Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 99

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 94
• 95
• 96
• 97
• 98
• Archive 99
• 100
• 101
• 102
• 103
• 104
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

A-class review

People have been voting with their feet lately and submitting fewer articles at Featured article candidates and more articles at A-class review. Not surprising; FAC is very time-intensive and not all of us have the time. This is hardly a tragedy; you can always wait and do FAC later, or never. But the downtick at FAC and uptick at A-class is getting to be a little burdensome for me, and maybe for some of the other reviewers, I don't know. I'd like to suggest that we insert a new section at the top of WP:MILMOS covering maybe 25 of the things most commonly and easily fixed at A-class, and ask all you writers to either check your articles against the list before submission or get someone else to do it for you. (You can probably find someone who can get it done in less than 30 minutes, and if you can't, post an offer to swap favors here or at the Guild of Copy Editors.)

I want to stress that submitting something to A-class and getting 100 "corrections" doesn't mean you're a bad writer; professional writers don't do all their own copyediting. In fact, in some ways it's a sign your writer's brain is working efficiently, ignoring details that don't matter to you. But it seems reasonable to me for reviewers to expect at least a little help with the workload; there are a lot of submissions and not so many of us. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a very good idea. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this is a good idea. I'd suggest placing this somewhere in the Academy (and linking to it from the ACR nomination instructions) rather than MILMOS, as it's probably not prescriptive enough for the latter. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The more assistance we can give our hard-working reviewers, the better :) EyeSerene^talk 17:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, why have we not thought of this before? That's an excellent idea. We can have a few different sections, even – referencing, writing (ie look for ambiguous "it", "they", "them"; redundant words), etc. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. I would offer to write it myself... but I don't know what the tips would be! Hence, why I don't normally submit articles, and I think my prescence at PR is cursed by those unlucky enough to see it. However, I offer to help with the writing; if someone can give me the bare essentials, I can to the scutwork with turning it to readable prose and wikilinks and the like. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is why I love you guys ... I've generally gotten blank stares or grumbling when I've suggested similar ideas elsewhere on Wikipedia. I created a section for ideas on the talk page of the Academy (per Kirill's suggestion), here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Reimann (US Navy officer)

This officer's article is completely unreferenced. While a one/two star, his only flag command tour was Pearl Harbour Naval Base. Personally I do not believe he is notable, but a Prod was removed. What do others feel? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I realize I am not a member of the task force but I feel compelled to comment. The last year has seen the introduction of a plethora of articles whose sole purpose is to note winners of the Knight's Cross awarded by the Third Reich (see this article as an example). Note that Back was a brigadier, however, the article makes no mention of his career other than being essentially a list of awards. While I really don't care if Wikipedia chooses to present individual articles for each winner of a high military honor, I must question the value of biographies which note nothing other than the fact that an individual attained a particular award. And Back's article is only one of many that present the same (lack of) information. This boils down to the question: what about a career is truly notable? One has to wonder, given the "politics" found in military services, if simply the award of a high decoration is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it depends on the sourcing. Given that this (the Reimann article) appears to be a biography of a living person, it needs referencing. Without references it is not verifiable and therefore fails the WP:GNG and should be deleted. If adequate sourcing can be found, per WP:MILPEOPLE, it meets the notability guidelines. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

From a quick skim of the article in question I tend to agree with Buckshot and Rupert that the subject of this article is likely to be non-notable. Arguments that other stuff exists are not likely to be accepted at AfD as a reason to keep either. Anotherclown (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found and added a couple of references, but whether they are "significant" and "independent" is open to argument. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Reimann, my assessment is that there is nothing particularly notable about the subject of the article. As to "other stuff exists" . . ., it does, and how -- and note I am not in favor of retaining such articles. They are the MILHIST version of fluff IMO. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Buckshot, do you feel up to another AfD for this one? Otherwise I'll have a crack. Anotherclown (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Buck, I think you ought to put it up for discussion. You have seen me at AfD to know that I feel that merely having a star is not automatically enough, especially if the individual has only had staff assignments. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer and reference-adder available

Hi everyone, I'm feeling a bit burned out from working on articles for the moment, but would be very happy to help out with other articles by providing an informal review and/or providing references (a sub-set of the books in my library is available here - I've also got loads more books on World War II and Australian military history which I haven't listed yet). Please leave a message here or on my talk page if I can be of assistance. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Nick. That is a very impressive library. I am quite envious! :-) I will let you know if I need anything, but at the moment I also am feeling a bit burnt out so probably won't work on anything major for a while. Hope you have a safe and happy Christmas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greek destroyer Lonchi

The article Greek destroyer Lonchi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found only a minor published (gBooks) mention of Greek "Cruiser" named Lonchi. Fails WP:V and by extension WP:N if any content here is true

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have contested this because IMO it is still notable under the MILHIST guidelines at WP:MILMOS/N. Of course we should try to add some references to it however. Anotherclown (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article can be sourced by Conway's All the World's Fighting Warships 1906–1921, which I've added to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Added reference to Janes Fighting Ships of WWI as well. Farawayman (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Classified material

There is a Request for Comment open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents that impacts a few articles in the scope of our project, as well as the potential for references and content in others. Please take the time to join the discussion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about portal use with military history articles

A discussion about portal use on military history articles has begun at the strategy think tank; all editors with an interest in this topic are invited to participate. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Populating Category:Artillery units and formations of the American Civil War

A couple of us are driving through populating this cat, and if anyone wants to help out, and let us know which areas have been swept seeking applicable articles, we're discussing it at Category talk:Artillery units and formations of the American Civil War. Thanks MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fusō class battleship needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Fusō class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Was the American Revolutionary War the only war Britain ever lost?

There is a discussion at Talk:American Revolutionary War#Only war Britain lost that may be of interest to project members. I can't imagine that this issue has not come up before. Any reliable sources on the issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

MILHIST tags on fantasy novels

I have noticed that the fantasy novel Under Heaven is awaiting assessment by MILHIST. While I am aware that historical fiction with a military theme comes under the project remit, as do some "hard sci-fi" novels with a future war subjects, how do fantasy novels fit? I can imagine a justification perhaps for a retelling of a myth like the Trojan War but this seems to be a straight fantasy novel, albeit influenced by Chinese history. Guidance in such cases would be appreciated Monstrelet (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a straight fantasy novel. There's almost no fantasy in it, apart from one ghost scene, and some shamans in a sidestory/sideplot that is largely unconnected with the main plot of the novel. It's a straight historical novel, with some fantastical elements for windowdressing. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your argument being that novels with small amounts of fantasy content should be acceptable in MILHIST? As I've said, fantasy treatments of martial legends like the Trojan War or Arthurian legend might also be considered. However, current guidance isn't clear on this and I'd suggest by simple extrapolation it isn't currently allowed. Hence the query - do we need clearer guidance on this? Monstrelet (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Our front page guidance note says

We generally cover only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable. A distinction is made between fictionalized depictions of historical warfare and purely invented depictions of fictional warfare; topics sufficiently divorced from actual history that a discussion of actual military history would no longer be relevant to them—such as futuristic warfare in Star Wars—are not considered to be within the project's scope.

For this particular article I'd say it doesn't on the face of it seem to fall within milhist's scope; there's nothing within the actual article text that indicates "a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable". EyeSerene^talk 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd concur with EyeSerene that unless this fictional work is dealing with events which occurred in actual military history, it doesn't fall under our purview. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't enjoy reading it.... --Habap (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy .ne. History Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a note on the Under Heaven talk page asking for a justification to keep its MILHIST tag, quoting the criteria. I note it is listed under war, rather than fantasy, novel. Monstrelet (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

People should remember that wikiproject tags are not intended to work like categories. In this case, a wikiproject about military history is not for any article that involves somewhere a group of people using weapons to kill another group of people. Trivial tags at unrelated projects should be simply removed. MBelgrano (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All the warfare in the novel is based on historical events, with name substitutions for the historical personages. The political and military events closely parallel the historical records of events. The bit of fantasy does not enter into the warfare portions of the book related to the An Lushan Rebellion. From that, it appears to fall under WPMILHIST, since the fantasy elements are unrelated to the depiction of the fictionalized An Lushan rebellion, they occur apart from the rebellion. 64.229.101.54 (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that fiction is not history, even it it's based on historical events. It's fiction. Newt Gingrich, for example has written several Alternative History novels. And as much as they 'parallel' actual historical events, "1945", for example, is fiction, not military history. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Gingrich's novel is bannered by WPMILHIST (Talk:1945 (1995 novel)). Your comment suggests that all alternate history works should not be bannered by WPMILHIST. (would this also include counterfactual treatises by historians?) 65.94.46.60 (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?

Does anyone think that the website http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/UAV02.htm qualifies as a reliable source? I do not, and I just yanked it out of the TR3A article on WP:RS grounds. This is kind of important since the latter article is up at AFD. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article. Deals with a subject I'm somewhat familiar with but whether it is or is not factual is up for debate. Given it deals with the classified world it's impossible to say, and given that fact, with no other collaborating source it should be considered as speculation and not as MILHIST. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That "author" page appears to be broken, so it's hard to say definitively, but it doesn't look to be a RS. It's unlikely the author (I'm assuming he's Slovak given the language) has any connection whatsoever to Northrop Grumman or the USAF so it's hard to believe he has any claim to be an expert on the matter. A quick Google Books search turns up no hits for anyone named Matthew Furda in relation to aircraft of any kind. Parsecboy (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the author of the article and yes, it is fully based on the facts. And my name is not Matthew Furda but Matej Furda as is written everywhere as the page title or in the source code as the author. Does anyone think that the three posters above me are good enough to make any serious conclusion when they are not able even to reproduce my name (written everywhere) correctly? Now back to TR-3A: I am not sure what you find as a speculative but if you mean AARS, teach yourself and read this paper by Thomas P. Ehrhard - http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=728475031&Fmt=14&VType=PQD&VInst=PROD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1273181818&clientId=79356&cfc=1 ...before we can make any serious discussion. And when you dont know even who Ehrhard is, try to teach here: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=12934 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.36.64 (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if the references included in the unfree umi.com website, which Mr Ehrard used for references, were cited specifically, it would be quite helpful. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

He did the amazing work in his thesis about the AARS and I mentioned him as the "reliable" example dealing with the same topic. However even he has a few things wrong: he is mixing the appearance of the Lockheed´s Tier III proposal (in fact the big brother of the RQ-3A DarkStar) with the AARS, he didnt mention that the half of the wing together with the fuselage of the QUARTZ (AARS primarily vehicle) was already manufactured for the ground testing and such. This probably happened because he is focusing primarily to the programs and connections between them while I made my article with the focus on the vehicles and their development. I also wrote my article 10 years later, so in that time some new information appeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.36.64 (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Hwanggan now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Hwanggan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Military Historians

Wishing all our editors a joyous, research-free, festive season. Farawayman (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Right back at you! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to new articles

Can we please reinsert a link to the new articles page somewhere on the navigation bar? It seems to have gotten lost. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still there, but is hidden away. The navigation bar path is: Resources and tools -> Automated lists -> New Articles Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There are also a number of other interesting lists in that section, incidentally; in particular, the article alerts system seems to be up and running again. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Checklist

I'd like to get a sense of what we can and can't accomplish with the evolving A-class checklist, so let me throw a few of these at you guys and see if any of this is too obscure. These are sentences from articles currently at FAC or A-class review. I'll add more as we go. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• The ships were not bought for reasons of cost, but neither were the airplanes its supporters had been hoping for.

Hint

See "Dangling words"

• The old dreadnought was taken under tow by the tug Cambrian Salvos on 29 May 1959, and reached Yokohama, Japan at the end of August, though the scrapping process did not begin immediately on arrival.

