actually your reason to claim regiments cant be counted. Blablaaa (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well heres one reason. Not all armys (for example the Austrailan army) use regiments as a tactical unit, they are administrtive only. As such how do you determines what is the equivilant to a regiment within commonwealth formations? On the other had Divisions are a tactical formation, size may vary for operational reasons but all armys more or less use it for the same thing (higher then a regiment/brigade lower then a corps).Slatersteven (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"that a historian who says "this three german divisions took part" doenst say german had the strenght of 3 full panzerdivisions but this is exactly what the strenght section in the box claims." Bla, I invite you to do the research on the strength returns on every unit engaged, down to platoon level, on both sides, for every day of the battle, for every battle you have that complaint about. With any luck, you'll be so busy with it, we won't hear from you again this millennium. I do, of course, reserve the right to complain voiciferously if you chose a different date for calculating the totals on any of the given units, or for missing any squad members not present when you credit them as being on the scene. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful reply, are u the guy who tried to explain me the casualties issue? The guy who didnt respond after his opinion was totally refuted by me? Blablaaa (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked, yes you are. Blablaaa (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I must confess I am astounded by the ridiculous direction this issue has taken. Blablaa, I’m afraid I give in on trying to help you. I do strongly recommend you read my posts once more before you fly of the handle again. I didn’t “preffered to explain my point doesnt work instead of explaining the infobox now doenst work.” These are two very different things and I’m not going to explain it to you again. I have not anywhere looked for weak spots in your edits or attacked you. So get over it.

As for “mit zweierlei Maß messen”, the phrase you’re looking for is “double standards”. Well, I have tried as hard as possible to remain neutral on these threads, so perhaps unsurprisingly I struggle to find anything in my posts above that comes across as “moaning about [your] alleged wrong behaviour”. In fact I think I’ve pretty much ignored a lot of fairly risqué behaviour on your part, and a few personal attacks against others and myself. Equally I have ‘ignored’ what you describe as proof that people try to manoeuvre against you, because a) I’m trying to remain neutral, b) I personally haven’t been manoeuvring at all, which I would have thought is quite obvious, and c) as I‘ve already explained before, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Quite frankly I couldn’t care less if Enigma did ‘lie’ in his summary of a totally different discussion because it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the issue we are discussing here, which is about result sections and strengths in infoboxes. Enigma hasn’t lied about anything to do with this subject as far as I can see, and I’m not going to go out of my way to investigate where he might have said something else about something totally different once upon a time on a 60 comment long talk page I know nothing about. Seriously, even if he did lie, what does it have to do with the result sections of infoboxes? And even then, if I did suddenly start to care in some effort to prolong this debate and assist its inevitable descent into a bitching match, shall I suddenly start caring about your attitude in all this as well? The insults and expletives? The endless insinuations about people’s motives and suggestions of anti-German bias? The spelling? Do you really think that seizing upon an editor’s one possible impropriety totally absolves you of any? I don’t care. Like I said, I’m not here to mediate “he said – she said” spats, all I’ve been trying to do is reach a reasonable compromise on this subject and get a positive outcome. In order to do that I’ve tried very hard to remain neutral and remain focussed on the point of this discussion instead of getting sidetracked.

Unfortunately, you seem unable to recognise that. Given your attitude and rants above, I can’t conclude you are here for the same purpose as me; you appear to be a little too agenda driven, are too suspicious of people’s motives and are unwilling to engage in reasonable debate or compromise. It appears that unless people agree with you 100% then you just conclude that they are against you and soon incur ‘your wrath’. I have no time for that sort of discussion so I’m disengaging now. Good luck to anyone who has the patience to deal with this. I do think there might be something to be gained from further discussion on the subject, but I don’t have the inclination to waste my time anymore. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm my intention was not to make you upset. Nevertheless i disagree with your believe that you tried to remain neutral. You critizided me multiple times and claimed every other editor behaves good and tries to find consense. I showed you that this is wrong but you refused to take a look. You invested now a big amount of time to critizise me again but meanwhile you explain that you are not willing to invest 5 minutes of your time to check my arguments. If you call this neutral, ok. I dont. Nevertheless if you really tried to help me than i apologize for your discomfort now. Blablaaa (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting back on track

Okay, folks, let's all get back on track here and discuss the content of the articles, not the other editors involved in this debate. I see two substantive issues being discussed here:

• What should the text of the introduction say?
• What, if anything, should be indicated in the infobox?