Hint

See "Paired commas"

Although the examples are from one of my articles, meaning I am already familiar with them, I don't think they are overly obscure. The format reminds me of Tony1's guides, but I like it. Instead of simply reading out sentences and corrections, this format forces you to think and solve the problem yourself, which in turn helps encode it into your long-term memory. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to be clear that passing these little exercises isn't a requirement for A-class. As Salmon Rushdie says, you are the writer you are, and your job is to figure out what kind of writer that is. For some writers, copyediting isn't in the mix. But my current output at A-class review isn't sustainable, and I need some help. It doesn't slow me down much if someone doesn't stay up-to-date on definitions; it doesn't take me long to fix a word. The three things that slow me down the most are small mistakes repeated many times in the same article and over many articles, prose that's so obscure that I can't figure out what the writer is trying to say, and my own limitations as a writer and military historian. I'm working on the latter; I'm targeting the checklist at the other two problems. I know that not everyone will be able to read an article quickly and spot every problem from the checklist, but if we keep the checklist small, and if enough people make the effort, I'm hoping the job will get done by someone before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about the checkist: is this part too hard to follow? Are there any questions about what it means? - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dangling words: A word "dangles" when it appears to modify (refer to) something in the sentence, but you can't pin down what word it modifies. The fix is generally to remove the dangler, or move it closer to the word it's modifying. Check pronouns, including "which", for dangliness. (And never write "dangliness".) Check words ending in -ed or -ing when they're the first or second word in a phrase or clause. (The ship stayed in port two days loading low-grade coal; meaning it never caught up to the fleeing destroyer. "Meaning" would be a dangler; what is it that means something ... the coal, the grade of the coal, the time spent loading? When it's not clear or not worth mentioning what's causing what, "and" or a semicolon is a better choice.)
  • Moved to "Pronouns", to which the scope is now limited. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kenilworth Castle needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Kenilworth Castle; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Siege of Fort William Henry now open

The A-Class review for Siege of Fort William Henry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Minas Geraes-class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Minas Geraes-class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Manhattan Project now open

The A-Class review for Manhattan Project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Hwanggan now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Hwanggan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas Bader/GA1

Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Normandy templates

Hi

Is it possible we can get this Template:Battle of Normandy redirected to Template:Campaignbox Normandy?

The former has not been edited since last year whereas the latter has been revamped consdierably this year; it includes more links, its more stylish, isnt as clumpsy and contains afaik less errors.

CheerioEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any problem with it; the older template doesn't seem to add anything that the campaignbox doesn't have.

(On a procedural point, this seems like something the Operation Normandy folks should figure out. There's no reason why we need to have a project-wide consensus for a routine template consolidation, and I think everyone that doesn't work on these articles will defer to the editors that do on something like this.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Prob a little too much "eggnog" on my part, didnt think about that! XD EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 200th Jäger Division

I am pretty certain this division never existed. A report of its existence seems to have made its way onto axishistory.com (http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=961). Although the axishistory.com site states "Reference material on this unit - None known at this time -", I believe the presence of this unit on the axishistory.com site is an example of a typo being propagated, as Volume III of Wolf Keilig's Das Deutsche Heer shows General Schury commanding the 200th Jäger Division from February 1945 forward. However, this conflicts with the fact that Schury commanded the 100th Jäger Division from February - May 1945. I'm not sure if Keilig introduced the error or copied it from another source, but no German division with the number 200 appears in German orders of battle other than an obscure training unit that existed for several months in Poland during the early part of the war. Recommend this article be deleted as it is very doubtful that this unit existed at all. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mr Wilson, I've put a Prod on this article with your explanation above as the reason. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. axishistory.com isn't a reliable source, and stuff like this demonstrates why. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Axishistory.com has made a small error by simply replicating the information in a German official history. Normally it's quite good. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Several Indian ship redlinks from Royal Indian Navy Mutiny

I was recently touching up Royal Indian Navy Mutiny and noticed several redlinks that folks may be interested in adding to their lists: HMIS Akbar, HMIS Hindustan, HMIS Bahadur (note also Admiral Rattray, Flag Officer, Bombay, RIN). I am not familiar enough with naval history to write ship articles myself, but thought I'd bring them to the Project's attention. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A discussion to eliminate the use of Find a grave and IMDB

Its been almost 3 months so its time for another weeks long discussion on the status of Find a grave. Here is a link to the discussion that is currently taking place, Again. on the external links noticeboard. Find a grave and IMDB. --Kumioko (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a lot worse external links on articles to websites selling merchandise that should be removed. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Voting has begun

A vote is currently being held at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard as to wether we should ban the use of the Find a grave site and remove the thousands of links we have to it on articles. Please take a moment and place your vote. --Kumioko (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sierra Leone Civil War

A couple of editors have been working on this article. Can someone please assess it (and join in, if you like). If you have comments or suggestion, please leave them on the talk page there. Thanks! All the best, and happy holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a great expansion - really helpful. I've been doing a lot of work on Military of Sierra Leone and you may find useful material there too. Can you explain the 'Sobels' better please? What exact links did they have with the rebels? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't watch this page. I'm going to copy your comment to the article's talk page so that the editors working on the article can see it. There is an enthusiastic new editor working on the article, who has familiarity with subject area and the literature. She has been able to find reference for most of the unreferenced statements in the article and has much improved the prose over the past week. I had offered to help her/him with learning about Wikipedia editing in general, but she knows far more about the topic than I do. I hope you will try to encourage her/him, as I think she/he will be a asset to this project. I think she/he is also developing other articles in her/his sandbox. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hannibal crossing the Alps

Hello. People are wondering at the french village pump why there's no article on this topic here. Therefore, I bit the bullet and created Hannibal crossing the Alps. However, since I'm not familiar with military history myself, some help would be appreciated. I'm surprised that a page which reads "one of the most celebrated achievements of any military force in ancient warfare" is considered for speedy deletion, but I must admit I did not review all of Hannibal talk page archive, which are quite long. Thank you wery much, Comte0 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just declined the speedy deletion nomination (with my admin hat on) as this seems to be a viable topic for an article. If it doesn't work out that way it should be converted to a redirect as this is a likely search term. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. While researching the subject, I discovered it's the subject of an archaeological team at Stanford: [1]. I definitely think it's notable on its own. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Xuan Loc

Hi everyone, for some reason User:Hfarmer is hellbent on undoing my work on the article Battle of Xuan Loc. I need some help in settling the 'editing war' between myself and that particular contributor.Canpark (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Has it been discussed on the article talk page? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Hfarmer simply reverted the page to the previous low-quality versions, and removed my edits which are appropriately sourced without encouraging a discussion about it.Canpark (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My advice would be for you to raise it on the article talk page as a first step. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Libya

Recently this article was moved from Bombing of Libya to 1986 Bombing of Libya because it was claimed that it was vague and that there must be other bombings of Libya. However, the former still redirects into the latter. So the question is: Are there other such bombing missions that we could create articles for to make the former a disambiguation page, or should we remove the year from the article? I bring it up here because the talk page is dead and anything that I post there will probably sit there for about three years before someone acts on it. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK there was no other bombing of Libya. The Gulf of Sidra incidents in '85 only involved attacks on ships, not Libyan territory itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There's the Ouadi Doum air raid (though that was in 1986 as well!), and it's possible someone might look up the title expecting to read about the bombing during the 1940s (there's a summary in Egypt–Libya Campaign & Desert Air Force). Shimgray | talk | 14:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre FAC

Hey everyone, a couple more reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1 would be greatly appreciated. In 20 days, I have received only one real review. Many thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be a shortage of FA reviewers at the moment. I count two reviews and another support BTW. For your troubles though I've just left extra comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Brigs

There's a discussion at Talk:Brig about Brig, Brigantine and possibly Hermaphrodite brig, that can out of a contentious move-war and merge request masquerading as a requested move. 184.144.170.217 (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) now open

The featured article candidacy for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) 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) 06:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Yongdong needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Yongdong; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kenilworth Castle needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Kenilworth Castle; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Low scale conflict around 8x57 IS aka 7.92x57 Mauser etc

There is some disagreement related to the naming/designation of the 8x57 IS round (formerly at 7.92x57 Mauser and this is spilling over into related articles and categories eg Category:7.92 mm firearms and reversion of edits eg FG42 and in one instance edit warring - over Enfauser (I hadn't heard of it either) - which led to short blocks on the users. Is anyone in a position to help the individuals concerned to reach consensus? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

League to Enforce Peace

It looks like we could use an article or perhaps a judicious redirect at League to Enforce Peace: [2]. I don't know anything about it, but perhaps someone here will have some ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A one paragraph quick stub would be fairly easy (he says blithely) and there does appear to be at least one history of the organisation (Bartlett 1944, University of North Carolina Press) as well as a number of comtemporary publications. NtheP (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've put my money where my mouth is an created a stub. NtheP (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks lovely. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with crufty article

• United States and state terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am trying to start a campaign to clean up United States and state terrorism. This article is tagged for numerous problems included neutrality, synthesis of original research and the ultimate wikicrime: excessive length. The article covers numerous historical events. There's something for everybody no matter what locale is your favorite. Please see recent sections on the talk page for guidance. Oh, and the article has been fully protected for 30 days due to edit warring. At the moment we need suggestions on the talk page and help forming a consensus what to do. Many thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 22:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander the Great/GA1

Alexander the Great is being reviewed for Good Article listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow for minor issues related to coverage and authorial tone to be addressed. Any assistance would be welcomed. If your project has been tagged as connected to this topic by mistake, the tag will be removed in 14 days time. SilkTork *^YES! 23:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Navy of Estonia

{{Navy of Estonia}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Too Many Templates

I have been fixing templates in Chemisty as we had a lot of pages failing to completely render and appearing in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. I have (temp) fixed our problem - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Too_Many_Templates and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Too_Many_Templates, we now have no problems, but I have noticed the following pages of your Project are listed ...

• 301st Operations Group
• 33d Fighter Wing
• 82d Operations Group
• 98th Operations Group

Data for the first one is

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 18965/1000000
Post-expand include size: 1930315/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 2047560/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 4/500
-->

Explanations of the sections is at Wikipedia:Template limits  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a problem with how {{template group}} is implemented; since it passes through every contained template as a parameter, enclosing multiple large templates will overrun the maximum argument size.

In a more general sense, I think we might be going overboard with some of those large navigation templates—I'm not convinced we need to have ten of them on a single article—but that's a broader question. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Manhattan Project needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Manhattan Project; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Submarine Featured Portal review

Portal:Submarine has been nominated for a featured portal review. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 02:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what? Are you asking for the portal to be given featured status, or for it to be taken away (because I don't see that it has it)? WP:Featured portal review (where it is currently posted) is for removing featured status - WP:Featured portal candidates is where portals go to be given feature status, which is what I think you're looking for. Dana boomer (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Brigadier Peter Young

Resolved

Could someone please create an article for Brigadier Peter Young, DSO, MC (1915-1988) "Highly decorated World War II commando leader, commander of the 9th Regiment of the Arab Legion, founder of the Sealed Knot"? There is probably enough information already scattered around (such as the previous quote) to create a stub entry, but the links all pointed to another officer of the same name. I have changed those links to "Peter Young (Brigadier)" 80.1.88.11 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Noit sure it does, not even one of the founding fathers of modern wargaming (afterall it has hardley changed the world, beyond giving women more people to turn down).Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say his notability is easily justified on his military career (the man had an MC and two bars - pretty remarkable in itself), let alone his later career as a historian. Contributor to modern wargaming, pretty much inventor of historical re-enactment (in the UK at least).Monstrelet (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgot teh bars. That may count.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:MILPEOPLE, he probably gets in under WP:AUTHOR. NtheP (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If the latter, the disambiguation form Peter Young (author) might be better or looking at some of the books (5 with Osprey, at least one with Richard Holmes) Peter Young (historian).GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To add my two cents worth: Young seems notable as both an author and for his military career as it seems that he has enough coverage under WP:MILMOS/N. Too often this guideline seems to be misinterpreted to say that if a subject isn't a General or VC/MOH winner they aren't notable (which it clearly doesn't say). IMO the only requirement is for "significant independent coverage" and as such if Sapper Bloggs is covered in a number of reliable sources he is notable in my opinion (and the same goes for someone who was 'only' awarded a Silver Star/Star of Gallentry or some other second level award etc - although this is I fear a controversial opinion for some reason). As Young is apparently mentioned in depth in a wide range of works he seems notable to me. Anotherclown (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for copyeditors

There was a little support and no opposition at WT:MHC for my offer of a prize of $50 for the best A-class copy editor for the month of January. The jury will be all the coords except me. Any more yays or nays before I make a post at least at the Guild of Copy Editors talk page? - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio question: can anyone access this source?

Resolved

• Paul K. Davis (1999). 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present. Santa Barbara, California. ISBN 1-57607-075-1.

Hi. :) Do any of you good people have access to 100 decisive battles: from ancient times to the present? There is an allegation at Talk:Battle of Thymbra that the article copies paragraphs wholesale from that book, but the book is only available in snippet view at Google books, and I cannot find any duplication of content in that snippet view. I can read one page at Amazon books (page 7), but it looks as though the section that might have copied would have been on page 8. (frustrating!) I don't want to clear it without reason, but I can't take action without information. :/

If none of you can help, I'll probably list this at the resource exchange, but I've had spotty luck there. Since it's in your bailiwick, I was hoping that one of you might be able to stroll over to your personal resource shelf and help resolve this. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: this one has been done now, by User:Slp1, who could access the relevant pages. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Third Battle of Kharkov needs major work to stay FA

This article needs a lot of work to remain a FA. Per WP:FACR a FA must be:

1.

• (a) well-written: ; No problems with the style that I can see
• (b) comprehensive::
  • Major work needed. For an article that is a direct link on the Eastern Front template, it does not much describe what exactly happened between Stalingrad and Kharkov. Neither does it include any detail on the wider Soviet Kharkov Offensive, which was not limited to the area surrounding Kharkov, but included all the fighting from January 13, 1943. It does show how this was a German strategic victory (which it was, notably the last strategic victory on the Eastern Front).
  • In addition there is no good description of the area, and directions of attacks are not explaining a lot. A map or two would help.
• (c) well-researched: Major work needed, see WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. References to Manstein's and Mellentin's memoirs are not the sources that should be used in a FA. Clark, Cooper and Sykes are very outdated books and also inappropriate. Glantz is a good, but he has written books on the subject more recently (as recently as 2009), so using 15-19 year old books is not the best either.
  • Agree on the sources. Odd to see Nipe listed under further reading as his books are actually quite good. Glantz's recent After Stalingrad book would likely be the best overall source with the recent biography of Manstein to supplement things, although I haven't actually read either. Also curious not to see any use made of the relevant German divisional histories, most of which are available in English.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I also agree. The article also cites Alan Clark's book, which is now considered outdated and biased towards a German perspective. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I do have Glantz's After Stalingrad and would be happy to help rewriting the article. However it is Glantz (and Isayev too in his books) that stresses, that the battle was much, much more than just the fighting around the city that is typically covered in earlier books, so perhaps the article should cover the wider battle from the start of the Soviet Voronezh-Kharkov offensive on January 13, 1943 to the end of the fighting in MarchD2306 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• (d) neutral: The use of poor sources makes the article include nonsense about destroying 52 Soviet divisions, back hand maneuvers and the like, and overstating the importance and genius of Manstein.
• (e) stable: No issues here

2. It follows the style guidelines: No problems here.

3. Media. No Problems with licensing, but the lack of any map or maps of the battle is making it difficult to follow.

4.Length. No major issues here.

I intend to put this article for WP:FAR in the next couple of weeks, but hope we can get as many issues resolved as possible before that.D2306 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Military tactic infobox

A discussion about improving the new {{infobox military tactic}} has begun at the strategy think tank; comments are invited from all editors with an interest in this topic. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin Assistance Needed

I am currently and have been in a discussion over the title of the 1961 Indian annexation of Goa page. The current title is slanted towards and Indian point of view, is not sourcable, and does not conform to military history naming conventions. At the very least a tag stating the title is in dispute should be on the page. An editor recently removed the tag and refuses to allow it to remain, despite the fact that the title is still in dispute. I dont want to keep edit warring or break the 3r rule, my question is what do i do now?XavierGreen (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I say afd it; if you look at the history its clear this wasa copy paste move that has left two pages with the same content at two different names. THis was a bad move at the least, and nominating the 1961 named article for deletion solves the problem of content dispute by eliminating the uneeded article. this, of course, is only in my opinion, but I thought you may be interest to hear the duplicate part :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the article for three days. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Sattelberg now open

The peer review for Battle of Sattelberg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for participation in the A-Class review for Battle of Towton

The Battle of Towton, which took place on 29 March 1461 (a Palm Sunday), is about to have its 550th anniversary on 29 March 2011 or 17 April 2011. I am aiming to nominate it to be on the Main Page for that day. I would like to put it up at FAC by the end of this month, but it has to be of a good enough quality. As such, I would like to invite all to read the article and consider its quality against the A-Class standard (first step to FAC). Please leave your opinions and suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Towton. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Consolidation of talk pages

I think this is a fine idea, but you will need to go through and provide links to any and all archives of those task force talk pages being redirected here. Otherwise, what's the point of archiving them if no one knows they exist anymore? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, they're all reachable using the archive search tool; do you think that's sufficient, or will people want direct links? If the latter is the case, the easiest way to approach it would probably be either to just link to them through the archive category, or to move all the task force archives to be archives of the main page. 16:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Great idea -- if we redicet the pages to one single place this will allow a wider assortment of editors to see, thus be involved in the talks. We have done this before in other projects and task forces and simply put a archive "BOX" on the projects main projects pages. This way the archive talks are still very accessible to new readers. Moxy (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone will inevitably want direct access. Perhaps an archive index page should be created. 64.229.103.44 (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Honors

AfD notice; he was just relieved as captain of the longest navy ship in the world, the USS Enterprise. There's a tie-in to DADT; my guess is, historians will think it's an interesting tie-in, but of course no one has enough distance yet to write a real history. We should at least thank the writer for their work. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional opinions sought at Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan

There's currently another discussion at Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan#Civilian casualties - factual accuracy is disputed about how to present civilian casualty figures in this article and appropriate sources for this. I think that opinions from other editors would be very helpful in resolving this matter. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarify guidance on fantasy novels

The original discussion has been archived here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history Archive_99#MILHIST_tags_on_fantasy_novels but I was thinking that a simple extension of Note 4 of the project guidance might help. I was going to suggest

A distinction is made between fictionalized depictions of historical warfare and purely invented depictions of fictional warfare; topics sufficiently divorced from actual history that a discussion of actual military history would no longer be relevant to them—such as futuristic warfare in Star Wars or fantasy battles in Lord of the Rings—are not considered to be within the project's scope.

Does this say enough to clarify the position? Monstrelet (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a reasonable clarification. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Monstrelet (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What of alternate history? How far removed from reality would alternate history need to be? (Harry Turtledove's "Great War: American Front" comes to mind... it's widely divergent from reality, but is based on warfare encountered on the Western Front of Europe in WWI, but takes place in North America; though none of the actual battles are based on any single battle form WWI, IIRC; and the name substituted characters diverge fairly far from their real-world analogs (ie. Rommel being in the same army with MacArthur) ) 64.229.103.44 (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we concluded in an earlier discussion that Turtledove was a bit too far removed, but I could be wrong. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that Mr Turrtledoves novels (at least the ones I have read) suffer from two probloms as far as history is concearned. The first is that they read like the next great war novels of teh 19th and early 20thC, full if assumptions, smashing vicotories and seeting the world to rights. The second is they often read like he has worked out the result and writes a story to create it, not the other way around (which is what true alternative hostory is, you ask what would happen if Germany inivades iin Spetember of 1940, not how can we create a scenario the Germans can win).Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy novels archive - that's a red link, where is it really? Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_99#MILHIST_tags_on_fantasy_novels EyeSerene^talk 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springbank Cemetery Aberdeen

Members of this WikiProject may like to contribute to this AFD on a Commonwealth war grave:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springbank Cemetery Aberdeen

--Mais oui! (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Need serious help with Blue water navy page

The blue water page need to be edited by experts. It has been put through POV pushing. So can the blue water navy page be improved to provide a realistic view of what is what and what is not?Bcs09 (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User Bcs09 seems to be frustrated that their proposal for inclusion of the Indian navy was not agreed with (this was due to lack of sources that were not synthesis) and is indeed the only editor to disagree with the removal of the synthesis, this has resulted in any attempt to argue with the editor as being labelled as "POV pushing". You will find this behaviour also on the great power talk page. The situation however is now under control with a Mediation Cabal request here having been answered and a consensus reached and recorded. This section of the Blue water navy articles talk page explains the reasoning behind removal. Sorry for any time wasted here. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The only POV pushing on the blue water navy article has been by Bcs09 himself. He proposed clearly biased changes to the article which were opposed by several users on the talk page, with only himself in support for his changes. He is quite clearly here now canvassing support for his opposed changes. Quite vivid blur (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for translation help on SEPECAT Jaguar

Hello there. As this involves the military operational history of a military aircraft, I feel it is appropriate to place an appeal to a stubborn issue here. I could use a hand fleshing out the Operational History of the Jaguar in the service of the French Air Force, as this is currently quite small compared with that of the British, and I'm sure this isn't just because the British have been more miliarily active! I noted that the Italian-language version for this subject actually had a seemingly quite thorough history, however I don't understand Italian; thus it is much less helpful that perhaps it could be if the language was understood, so an Italian-speaker may just be able to be quite helpful in rendering justice to the French operational history, in the English-language article (quite a mouthful!). Anybody who has a passing interest/fascination in the SEPECAT Jaguar is welcome to turn up and make a few improvements as well, as a community overhaul is currently underway. Kyteto (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Try [3] 149.171.155.159 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Has the notibility guidelines changed for Generals?

The reason I ask is because I have recently seen several generals articles come up for deletion because they were not notable. I thought that the general rule was that being a general was enough to meet the notability requirements. --Kumioko (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:MILPEOPLE states that Generals are only "presumed to be notable", and not that they're automatically notable. WP:MILPEOPLE itself is also only an essay and not a guideline. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Then, as I understand you this also opens up the gates for the Victoria Cross, Medal of Honor recipients and several other groups that had previously been determined to be notable to be submitted for deletion as well. Especially the ones were there is limited information is available such as the recipients from the American Civil War. I have to say that this bothers me a lot. --Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

On December 3, I was paying attention to the requests to clean up the backlog of unreferenced BLPs and decided to tackle the Milhist list that had about 120 entries. I had re-read WP:PEOPLE but overlooked the See also section which is where WP:MILPEOPLE is mentioned. I mistakenly applied the arguments that I saw in a few different deletion discussions like this one and in doing so, prodded much of what I saw.

(Headslap) It wasn't until 2 days later that I thought to look for the notability guidelines here. I then went back and self-reverted my PRODs (the ones left). I wasted a fair bit of time and sought to amplify the guidelines (essay) here to prevent such a mistake again so on Dec. 5, I promoted WP:MILPEOPLE with this diff and I changed the WP guideline here but was subsequently reverted. I would be in favor of garnering consensus to push this essay toward adoption for the WP:People guideline. That would help clear things in my opinion.