Comments on these are welcome; if there are other matters that need to be examined, comments on those are welcome too.

What is not welcome here, however, are attacks on other contributors. This means, among other things: no insults, no accusations about other editors being liars, and no snide insinuations about the motives of anyone participating here.

There is a constructive debate to be had here about how we can improve the encyclopedia; let's not let it descend into incivility and mere bickering. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the discussion about Charnwood may have (finally) nearly run its course (but not quite methinks). However, this issue has at least sparked some wider debate about results and infoboxes in general, so perhaps a thread should concentrate on that, whilst the thread further above, or this one, hopefully brings the Charnwood debate to a conclusion. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always been of the mind that an article's introduction should summarize the entire subject matter covered by the body and the conclusion. As for the infobox issue; I like to add as much pertinent information as I can to the infobox because doing so in my opinion helps paint a clearer picture of what is being discussed in the article proper, and may answer one or two questions a reader may have had concerning the content without having to read through every line in the article to find out for sure (for example, listing all applicable commanders for a battle may answer my question regarding whether a little known general was present during the battle, or listing all know participating units so I can see quickly if a division I am looking into was present at the battle). This does have the drawback of making infoboxes long, and I concede that in some articles where the battle is brief or otherwise non-notable having an infobox the size of the Great Wall of China doesn't make much sense; the material could be covered in the article proper and thus would not need to appear in the article's infobox. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know if any one has suggested this but would brigade equivalents work. That is to say 3 combat battalions equate a brigade equivalent.Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that german units were extemly varying in size because they got no replacements for euqipement and men. If we compare brigades or divisions or battalions or companies, all will bring wrong conclusions. it is impossible to compare strenghts with counting units which differ so hard in menpower. Its simply not possible... Blablaaa (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Then we can't use any level of formation, so what is your solutionn?Slatersteven (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to count units just to give the general reader a _general_ idea of the size of the forces involved. We're generally not going to have exact figures for manpower, tanks, etc. except for one side which has been preparing for the offensive and documented its forces at the start of the battle. I think that leaving out any figures or units is a detriment to the article so I don't care that units of one side or another are at full strength or not as just about any unit that's been in combat for more than a day is understrength unless it was massively overstrength to begin with. That's just a given. I see no need to waste time in search or argument of the proper amount of precision for the infobox; for Chrissakes it's just a brief overview! List the major units involved and be done with it. I haven't wasted my time going through the wall of text above (TLDR) and don't care to do so given that the constant use of "u" annoys me a lot more than it ought to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

sturmvogel : I think we have to count units just to give the general reader a _general_ idea of the size of the forces involved. one sentence with much contradiction , please explain to me how you want to give the reader any idea of the size of forces involdev with units which werent near max ? how does this work ? the only thing you give the reader is a wrong picture. Nobody said the divisions sould left be out thats the problem when u dont read the discussion. The problem is not the general counting of divisons. the problem is that this numbers are misplaced in the infobox because they are misleading. sturmvogel: We're generally not going to have exact figures for manpower, tanks, etc your experience on battle articles seems to be quite low. in general historians use the reported strengths of all participating units and thats it. Normandy is a special case.... Blablaaa (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