Sidenote question: Is a Chief Rabbi comparable to a general in rank? I had prodded Mordechai Peron thinking that it isn't.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of getting it adopted as a concensus in the WPPeople guideline is a great idea and you would have my vote. I think it would help make it more clear to folks who aren't members of the MILHIST project and who may not understand military ranks or aspects of military notability. --Kumioko (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I swould wholeheartedly support pushing for WP:MILPEOPLE to become a guideline again. Some people asked about it after I wrote that editorial for the Bugle, and I said the same thing then: even though I don't necessarily agree with every single point, I believe that there is weight and consensus behind it that is far superior than an essay. I'm not really sure whey we can't just do a straw poll on the project talk page and promote it?

Also to Kumioko: I have to agree partly with Nick-D, in that not every single officer with stars is necessarily notable. There are a lot of generals and admirals that have had entirely undistinguished careers, and have been mostly (if not entirely) staff officers. There are some that have never even held a command! I figure that stars can't save you if you fail every other of the MILPEOPLE criterion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Which Signpost article? It sounds like this has been tried before and didn't receive support. I'd like to read any archived discussions that you may know about. Not many people weighing in here but then again, it's the holiday season.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

People here may be interested in the deletion debate of a two-star Coast Guard admiral with recent (post-Vietnam) service. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel B. Lloyd. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What would people say to a modification of the guideline? How about, for one and two star equivalents, only those who have seen combat service are generally notable? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean combat service while one- or two-stars, or just combat service at some stage of their careers? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't really have a problem with a general having an article. For one it is a pretty small pool (a couple thousand in the US I would think) people and once they get to that level they usually yhave done something significant whether as a combat commander, command a brigade or even as a HQ assignment. I think we should ask ourselves are we gaining more by having them here or by chopping a few dozen that haven't seen combat? --Kumioko (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) Do you realise how many unremarkable one and two stars the U.S. Armed Forces have created in this century alone? We'd be bent all out of shape if we don't cut them down somehow. It's completely biased towards English-speaking generals/flag officers whose details we can easily get - courtesy of the DOD. So yes, just one and two stars that have seen combat, and I meant in an inclusive sense, at any stage of their careers. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize there will be quite a few and they continue to make more but I think that simply narrowing it to Combat generals is too restrictive. That will capture all the American Civil War, WWI and II folks becuse most of those had combat time at some point but once you start getting into about the VietnamEra that tapers off because they started staying in the rear a lot more and didn't spend as much time on the front lines. This is going to be especially problematic for Navy Admirals and Air Force generals who may be in command of a combat unit but never go anywhere near combat. Such as the General in charge of the B2 Bomber squadron. They fly from Missouri to Iraq and back so the commander never leaves the states. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A blanket requirement for combat eliminates peacetime officers who may've made important contributions in their field. (I can't, however, name any offhand... :( I'm just pretty sure they exist.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like we're coming round to the old adage of judging each case on its merits. I agree, there may be service people who have made important contributions without ever seeing combat, and they might be enlisted folk as well as officers. Similarly, there are generals, air marshals and admirals who appear to have done little that really makes them stand out -- at least nothing that reliable sources have seen fit to record -- except reaching a particular rank or holding a particular position. In other words, if all you can put into a two-star's article is an account of promotions and postings, then personally I wouldn't bother writing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Questionable notability

Here are a few samples to consider:

• James K. Gilman
• John W. Rosa
• David Harrison (RAF officer)
• Michael Palmer (British Army officer)
• Roger P. Lempke

About 60 more can be seen on this list: Milhist Unreferenced BLPs

Do these qualify?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that any of the officers are notable, with the possible exception of Michael Palmer. If we could only write about promotions and posting for him too, his article should be deleted as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So now a three star general isn't notable? I also think its interesting that of the ones on the list you pick the one that is basically a one line stub as being the most notable. If these guys aren't notable as 1, 2 and even 3 star generals because they didn't have combat service then how do we feel about the peacetime Medal of Honor recipients who got the medal for saving a life and not for combat. Or for Michael D. Fay the USMC combat artist? He went to Iraq and Afghanistan but he took his crayons (a little joke there sorry), he wasn't there for "combat". I really see this setting an ugly precedent if we start saying that generals without combat service are not notable. --Kumioko (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, Kumioko, I'm not saying someone isn't notable because he hasn't combat experience. However I wouldn't say someone is notable just for his stars either. For me what it really comes down to is coverage. To take my latest bio as an example, Ian Dougald McLachlan, yes he was a two-star, but that alone didn't compell me to write his article. He had combat experience in WWII as well, but that also didn't do it alone. What it came down to was that in addition to his combat experience in the war, which included wing as well as squadron commands, he did things of interest (meaning of sufficient interest for historians to give coverage to them) as he worked his way up the pyramid of command, from making prescient observations on morale in 1943 and on the purchase of the F-111 twenty years later, to undertaking two major peacetime reviews of the RAAF. If all I had was a list of his promotions and postings to work from, I wouldn't have bothered even if he'd reached three-star rank. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that doesn't make me feel much better. Take into account that probably at least half (probably more than that) of all Medal of Honor recipients from the American Civil War have nothing else notable about them. Take Clinton L. Armstrong for example. He did one thing of note in his life of note and that was receive the MOH and that has limited documentation. That means that the argument could easily be made that a large chunk of the early Medal of Honor recipient would no longer meet the notability criteria. Add to that the very likely possibility the Findagrave site will soon be banned which will leave many of the MOH recipient articles with unverifiable information. These 2 issues combined concerns me greatly having spent a considerable amount of time building up those articles. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, the whole thing where we seem to keep tightening and tightening "notability" leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. Unless Wikipedia's server space is becoming an issue, I don't understand why notability guidelines need to get stricter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that a general officer is necessarily notable. If all there is to say about someone is that they held such and such staff commands, and no-one has ever written anything about them that isn't in their official biography, I don't think they meet the general notability criterion of "several non-trivial mentions in independent works". It is regrettable that the WP:MILPEOPLE essay trys to assert they are generally notable, because the rest of the points are quite good. Medal of Honor recipients, for instance, are a completely different issue. The Land (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, after a long hiatus, if we are slimming WP:MILPEOPLE are we doing this to upgrade it from an easy to a guideline? Presently, as an essay, it says itself that articles still need to meet WP:N in order save itself from a AfD; if WP:MILPEOPLE is upgraded to a guideline wouldn't what is included in it thus make up a special category for those who have served to have an article, outside of those who don't meet WP:PEOPLE? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to accept that. Like I said before, not every flag officer has had a career that is notable. As to altering that point in MILPEOPLE, I'm not sure we need to modify it as "combat" or anything like that, because notability isn't necessarily uniformly divided between combat and non combat billets, as well as command and staff roles (for example, commanding a division in the American Civil War is a lot less significant than commanding one in the Iraq War, and being a general on Hitler's staff was probably more notable than a general that commanded a brigade in Barbarossa). Deleting it owuld probably be better than modifying it because a notable general will always test positive on one of the other criteria anyway (probably commanded a significant body or significant contribution to military history). But more importantly, I'm sick of seeing MILPEOPLE getting bashed in AfDs for being "just an essay" when it clearly has more weight that that (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Honors right now). Right now, it only presumes to say that a person that meets MILPEOPLE is probably notable enough to meet BIO and GNG, but I want it to be a guideline that says notability is most likely to be met based on MILPEOPLE alone. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Being one of those who were involved in discussion when WP:SOLDIER was created I was trying to get the definition of what we in the military community, and those interested in the subject, see as notable as broad as possible, while still making it relevant for an encyclopedia. Originally I had included Command Sergeant Majors and other Senior Enlisted Advisors, however that was seen as to broad, and the community felt at the time (and it probably hasn't changed) that if someone who holds those positions should probably already meet WP:BIO in their own right without needed a specially category for them in what eventually became an essay. I for one see all general and flag officers as notable, as most meet the WP:GNG bar if one looks hard enough. For instance for BG Hilman I have found at least six WP:RS references for him connected to his command of the 81st Armored Brigade in OIF. Only difficulty is that older General/Flag Officers are more difficult to find reliable sources that mention them outside of their command, and seeing as how notable is not temporary, I can see why some say that not all flag/general officers are not notable. Perhaps those who don't meet WP:GNG should be redirected to their last significant command, with a brief (and referenced) bio, in an appropriate section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class ship articles?

I participated in my first review of a ship article (SMS Bayern (1915)) here on Wikipedia. Contrary to a tank for instance, see T-34, hardly nothing is mentioned on how the crew on board this or other A-Class or FAC classified vessels was organized or what the command structure on board these complex military machines were. I looked at a number of ship articles and hardly ever is much attention paid to this aspect. I personally find this an omission. What is the guiding principle here? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not much covered in naval reference works or general histories, probably because explaining it all could require a lot of pages. So I don't see any real ability to add much detail to our articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're lucky to be able to find a breakdown between officers and enlisted men - many references just give the total number of crew. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"It's not much covered in naval reference works or general histories" ??? May I remind you Sturmvogel that you opposed A-Class on Joachim Helbig with the reasoning that insufficient information about his personal life was presented. I accept this but why does this not apply to ships and their crews? That I don't understand. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And I stand by my oppose because you're comparing apples and oranges. For the most part, rough details of a person's life aren't that hard to find, but that's simply not true for ships. I can only think of two or three books on specific ships that cover the crew's organization and duties. Furthermore I've got plenty of books on individual ships that barely mention the crew at all, aside from extraordinary circumstances like acts of heroism, etc. Most historians simply don't care about the crew, being only concerned about the actions of the ship itself. That's not at all true for biographies. You just happen to like working with material (Oak Leaves winners) which aren't fully documented.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said I accept the oppose and I think you were correct to do so. I only bought one book, that is one, uno, une, eins about a person who served on a ship, that is about Ernst Lindemann and Grützner goes into a lot of detail about who was 1st artillery officer, engineer, etc. how the command chain worked, how many divisions of men, who was in charge of what on Bismarck. I just feel that a good ship article should at least attempt to explain the command chain and who are the men/rank responsible for the engine, primary guns, etc. I don't expect to read about who the cook was, or what was served for breakfast, or how many men peeled the potatoes. A military war ship must be a very complex organizational construct to command. To totally omit this aspect due to lack of information is a neglect that I find difficult to grasp. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also raised this in reviews of battleships, and this includes two outstanding comments in two A class and FA reviews where I'm yet to support the article's promotion. While its true that article-length histories of ships generally don't go into much detail on their crew (though this is almost always covered in books on ships), there's a large literature on the ships' parent navies more generally which will probably have useful details but are often overlooked. Moreover, even basic details like how the size of ships' crews changed over time is often over-looked, even though this is normally covered in reference works. I'm a bit concerned that editors in OMT articles are focusing on too narrow a range of topics and sources at times. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, very few ships had sailors like Lindemann who went on to become famous and thus have books written about them. Even then, it's unlikely that those books will cover that level of detail. Bismarck is also one of the most famous (and thus most documented) ships in history; it's a tad unreasonable to expect every warship article to be held up to the standard of information that can (and should) be achieved for a ship like Bismarck. I've read a number of books on Wilhelm Canaris (who served on several German warships throughout his career, including SMS Schlesien) and not one mentioned anything about the command structure, crew, etc. on any of his ships. As another example, I consulted Richard Stumpf's diary (he was a sailor aboard SMS Helgoland for the entirety of WWI), and aside from the names of specific officers and some sparse details on the crew (such as that the ship's complement was augmented by reservists at the outbreak of war, but no numbers), there wasn't much to add.

Speaking at least from my experiences on the German Imperial Navy, there actually isn't a large body of works on the navy as a whole, and those that do cover the Kaiserliche Marine generally focus on the arms race between it and the Royal Navy. Herwig's "Luxury" Fleet has a chapter on the Marine's personnel, but it's higher level, general information that doesn't belong in individual ship articles. I would disagree with Nick's comment that the changes in crew size in a ship's career is well documented. The only reference I've ever seen to crew size changes is Stumpf's diary, and he gave no specific figures. Like I said above, you're usually lucky to get a breakdown between officers and enlisted men. Again, speaking from my experiences, Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945 and Staff's Osprey series are the only works I've found that have an officer/enlisted breakdown for German warships, as well as the augmented flagship crews (though Staff gets this information from Gröner, so it isn't really separate). Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How much detail are you talking about? A mention of the ranks, duties/positions, & names of the senior officers? Down to senior PO? With a mention of how many duty shifts there were? IMO that's not unreasonable to ask for. It may only be possible to do as a generic "Navy Foo ship organization" page, but surely of interest for the uninitiated. (Knowing, frex, an XO is responsible for most of the paperwork, or that there's an Engineer Officer as well as motormen, isn't something I'd expect to be universal, especially when the likes of "Star Trek" treat Chiefs as officers :/ & most people wouldn't know a Master Chief from a Master Chef. ;p) I read Holmes' book on the PacFleet subwar years ago, & his generic explanation of a fleet boat's command structure was of real help, & interest. It took reading O'Kane, & rereading Submarine!, to know who many of the actual officers were, & not anything like all of them were covered. (Blair was small help, either.) Still, where it's known, there should be some place for it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, there's a place for that kind of stuff, namely the type articles like aircraft carrier or battlecruiser. It's not really useful at any lower level because, 99% of the time, it's simply not available, and the numbers and duties change constantly as the ships are modified and thus need to generalized. And I'll reinforce Parsec's disagreement with Nick-D over crew changes. Generally the best I get from my sources on the British and American Navies are crew numbers on specific dates or if she's serving as a flagship, and no explanation for the changes, which must be inferred by the reader. Comments about how crowded ships become as more light weapons were added during WW2 are quite common, but that's only partially related to the topic under discussion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Crew numbers at different points in time are exactly the kind of thing which I'd think would add value. For ships with long careers you can look at different editions of Jane's Fighting Ships and equivalent for this kind of information. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Crew numbers (reflecting changes in tech & weaps aboard) would absolutely add value. As for "that kind of stuff", maybe I'm not reading you right, Sturm. Do you find it hard to locate the names of SOs in ship's histories? (TBH, I've never tried it.) IDK how much beyond that is essential, but a starting ref would seem nearly essential for a really good history. Frex, I can hardly imagine a history of Wahoo not mentioning Pinky Kennedy, Dick O'Kane, & George Grider (offhand), nor the change when Grider & O'Kane left before her fatal patrol. (I'd be adding to the page, if I had immediate access to O'Kane's or Grider's book, btw, now the issue's come up.) And don't the sailing rosters contain these names? (Do RN & KM not do that? IJN no, too? Sov Navy?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There are tons of ships for which I can't find even the commanding officers, much less any other officers. You're dealing with books on exceedingly famous ships; those are pretty much the only ones which have that sort of data, in my experience. Even books on moderately famous warships like don't have that kind of information. I have two on that one ship and neither one gives that sort of data as the authors are more focused on the operational and technical aspects of the ship which is the most common approach for individual ship histories. And even there the information is often lacking. Richard Hough wrote a book on and I can still not figure out what she's doing for the bulk of World War I, along with the majority of the Grand Fleets dreadnoughts, other than at Jutland. And that's after consulting the RN official history, Marder's history of the RN in WWI, and all my technical ship histories. I'd love to be able to add the sort of info that you're describing for the Wahoo, but how much of that sort of stuff is available for the run-of-the-mill Pacific Fleet sub during WW2 if you can't use DANFS or the equivalent?

Sailing rosters? I expect that various navies have such stuff in their archives, if they've survived, but those are primary records, and I can't afford much, if any, archival research.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A German WW2 U-boat was most often commanded by a Kapitänleutnant zur See, occasionally by a Oberleutnant zur See or a Korvettenkapitän. They always had a chief engineer on board, knowns as LI Leitender Ingenieur. A battleship seemed to almost always have been under the command of a Kapitän zur See. I would be satisfied if at least this little bit of info can be found. At least knowing what rank the most senior commander held helps understand the importance of the ship. Even my little sons book about HMS Victory (Lord Nelson) has an org chart like picture in it indicating how many soldiers, sailors, officers etc. were on board. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's HMS Victory, one of the most famous ships in the world. Try finding that information for lesser-known ships... it just isn't available aside from (possibly) government archives. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, Sturm. BTW, not suggesting the burden fall entirely on you for this. (Somebody live in DC close to the NHD? Or Ottawa? London?)

MisterBee has the right idea IMO: even the bare bones is better than nothing. :) I'd only ask, in this instance, "how many officers?" & "what titles did they use?", which is to say, "XO", "Engineer", "Weaps", so forth. The same bare bones would do nicely elsewhere, IMO.

In re U-booten, I'd wager most of their senior chiefs were older guys, in their 40s, if USN fleet boats are any indication. (The fleet boat guys were often in their 50s early in the war.) USN had a real Thing about younger COs, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it safe to conclude that if possible, information about crew structure should be an integral part of a well written ship article? At least the Imperial German Navy Capital Ship Captains can be found in the internet. If this site is not trustworthy it should be possible to verify this info through other means. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the site lists the source for the information "Die Deutschen Admirale by Hildebrand and Henriot and Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe by Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz". MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative, should/can we create an article on navy ship structures themselves so we can link to it? When nearly all reliable sources related to specific ship histories do not include this information, Wikipedia doesn't need to include it either. However, you do have a point in that readers may want more information on crew structure, hence my suggestion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this is a good idea and inline with TREKphiler's suggestion about "Navy Foo ship organization" article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One other thought. To exclude to mention the men serving on these ships gives me the impression that the ships military success or failure is totally attributed to the ships speed, armour and weapons. Surely success is as much attributed to the training of its crew and brilliance of its commanders and fortune in combat just like with any other weapons system. Is it not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as is logistics and (especially from the World War II era) communications and radar equipment. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what is required is articles on how ships were crewed and commanded, especially as for the most part this would be generic across the class (eg similar crew structure on the Queen Elizabeth class battleships at a given point in time) or even across all the battleships of that navy. To put detail on the exact structure in any given ship article would be excessive and noting all the officers would be pushing notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion and it's a valid point. There was a human aspect to these ships and it is not often covered well, either in Wikipedia or many sources. Occasionally we touch on aspects of crewing, tactics, training, doctrine, or discipline - particularly where there was an innovation - but not as often as we should. That said, it would be tedious for every article on a warship to repeat the same kind of facts about the typical crew organisation of a ship of that nature in the period. Equally, an article about (say) Battleships which has a broad historical scope wouldn't particularly benefit from this level of detail, either. The Land (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just think how long it took naval historians to understand that the details of fire-control technology, training and practices might actually be important in understanding how battles were fought in the 20th Century. The "soft" factors like training, leadership, etc., are far less easy to research than the technical details of a ship or airplane, even once you factor in their development history, and tend to be relegated to summary opinions without supporting evidence. And quite honestly, the man, or men, commanding the machines of war, are generally more important than the machines themselves, as MisterBee correctly notes above. But they're a hell of a lot harder to understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There's something to be said for adding the human element to the individual components of a battleship where they are covered eg Fire control systems, where the human element is a very necessary part of describing the mechanism. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

♠I like the idea of an organization page (which is much what I had in mind, actually). Break it out by navy & ship type, or link out from it to such pages, I'd say. (Probably easier to use it as a "master list" page.)

♠"Surely success is as much attributed to the training of its crew and brilliance of its commanders and fortune in combat just like with any other weapons system. Is it not?" It absolutely is, tho individual ship pages FWI've read rarely refleect it. (To take the Wahoo example again, Pinky Kennedy's relief by Mush Morton completely transformed her, but IIRC, the page scarcely notices.) You do see this reflected in the operational level discussion: changes of command between, say, Fletcher & Spruance, or Spruance & Halsey, & mention of different command style (& results...), but it's as if that doesn't, even can't, happen at the individual ship level. (I haven't read the U-47 or U-100 pages, so I can't say if there's an exception for famous aces.)

♠Sturm raises another very important point IMO, & unfortunately :( opens a whole 'nother can of worms. Training & doctrine are critical, but WP is pretty terrible on covering either one. (Historiography isn't strong on it either, FWI've seen, little as that admittedly is. :( ) It deserves way more attention here than it gets.

♠"Equally, an article about (say) Battleships which has a broad historical scope wouldn't particularly benefit from this level of detail, either." I wasn't suggesting it, nor do I think anyone is. I had in mind two cases: ship pages, where we list the structure for the individual ship, with notable officers, & a "type" (or "type listing") page with structure by type & navy. (This may obviate the need for it on individual pages; in any case, IMO, naming officers who served aboard & later became notable in themselves desrve notice on ship pages, in their positions & ranks at the time: O'Kane as XO Wahoo, to stick to the theme, & Grider, who was a Congresscritter; & Mush's TDC guy, whose name I can't recall, dammit, :( who IIRC skippered his own boat, too. It may mean only adding footnotes, so as not to distract from the narrative; this is something I've done on a few of the USN sub pages, which can get pretty incestuous, as small as the service was. ;p)

♠"To put detail on the exact structure in any given ship article would be excessive" With that, I have to strenuously disagree. I'm strongly of the opinion this explains how ships work, & is as much a factor as the engine design or battery caliber, & as worthy of mention. How many readers come here with no idea? And how many of us had to learn it on our own, by inference? (I had the advantage for the USN Sub Force of reading Holmes {is it Undersea Victory? Recall is terrible today :( ), & I stand by his example as the right way.)

♠"and noting all the officers would be pushing notability." I'm not suggesting name them all, only the ones notable in their own right. (To go OT, & a subject I should raise at WP Motorsports, can you feature a racing team without a team manager? The good ones are notable in their own right, & IMO deserve attention. Ship's officers ditto.)

♠"There's something to be said for adding the human element to the individual components of a battleship where they are covered eg Fire control systems" That could be an approach. IMO, tho, it makes more sense to set apart a "command structure" section with capsule duty descriptions, or it's pretty diffuse & hard to follow/grasp, unless you already understand a lot of it. It's the general (uninformed) reader I'm aiming at, here. (Contrary to my usual preference. :/)

♠My two zloty. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me add my opinion that a basic understanding of a ship type's organization of crew over time should certainly be present in the encyclopedia, somewhere. If it fits at the ship type article without overwhelming it, fine. If it needs to be forked off into its own article, fine. If there is good information available about a specific vessel then to fail to include a sufficient summary of it is to fail at A- and FA- class detail. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally an opposed to this initial idea. I've never found much of anything that describes the breakdown of the crew of Austro-Hungarian ships and frankly, I don't expect to. Their service history was generally short in comparison to most ships and thus, most authors fail to add such info. If this was to be required, expect to see all Austro-Hungarian BBs to be demoted to B-class material at best in quick secession.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 03:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it may be a hard verdict but so be it. As I said before, if a military history biography fails at A-class or FA-class due to lack of sufficient coverage of the personal life story then it is only natural that a ship's article fails at A or FA-class due to lack of crew/human coverage. Yes I know that not everyone here shares this view but this is my very personal opinion. Missing vital information should be reflected in the class rating. So it boils down to the question is the human side vital or not in order to achieve a high quality rating on the military history quality scale. Independently a statement like "the info is not available" should not be an excuse for or against a con or pro decision here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, what you are proposing is quite different: you want us to go beyond what most naval sources include. For certain ships (I've seen Wahoo mentioned above, and I could add others like U-505, PT-109, or Indianapolis), there will be an amount of detail availiable on the crew, and this should be included. For the others, it should not be expected or required. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have respect for MisterBee's point that the human side of a naval ship's lifespan is certainly as relevant as her physical design (such as armor and armament). However, given the utter lack of attention given to this aspect in the vast majority of scholarly works, I don't think we can justify altering our criterion for this historiographical injustice. It may indeed be an oversight (of which proportions will vary by personal opinion), but it's so incredibly impossible to reference that we have little hope of realistically every doing so for the vast majority of ship articles. What sources there are are probably going to be primary, and most of the surviving records are probably filed away in some archive that we won't have access to. For example, would you oppose promoting The Art of Painting because we do not know for sure who the two subjects actually depict? Or say we didn't know who actually leaked the Pentagon Papers, would that merit an oppose from you?