slater: Then we can't use any level of formation, so what is your solutionn? . In general historians have reported strengths so we simply take this numbers to compare strengths. In normandy this doesnt work because german units were simply a bit disorganized. My simple solution is Write unknonw !! german strength is unknown so write unknown. We know which units participated so we can name them in the article. The infobox ( which is bad in general in my opinion ) wants to compare strengths, but we dont have german strength so we cant compare the strength thats it. To be honest the only thing we know for a fact that german deployed less troops. Iam pretty sure multiple surces can be find for this. A possiblity would be to write the allied numbers and for german "less" this would be correct and a hard fact but i guess nobody wants this. Thats everything to compare. Regarding the comparison of armoured divisions, german armoured division at max were bigger than allied ( i guess ) so even if both were at max they should not be used in the infobox because this now would also draw a wrong picture. Blablaaa (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

to all people who have the opinion its enough to give the reader " a general idea " of troops involved, i would recommend to include the 3000 planes in the infobox and ships artillery + amount of artillery units , this would bring much more information to the reader... Blablaaa (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So if we know the Germans deployed less troops wwe must know how many troops the Germans had an so use that figure.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This conclusion is wrong. When we know german deployed 5 divisions and the allied also 5. and we know german were heavy understrength and allied not , we know for a fact that german had less troops while their menpower is unknown. Blablaaa (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And that should be explained in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The reader needs no misleading informations in the box which become clarfied in the text.... . the infobox is for hard facts Blablaaa (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we have different conceptions as to the purpose of the infobox. The strength section will generally be empty under your concept as your desired precision will usually be lacking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa, maybe it would be helpful for you to find out if anyone else thinks the infoboxes are misleading? You're investing an awful lot of time and energy in this, but I think you need to show that (a) you've identified a genuine problem, and (b) there's a consensus to fix it. EyeSerene^talk 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok i will try. The goodwood article counts the 12 SS and 16 Luftwaffefelddivision as full divisions while some days ago they were "reduced to battalion size " or "virtually anhilated" . This divisions are listed as fulldivision in the box strenghtsection. The aim of the strengthsection is to compare involded "resources" , do you, eyeseren, think its is misleading to count this "anhilated" divisions as full divisions?Blablaaa (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@EyeSerene. I already shared my thoughts above in the "Tactical diversion" section why the infoboxes are a problem. Caden ^cool 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it things are quite straightforwards

• No-one is going to just read the infobox and not the article - anyone who does is not there to read the article and is merely referencing the numbers for another purpose.
• Add numbers to the info-box figures. 1 infantry^4,000 vs. 1 infantry^3,000. If it is true that figures are not known for certain stregnths of divisions/battalions then it will look even more odd when the numbers say 1 infantry^4,000 vs. 1 infantry^? - in those cases leave the numbers out?
• Instead of the ref/note cite make it a link to the section that contains the detailsof the numbers: For example Charnwood currently has 1 infantry division but could have 1 infantry division^Numbers
• Equally if the numbers are roughly known it could read 1 infantry^Weak or 1 infantry^Strong or 1 infantry^Full
• Possibly add a new one - combatant1, commander1, strength1 + numbers1

If people cannot be bothered to read the article and just look at the infobox they should not be counted and we should not be going out of our way to fix something that is not in need of fixing - KISS (Keep it simple stupid) is an anacronym that often applies.

@blaaa

I have tried to help you and you had a go at me — you had no grounds for that and I am trying once more after seeing that there is a way round these infobox problems. Do not ever treat me, or anyone, the way you have been doing. There is no need for incivility and at the end of the day the article is the important thing.

Do not think that I have not seen, nor noticed, you trying to squirm your way out of things - you clearly tried to call me childish and then once brought up on the matter you denied it; even though the evidence was there for me to weigh in I chose not to. My patience is depleted now though and it may be best for you to take the advice you were given about taking a break from this matter. I understand that you feel that you are being picked on - I can see from posts on various pages that you are getting grief as well as giving it - but do not repeat the pattern. Step back and be the bigger man if trouble starts.