I don't want to assume bad faith, but your comparison to the biographical article Joachim Helbig really doesn't seem well-reasoned. I don't think you're holding a grudge, but your judgement might be colored by your emotions here. Please reassure me that this is not so.

And in any case, I think a reader can get a sufficient grasp on the history of a ship without knowing all the nitty details on how the command structure operated. I think a general overview of how each navy and ship type worked is enough (the suggestion for centrallized articles would be more than sufficient for this). The minute distinctions from one ship to the next (and indeed, from one captain to the next on the same ship) would probably be lost on most readers anyway. I think we can easily have FA-class articles without knowing who the chief engineer of a given ship was on a given date, or how many petty officers manned turret number two, or how full the wardroom was. For comparison, the coverage of a ship's armament in most quality articles is detailed, but not the the point of listing the dimensions of the breech block latching pin, or the volume of sediment in fuel bunker number one on a given date. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bahamut0013, I don't see why your opposition is so strong. AFAIK, nobody's demanding the level of detail you seem to believe they are. (I'm certainly not.) Should a page get to A without even mentioning command structure? I'm not sure it should. Should we demand the name & home town of the 3d assistant motormac? No, nor do we. Should we demand a minimum of how many officers, POs, & EM, & how they're arranged? I think so: not their names, not how many are assigned at any one station, just the basics. (Is it so impossible to find how many departments a ship hss/had & what they were?) Neither, AFAIK, is anybody demanding FA include "who the chief engineer of a given ship was on a given date", unless he's notable in his own right, but rather, mentioning he actually exists (& making clear there's a diff IRL between him & the officer in charge of engineering). I would disagree on captains, tho. Command changes are big ones, IMO (as the Wahoo example makes pretty clear; there are others I'm sure could be named). I'd also disagree on "how full the wardroom was", for its reflection of the change in technology & manning: if a ship's organization has to add an officer (or officers) to cope with new systems, as it did in WW2 (& later), that deserves a mention. I don't think we need the names of the officers (absent notabiility), just their existence, since it reflects change in what the ship is capable of. Put it this way: would you omit the design chagnge in GUPPY boats to accomodate new equipment & increased manning? If not, why would you omit the manning being accomodated? Especially if you're aiming at FA. That strikes ma like a page on Fifth Fleet omitting the change between Halsey & Spruance. (And don't tell me "it can't be sourced"; I'm not, rpt not, asking for the names of all the new crewmen, or the numbers of bunk covers.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've written a fair few ship articles (somewhere around 70-80) and I have never seen anything about the command structure of the ship. Like I said twice above, you're lucky to get a breakdown between officers and crew. Most references (Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships series, Jane's Fighting Ships, etc.) give a single figure. Requiring ship articles to have even just the command structure will prevent 99% of articles from reaching A-class. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New incubator initiative

Just to let people know that there is a new incubator initiative World War II anniversary. I hope it receives interest. D2306 (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Great idea and I've signed up. I think that the scope may be a bit too ambitious, but it's certainly worthwhile. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is enough support, then with consensus, the goals may be revised. At the same time with more than four years, some very serious can be made.D2306 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Count me in. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Asian American Military History

Look for assistance with expanding post WWII information on Asian Americans contributions in the U.S. Military. Biographical information has pretty well been covered in the notable Asian Americans who have served, but overall group contributions is lacking, and I have been hard pressed to find articles about Asian Americans in the military after racial integration.

Perhaps Laotian and Hmong who fought on behalf of the U.S. and later became refugees and then U.S. Nationals/Citizens should be included?

Also having a hard time finding information on military contributions of South Asian Americans for the World War II section. Presently I have each ethnicity having its own paragraph for their contributions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you add Laotians and Hmong, you'd also have to add Montegnards, Nungs, possibly Cambodians, and South Vietnamese. For your South Asian Americans question, I think you'd really have to mine into census records and other data to find out how well they were represented at the time. It usually becomes somewhat difficult to track specific group contributions once segregated units disappear, IMO.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough I don't see an article specific to their efforts with the U.S. Military and the Republic of Vietnam during the Second Indochina War. Hmm ... --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing/advocacy

We may have an issue with POV pushing/advocacy by PeterBln (talk · contribs) on various articles (mainly related to WWII Allied "war crimes" such as Bombing of Dresden in World War II). The editor has a bit of a history with this sort of thing and warnings on their talk page going back to April 2008. I'm involved and can't do much about it myself, so I'd be grateful if someone else could take a look.

Sample of recent edits showing advocacy/WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality etc: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 10:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eye, Happy New Year... Yes pretty strong stuff in those diffs. Personally I find much of it either offensive or just plain wrong, the difficulty being of course that there are occasional grains of truth and he also sometimes cites sources (which I haven't checked) and sets himself up as "scientific". If he confined himself to all that on talk pages then it would limit the actual damage, however when he puts his emotive views into the articles themselves, e.g. Portal, they should be reverted and if they go on then he'd be a candidate for blocking. Not being an admin I can't offer any help in the last area but I'd be prepared to watch some of his target articles and revert commentary or other uncited material (with explanation) -- that couldn't go on forever though, and he seems persistent... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't ever been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So am I to be honest - if I wasn't involved that would have been my choice of action. I think advocating the same casualty figures for Dresden as Goebbels and David Irving is indicative that this is a contributor whose edits we may be better without. EyeSerene^talk 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the problem that other editors are POV pushing, and do not like it that PeterBln (talk · contribs) has a different POV and is not afraid to stand up to them.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not share his POV, but there is a sizeable body of opinion in Germany who do. These are not Nazis or extremists. If Wikipedia is to have a neutral POV, then there needs to be an element of compromise, and a willingness to accept the truth.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth, etc. And is the compromise supposed to be mentioning that (to use a general example) some people believe these acts were war crimes, or that these acts were war crimes? Note that five words are exactly the same, but that three words make all the difference between being truly neutral, and pushing POV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It would help enormously if articles had citations for statements made, irrespective of whether you agree with them. If you want to maintain that an act was a war crime, you should provide both citations for the act taking place, and citations for it being a war crime (e.g. what treaty was broken). If you want to maintain that some people believe that an act was a war crime, you should provide citations to back the assertion that more than one author claims this.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked this editor; they'd been warned for this behaviour repeatedly in 2008 yet had continued it consistently since then. I have provided a more detailed explanation on the editor's talk page for those who are interested in the rationale for this block. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for looking at this so thoroughly and to all others above who've provided additional independent reality checks. I find contributors like this are an enormous drain on the time, energy and goodwill of other editors, as much through endless talk-page argument as unsuitable article edits. Once an editor has convincingly demonstrated that they can't adapt to the way Wikipedia works we then have to think about how we protect good contributors - unfortunately in this case I believe an indefblock was the right way to do that.

Toddy1, I don't believe PeterBln was contributing much of any value. To take the example at the Bombing of Dresden article, the cites given by PeterBln to support his case for 300,000+ casualties are based on information that has been utterly discredited because the original source was a forged version of a contemporary casualty report created by Joseph Goebbels for propaganda purposes. Actual casualties are reliably estimated to be an order of magnitude less. The inflated figures were popularised by David Irving's now-discredited book The Destruction of Dresden, which he wrote in order to imply a moral equivalence between Auschwitz (which he claimed saw only 100,000 mostly accidental deaths) and the result of Allied actions. These days no reputable source gives any credence to the higher figures, so to continue to promote them one must have an agenda other than genuine historical enquiry. Therefore it's not actually the case that PeterBln was standing up to other editors by countering their POV, but that he was advocating a POV fringe position that's utterly at variance with our neutrality and reliable sourcing policies. I hope this helps explain the issue. EyeSerene^talk 09:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right - I spent less than an hour looking at things. His comments about the US merchant ship had some merit. His comments about Dresden are completely mistaken, but I have heard reasonable Germans make similar mistaken comments.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Irving's book, which became almost a standard work for a time and he promoted very vigorously in Germany, is largely to blame for the promulgation of the wrong figures. You're quite right to point out that not every edit PeterBln made was problematic though. EyeSerene^talk 11:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Military historian of the Year 2010

I am pleased to announce the results of the "Military historian of the Year" contest for 2010:

• First place: Sturmvogel 66
• Second place: Parsecboy
• Third place: AustralianRupert
• Runners-up: Anotherclown, Climie.ca, Dank, Ed!, Emeraude, Hawkeye7, Hchc2009, Ian Rose, MBK004, Nick-D, and The ed17

Congratulations to the winners, and thank you to everyone who participated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me congratulate all the people nominated and those who won. Recognition of the hard work that is editing sometimes doesn't come often enough: other editors and the world appreciate the work done here. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, very well done and massive thanks for your contributions to all nominated. EyeSerene^talk 09:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

May I just take a moment to say I'm not surprised to see these editor names here as I have observed them putting in a lot of good work around the place. Long may it continue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting canned

The discussion here got me thinking. I've seen nothing on WP on shipboard cooking (or cooking in the military generally). Since films, & "M*A*S*H" in particular, make a point of how bad it is, I'd be interested knowing more. I've seen one TV doc suggesting USN boomer cooks were trained by professional chefs, which I'd never heard before. IMO, this is an interesting & neglected subject. Can anybody add? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read that Australian Naval cooks are trained and expected to be able to produce meals to very high standards (though whether they actually do is another question!). There have been many military mutinies throughout history caused by bad food, and this would be a great topic for an article. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is Category:Military food and Alexis Soyer and the Crimean is as good a place to start on the "scientific" approach to feeding troops. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

many military mutinies throughout history caused by bad food, and this would be a great topic for an article - that could easily breach the policies on banning original research.

Military food is too large and too generalised a topic. Remember this applies to all armed forces, in all countries, at all times. Not useful. If you want to write on military food, I suggest that you confine yourself to one service, in one country, and do so over time; for example History of food in the US Navy, or History of food in the Austrian Army and its predecessors, or History of military nutrition in the United States. You will find that there have been changes of policy over time, both with the messing arrangements, and the training of cooks, storage of food, etc. It would be possible to write interesting and useful articles on this topic, backed by good citations. And if at some times, particular mutinies were caused by changes in food arrangements, well explaining how and why is legitimate. Good luck.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How would what I suggested above violate the policies on OR? It obviously would be if someone conducted their own research on this matter, but there are lots of examples to draw from on in the published literature on military history. For instance, The Oxford Companion to Military History's article on 'mutinies' gives three examples of mutinies in which bad food or promises to improve food distribution played a role (the French Army in 1917, the French Army on other unspecified occasions since 1789 and the Russian Army in 1917). It's article on 'rations' also states that "Without sufficient rations the performance and morale of any military unit will be adversely affected—soldiers will have less energy to march and fight, and more reason to become depressed and querulous. This much is obvious." Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a whole range of articles, including training, catering policy, comparison of ship, garrison, field and operating base provision.

From a UK perspective there are a fair few references from the MoD on training, as military chefs regularly compete at a very high level in catering competition.

That said it is the toughest course in the armed forces, given that none has ever passed it...

(Old ones are the best...)

ALR (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

♠Something else to ponder: does food directly impact morale & effectiveness?

♠Then there's the question, can meals get you killed? 80 I've read one story of an Xmas meal (IIRC) during the Ardennes battle, where the officer in charge insisted on briging in large numbers of hot meals, despite being advised not to for risk of creating a tempting target. He ignored the advice, & the Germans shelled it...

♠And finally, there's the fact Spam was frequently a soldier's last meal. (There's no proven connection, however. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To the first, yes. Given the catering where I am now I'd kill for a decent curry...

ALR (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Military units (and especially armies) sometimes go to great lengths to provide hot prepared meals to troops in forward areas. During the Vietnam War, for instance, some units tried to deliver at least one hot meal a day to troops on patrol via helicopter. That said, a lack of fresh food can also be used to build morale in the short term; Samuel M. Morison's official history of the US Navy in World War II includes a great story of the commander of an aircraft carrier raffling off the last serving of steak and icecream onboard the ship with great ceremony before the crew moved onto C rations. British warships which were repaired in the US were also popular in the wartime Royal Navy as these repairs often involved fitting the ship with American-standard mess equipment, including soft drink and icecream dispensers. In the last year there's also been a debate over whether US bases in Afghanistan should include outlets of fast food chains. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The 1931 Chilean naval mutiny had its basis (in part) in poor food and not enough sugar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting debate about the fast food chains. The boardwalk in Kandahar is quite a sight, although I've never been in KAF long enough to actually stop there, apparently the quality in several of the outlets doesn't compare to the commercial outlets.

The biggest criticism that I hear is that the catering delivers to the lowest common denominator, and it's very monotonous.

ALR (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ice cream reminds me, the USN fleet boats in the Pacific made a real big deal about it. At least one skipper made a point of installing a jury-rigged homemade ice cream maker aboard. I understand there's also a running gag in the nukes over some skippers' choice(s) of flavors, too.... (Some detrimental effects on morale? ;p)

These stories have to be coming from somewhere, so, isn't it possible to collect 'em in one place, as part of a serious article? (I wasn't suggesting we try & cite the menu of the Roman army in 8 BC...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be an idea to collate what you can in user- or project-space and see what you can come up with before deciding on the article('s/s') scope and title for mainspace. -- saberwyn 05:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Off the mark

I just noticed {{Mark-series torpedoes}} this template omits the WW2 Mark VIII, Mark X, Mark XIV, & Mark XV. I'm frankly astonished. Can it be fixed? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to put in in and edit the template.D2306 (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No idea how, or I would... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit of clarification on the template would not go amiss as the US are not the only ones with torpedoes called "Mark ...." eg Mark 24 Tigerfish. I did change the categorization of the template from category:torpedoes to category:weapon templates while I looked it over. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And the fish in question have been added to the template, as well as a 'U.S. Navy' clarification . - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both, & for the prompt action too. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Find A Grave, again

If you're not yet heartily sick of the endless discussions about linking to Find A Grave, then an effort to write down the usual arguments (similar to WP:PEREN) has begun at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. People with a talent for turning apparent mountains back into the molehills they really are would be particularly welcome.

This group is being notified because someone inflicted notifications of previous discussions on you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Markgraf now open

The A-Class review for SMS Markgraf is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Radetzky now open

The A-Class review for SMS Radetzky is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Improving tactical articles

As a spin-off from the think tank discussion on a tactics info box, the poor state of some of our articles on key tactical topics has been revealed. I hope that editors interested in this basic grammar of our chosen subject might be inspired to improve some of these. Just as an example, I've just restructured the article Raid (military), which has huge potential for improvement. Take a look, see what you can do. Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Isayev has some good material on Soviet WW2 usage of Cavalry (later in the war Cavalry-Mechanized Groups) in deep raids. These are more strategic raids with much larger forces, but may still be relevant in the article.D2306 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

By all means put it in - there is already something on Soviet raiding doctrine in the History section. This section probably needs some work to subdivide it better. At the weekend I'll try to drop in something on raiding in Medieval warfare but I'd like to see some other historical stuff like ACW deep raiding, Boer commandos, WWI trench raiding,LRDG. We could do with something on land based raiding generally and I think maybe special forces type raids in general. Oh, and the search is on for a good image(s) that typify raiding activities. Tonnes to get your teeth into if you are so inclined. Monstrelet (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have finished what I intended to do on this article but there is plenty more potential - see Talk:Raid (military) for some suggestions. It is particularly short on anything on airborne ops, if anyone can do that. Oh, and some Age of Sail examples. I'm now going to look at identifying other particularly poor tactical articles - I may return for some help in future Monstrelet (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PROD FYI

The following articles have been PROD'd:

• 10th Air Support Operations Squadron
• 17th Air Support Operations Squadron
• 682d Air Support Operations Squadron
• 712th Air Support Operations Squadron
• 85th Expeditionary Air Support Operations Squadron

You might want to take a look if this is an issue. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I've deleted the notices with an explanation on the various talk pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was the nominator. I do not believe the data given for these squadrons sufficiently justifies their articles at the squadron level. Given the removed prods, however, what I will do is upmerge most of the data to 3d Air Support Operations Group without sending these to AfD. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've worked a little a bit with the squadrons in exercises and they're important players in aerial support of ground operations. I'd really like to see these articles fleshed out, but don't have enough info to do it myself. Considering that each squadron is linked to an Army division or higher-level command, I think that they're intrinsically notable, but that may be negated by sourcing issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have even started on merging/Prod'ing these squadrons if there was description of the important job they do. But right now, there's one line of text describing their mission repeated over about ten separate articles. Only those with military knowledge like us can even decipher that one line of text. Right now, a consolidated entry at 3 ASOG would actually provide more context. Maybe someone will go through 'Certain Victory,' 'On Point' and 'On Point II' etc to fill in some of the material further. That would then produce a good 3 ASOG article, which might be more than a few lines. It would take a lot more than that to make each individual squadron article worth keeping - and I see no sign that anyone is going to explain and research it all. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Scope question

Does the Gulfstream X-54 fall under the scope of the project? It's pretty much a private Gulfstream project; even NASA says that they're not involved with it beyond vouching for Gulfstream to get the X-54 designation. But, it does have that X-54A designation in the MDS...? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The X-## designation IMHO is a publicity stunt on the part of Gulfstream, if what I read in the article is true. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Third Battle of Kharkov for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.D2306 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FAC for SMS Rheinland needs attention

Hi all, the FAC for SMS Rheinland has been open for a little more than two weeks and has received only one substantial review. I would appreciate it if anyone can spare the time to review this article against the FA criteria. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Mughar Ridge now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Mughar Ridge is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Arado E.381 now open

The A-Class review for Arado E.381 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers

Someone has seriously screwed up something, which is screwing up this page. I can't identify the root problem. Can anyone? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The format had been upset by changes at Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Spain. I've reverted those format changes. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Ian Dougald McLachlan now open

The featured article candidacy for Ian Dougald McLachlan 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) 05:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Roza Shanina now open

The peer review for Roza Shanina is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Worth having Army of Observation?

Is it worth having an article to explore the overall concept of an "Army of Observation"? I know there are a couple articles for specific AoO's, but is the broader concept worth having an article for? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say no; anything interesting and general could be incorporated into Field army - it needs expansion. Is there a general article on another language wiki? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Engineers - officer ranks

I've read a couple of articles which make reference to officers within the Royal Engineers holding the rank of Second Captain. Was it an additional rank between Lieutenant and Captain or another name for Lieutenant used just by the RE? NtheP (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not familiar with that one, although I think the RE had a Second Corporal rank for a while, so it's plausible they could have used Second Captain as well. EyeSerene^talk 11:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It may just be a way to tell them apart. In the British armoured regiments each squadron headquarters had a major oic, captain second in command and an extra captain or second captain. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

After 1872 reforms in the Engineers and Artillery, all First Captains became Majors, and all Second Captains became Captains. Previously, the rank of Major hadn't existed. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it explains a lot. There's a short precis of the history of the 1872 reforms in this Hansard extract from 1877. NtheP (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Simon, all, do our articles for Major and Captain (British Army and Royal Marines) now include this information? Would anyone like to help us all out by adding the data so this question does not get asked again at some future point? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned in Cardwell Reforms or Royal Engineers either. If I can get a bit more information I'll try and remedy that NtheP (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

French

We have started a work group for the Canadian Forces on wikipedia-fr here fr:Projet:Canada/Forces canadiennes. Amqui (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/US Military

Just thought I'd let you know... Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/US Military

65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Modern weapons" category discussion

Working on categories, I came across the "Modern American weapons" tree. Finding it a bit...indiscirminate, and with the contents already categorised elsewhere, I nommed them for deletion, but the discussion has been turning a bit. Comments here would be appreciated. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Alan Charlesworth now open

The A-Class review for Alan Charlesworth is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention for the German Infantry/Panzer Divisions during WW II

Currently all the German infantry divisions of the Wehrmacht (Third Reich or World War II epoch) follow the format XYth Infantry Division (Germany) (example 1st Infantry Division (Germany). The infantry divisions of the German Empire era follow the format XYth Infantry Division (German Empire). Wouldn't it be better to have the WW II divisions follow the format XYth Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) to better distinguish them from for instance modern Bundeswehr divisions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the current system causing confusion? I can see the sense in what you're suggesting, and have no real objection to renaming the articles if necessary, but across all unit articles we use a naming system that disambiguates by nationality in the article titles. Using, say, 272nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) rather than 272nd Infantry Division (Germany) no longer indicates that the 272nd Inf Div was a German division for readers that don't know what the Wehrmacht was. Additionally, I'm not very familiar with modern German divisions but presumably some of them trace their lineage from Wehrmacht divisions? Would renaming these be problematic? EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Germany is a generic term and in a very abstract sense dates back to the Germanic tribes. By that token the infantry divisions of the German Empire (1st Division (German Empire) as an example) are also German infantry divisions. The Divisions of the Reichswehr are currently called 7th Division (Reichswehr) (example). The Bundeswehr divisions are called 1st Armoured Division (Germany) (example) but in a category "Armoured divisions of the Bundeswehr" and the Wehrmacht Divisions are called 2nd Infantry Division (Germany) (example). I have the impression that this is not consistent. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with EyeSerene - unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, (Germany) is the clearest option. I believe that the Bundeswehr units claim lineage to World War II-era units of the same name. Using different suffixes might be suitable in any instances where units of the same name don't claim lineage from one another though and we have detailed articles on the units of this name (otherwise they could be covered in the same article). Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting statement about the perception of the Bundeswehr in other countries. For 60 years the German Bundeswehr has tried to rid itself from any lineage of the Wehrmacht. You can see this in Jagdgeschwader 74 naming debate around Werner Mölders, or the discussions around what military medal is awarded for bravery in combat today. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going by the same unit names being re-used (eg, the famous 1st, 7th and 10th Panzer Divisions were active during the Cold War, and the 1st and 10th remain active). Is there some issue where the designation is re-used, but no lineage (in the military sense of the term) is claimed? Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is helpful but we have 51st (Highland) Infantry Division and 51st (Highland) Division (World War I) for two British formations of the same name.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't realised until I re-read it just now, but interestingly our naming guide (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history)#Units, formations, and bases) for disambiguating unit titles actually uses "Wehrmacht" as an example while recommending using the country in more general circumstances where we don't need to be specific. I can appreciate that the German armed forces may be a special case though - as MisterBee implies, there are clearly sensitivities in Germany around distinguishing units that served in the Wehrmacht from modern ones. Whether these should translate across the the English-language Wikipedia or not, I don't know. EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would almost perfer 'Wehrmacht' as the distinguishing suffix. Currently we have World War II panzer divisions as 'Panzer Division' and today's and the Cold War's panzer divisions as 'Armoured Division (Germany)'. I'd rather all have them as Panzer divisions. Also, please pay no attention to the 51st Highland Division example; I spent some considerable time merging all the Brit TA divisions with continuous histories between WW I and WW II back in 2006; it appears I missed that one. The history of the 51st Highland Division should all be in one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I've seen very very little evidence of Bundeswehr formations claiming Wehrmacht lineage. Can you explain in more detail? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm only going by the unit names being reused (eg, in 1989 the German Army included the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th and 12 Panzer Divisions, which were all famous World War 2-era units and don't appear to have been named on the basis of continuous numbering alone). I'd be happy to be wrong though! As EyeSerene notes above, the German military is something of an unusual case given the sensitivities (the same also seems to be the case for the Japanese Self Defense Force, though the Navy has re-used some names last used for WW2-era ships). Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, the continuous naming comes from 2nd Panzergrenadier Div, 4th Panzergrenadier Div, 6th Panzergrenadier Div, '8th Div' (1st Mountain Div - all the divisional units are 8-series) '9th Div' (1st Luftlande Div - all the divisional units are 9-series) and 11th Panzergrenadier Div. Source Armies of NATO's Central Front, 1985. Now actually I have to slightly backtrack here; while doing PhD research I came across accounts of individual regiments of the Bundeswehr trying to create lineage links back to particular regiments, but I believe they mostly tried to use First Reich units. Do we have any German speakers in da house? Maybe we could stick in a question to this page's equivalent in de:wiki. There are prolific pages and pages and pages of German Bundeswehr formations in German - maybe we could ask one of those contributors. Anyway, it's pretty late here in Aotearoa New Zealand (it's now Friday) and I should sign off. Happy Thursday for all of you... Buckshot06 (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, as I said I'm happy to be proved wrong! Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I speak German MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff. MrBee1966, we have a whole series of articles on de:wiki that deal with the evolution of the Bundeswehr Heer through all the different 'Heer-es-structures' (forgive my approximation of the German word) I, II, III, IV, and the later named ones since 1990. Please, if you would, check the contributor links on, say, de:Panzergrenadierbrigade 37, or de:Panzerlehrbrigade 9 - you know, the active brigades today which are most likely to be updated by eager and expert contributors. Ask, specifically, one of them on their talkpage who is the best person to talk to regarding Bundeswehr Heer lineage links to previous First/Second/Third Reich regiments. Would you also mind please putting a general request on the German WT:MILHIST page - linked through the above interwiki talk links? We would all very much appreciate your assistance with any help you might be able to give. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN drive