Most importantly, if there is no consensus on this or no consensus on any matter - stop thinking that people are against you. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

your 4th point would be an improvement. I still prefer "unkown further details" or numbers for allied and "less" for german with "further details" . Your post was one of the most valuable until now. Blablaaa (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

chaosdruid : "No-one is going to just read the infobox and not the article - anyone who does is not there to read the article and is merely referencing the numbers for another purpose." , people read the infobox always and then some sections or none. I guess normally, the section battle and/or outcome. Nevertheless the reader should not become misleading informations with the vindication that the issue become clarified in the article. If information in the box draw another picture than the article himself then out of the box!Blablaaa (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This endless bickering is getting a bit boring. The facts are that no military formation on any side will be at full strength once the fighting starts. From the Roman legions to the Napoleonic, American Civil both World Wars and up to the present days units fighting in Afghanistan they all suffered casualties. The info box shows us what units were present at the battle/conflict. The article on the military unit be it regiment, division or army should provide details on how many man it had at the time. That why they are linked the body of the article will explain that A B and C Divisions had more men tanks guns than X Y and Z.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

sweeny The info box shows us what units were present at the battle/conflict sorry, but thats simply wrong. this section in the box is called strengthes , and the aim of this box is "comparing strengthes". What you mean is the "Order of battle". I would appreciate any article regarding afghanistan or iraq or any modern conflict where the infobox counts "units" . Only normandy articles do this with such unequal formations.... Blablaaa (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

sweeny The info box shows us what units were present at the battle/conflict This would also mean all allied aircraft should come to the box. Blablaaa (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

They will always be unequal formations. The German Army division was smaller than the Waffen SS division. British and American divisions also had their own idea on structure, that is why they are linked. As above you need to get a consensus to change, your stance is not enhanced by repeatedly posting comments. The vast majority of interested parties will give up reading your opinion in lengthy posts. I suggest instead of endless comments you formally propose a change to your point of view. If there is support for it, the change will happen. If not you need to let it rest. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that anyone is following this... Chaosdruid, I think you might have a really good suggestion here. Just as with everything it might not be suitable in every instance, but this looks like something that could be optionally incorporated into infoboxes on articles if individual consensus and suitable sources support it. Of your points above I'd say the options 1 division^4,000, 1 division^Numbers or 1 division^Strength are all workable ideas (I admit I'm slightly less keen on the last though, if only because its subjective). Does anyone still watching have any thoughts on this idea? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

E/C forgot to mention; as it is, lots of articles already do things like this. For example. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

the other solutions would need numbers , no numbers are availbe thats why we are here. If we would have numbers we could simply put them in the box. Blablaaa (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

99% do not use unit counting while the numbers for one belligerent are known. this method is totally unorthodox but i think this is no argument Blablaaa (talk)

@ranger what dou you think about including aircraft into the box? Blablaaa (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I see bad status quo maintained. And battalion sized units are still listed as full panzer divisions to mislead any reader. Congratulations MILHIST Blablaaa (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And congratulations to enigma and eyeseren who fought so hard here so that every article with british participation keeps counting understrength german divisions to imply the reader, what this editors want. But they were also clever enough to dodge direct questions like : The goodwood article counts the 12 SS and 16 Luftwaffefelddivision as full divisions while some days ago they were "reduced to battalion size " or "virtually anhilated" . This divisions are listed as fulldivision in the box strenghtsection. The aim of the strengthsection is to compare involded "resources" , do you, eyeseren, think its is misleading to count this "anhilated" divisions as full divisions?, so they were never fully commited to the bad status quo because they know how bias it is towards british. But with excellent use of ad hominem and subtle distraction they brought the discussion to a point were never improvement will be achieved. My congratulations for this masterpiece of MILHIST lobby work. Can i add the thousands of aircraft, to the goodwood article, now? Just a joke i know no one of you wants all these aircraft in the strength section, to much informations for the reader, isnt it? Blablaaa (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)