Just a note:

I think we need another GAN drive, such as Sturm put up a while ago. As of now, there are 45 War and Military GANs alone. As the WikiCup is ongoing, we need someone to hurry and review all those articles. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 02:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a drive proposal currently taking shape at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Floating a drive proposal, where anyone is most welcome to comment. Whether or not this could involve a GA reviewing drive I'm not sure; I know there were some issues at GA about reviewing linked to WikiCup entries. I think we have to be tactful about how we approach that area. EyeSerene^talk 11:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in any real hurry to mount another drive, nothing is stopping people from reviewing articles on their own. (hint, hint)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're not in WikiCup this year are you, Storm...? Me neither, it's going to be nice relaxing year as far as articles and reviews go (well, relatively speaking)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

<over-inflated ego>I figured to give lesser people a chance this year.</over-inflated ego> I'm still kinda burnt out from last year, best to not to play again, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

<critical mindset>Oh really...</critical mindset> About your comment above (with the hint, hint), I think that the volunteers simply can't keep up with the influx and deluge of articles. <over-inflated ego>I know I am a hard worker, starting 3 and finishing 1 in a week.</over-inflated ego> WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a hard worker only because they give you 2 pts for every GAN you do =). WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good for you; I hadn't noticed that you're reviewing because I've been a bit slack doing so myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the Cup's points won't be enough: Just yesterday, 6 articles added to the backlog deluge. And today's are piling up, Parsec already has one in. Not only that, the backlog stretches back 2 months! The volunteers aren't showing up either. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCopter, relax! MILHIST often has 5-6 articles nominated in a day, and commonly rides around 45-50 articles. The oldest unreviewed article is a little over 5 weeks old, which isn't bad, and our articles are never in the five oldest on the page and I don't think I've even ever seen one in the ten oldest. The coordinators are planning a drive to improve some of our start class articles in March, and maybe after that we can think of a GAN drive; honestly, I don't think the backlog is that bad right now. If you're really interested in doing a drive before then, maybe you could post at WT:GAN to see if there's any interest in doing a general reviewing drive - it's been a while since they've had one of those. Dana boomer (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AN which may be of interest

I think that the current discussion about how to deal with POV pushers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sanctioning for POV Pushing may be of interest, as it's an issue editors and admins active in military history articles often need to deal with. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Republic of Korea Navy

{{Republic of Korea Navy}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

template:RNoAF Squadron

{{RNoAF Squadron}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Rising sun.svg

File:Rising sun.svg has been nominated for deletion. It appears to be the Japanese Airforce roundel. `65.93.14.196 (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign photos at Navy.mil...copyright status?

I need some help identifying the copyright status of a photo at the US Navy website (www.navy.mil). Now, I know that photographs taken by USN personnel while on duty and published are released into the public domain (per US copyright law and {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}). However, what about images produced by foreign personnel then published online by the US Navy? The image I have in mind is http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=88829, which is credited as "(Australian Defense Forces photo/Released)", as opposed to the "(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jason Swink/Released)" of http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=88360. Any advice (or directions to a more appropriate forum) are appreciated. -- saberwyn 22:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I found File:US Navy 100710-O-XXXXX-029 The Royal Australian Navy frigate HMAS Warramunga (FFH 152) engages Ex-USS New Orleans (LPH 11) with her 5.jpg on Commons, which seems to have the same background as the photo you've linked. The source tag seems fine but I question the licence text that says "This file is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties" - this clearly isn't the case. The US navy.mil site states that "All information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." ([10]). However, the original photo appears to be this one on the ADF website; this clearly states on its copyright page "All Royal Australian Navy and Department of Defence imagery is copyrighted. You may download, display, print and reproduce this imagery in unaltered form only (retaining this notice and imagery metadata) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your family or organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (for example, "fair dealing" for the purposes of reporting news under section 103B of the Copyright Act), all other rights are reserved." ([11]). Of course we don't know what private arrangements the US DoD may have with the Australian Govt for releasing images, but it seems to me that the image is under a copyright license incompatible with Wikipedia. Furthermore, the Commons image I linked to should probably go. I will ask for a second opinion though! Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 10:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the photo was uploaded by a bot which automatically uploads every single photo posted on the USN's photo website and slaps a PD-US Navy tag on it. I agree that in this case the photo probably can't be assumed to be PD. That said, the Australian Defence Force does provide photos of Australian activities in Afghanistan for the ISAF's Flickr stream which are released into the public domain so this might well be OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, I didn't realise there was a bot behind the upload. Maybe that needs looking at on Commons; the USN site basically says "all these photos are PD apart from the ones that aren't" so it can't be assumed they're all safe to license under PD-US Navy. How would we know if the photo is PD? I couldn't find anything on navy.mil that indicates what "Released" actually means. I've asked Moonriddengirl if she minds taking a quick look. EyeSerene^talk 10:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always assumed that 'released' means that the photo has been published, but that may not be the case. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. I was thinking "released to US Navy" or "released from copyright restrictions", but I don't really know know much about copyright other than what I've picked up from more knowledgeable editors here. EyeSerene^talk 10:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

US Government websites are not always as concientious as they should be about identifying up front which images are public domain and which ones are still under copyright. Sometimes you have to email the site administrator and ask them. Cla68 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that there's cause for concern here. Government websites are supposed to acknowledge when content is under copyright, but, arguably, their identifying a different creator may suffice, since it patently isn't a work by a federal employee in the scope of his duties. Commonwealth Copyright in Australia is not compatible, although of course Australia can choose to release whatever additional images it likes. :) Without indication that they have, however, I think that we cannot presume. In general, the best forum that I know of for "help identifying the copyright status of a photo", though, is WP:MCQ. They've helped me out a few times. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. I figured that the cause would be that it wasn't public domain, but I'll drop a line at MCQ just in case. -- saberwyn 11:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied at WP:MCQ#Foreign photographs published by the US Navy. It is not PD. ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Having said all this, any photo at history.navy.mil is in the public domain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1st Provisional Marine Brigade now open

The A-Class review for 1st Provisional Marine Brigade is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands now open

The A-Class review for Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain

Looking for help on the Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. A user insists that we remove the entry for George Ernest Goodman as he was British and it is an insult to list him in an article titled non-British. He was listed by the RAF as a Palestinian as he was born in the Palestine Mandate to British parents. In the Battle of Britain film he was listed as an Israeli, although clearly wrong, although still looking for a reliable reference for that. Although reliable references are hard to come by he was considered British (the CWGC lists him as British) and according to the user he has a copy of the birth certificate issued by the British District Commissioner (although I suspect he issued all birth certificates in Haifa as he was the civil authority). The user did make a threat to delete it himself and make a formal report, not constructive. Apart from keep repeating the same arguments the user is now saying Any other interpretation can only be considered anti-semitic - as I dont do religion I had to look that up! Not sure if the user has other issues but the article doesnt make any mention of religion. Any help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say he was not British?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• MB1, this is one of those cases where a divided bureaucracy (within the British empire) foul things up for us in the future to pull our hair out now. IMO, I believe that in the zeal to recognise the contribution of most British Commonwealth airmen, the top brass of RAF had made sure that they got their details/facts right but his immigration papers (if indeed those existed back then) or local identification papers clearly stated that he was born to British parents and hailed from the part of Palestine where it became Israel today (did I get this right?), while the CWGC followed standard procedure in stating that he was indeed a British subject. Hence, going by rational thinking, it would be prudent to go with the official account but add in that wee bit of Palestinian flavour later on in his article page, that would make more sense than to slug it out with that crazy one who had threatened you with that silly anti-semitic statement. Just my 2 cents, best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

He does not have his own page. Perhaps he should be in a section of his own, rather then under nationality (and also removed from the list as his nationality is disputed).Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with the battle of Britain film is it doesn't list names and nationalities but just nationalities, so while it is likely that Goodman was intended, it's OR unless the two are linked in a reliable source. I presume calling a Jewish man a Palestinian was considered very sensitive at the time, which is why they went for the anachronistic Israeli. Is the answer to this is in what the British nationality laws were at the time? IIRC, at the time it was down to having British parents more than where you were born. Monstrelet (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure there is any evidanace that he was Jewsh (this also seems debated).Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal:United States

Now that WPUS is up and running and the US Wikipedian's collaboration is rebuilt, I wanted to focus on cleaning up and revamping Portal:United States.

As one of the most active US related WikiProjects I also wanted to ask if anyone would be interested in adding a selected article or biography related to the US military history to the list of featured articles. If not perhaps you could suggest one and I will add it? The article should preferably be GA or higher quality or it may be B class if it is high or top importance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Reenactment photos

Are reenactment photos considered appropriate to serve as illustration for a battle for which no other images are available? I encountered Battle of Richmond and Battle of Salyersville, with most of the discussion at Talk:Battle of Salyersville. A look at those articles would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question! I'd say not. The images on the articles you linked are basically photos of a small number of people in a field; frankly they could be from anywhere, don't illustrate anything (such as deployments, terrain etc) and don't bring any additional value to the article. There's a historical interest and inherent notability in a contemporary image (even if that, too, is just people in a field!), but even if the re-enactment was 100% historically accurate, which would be very difficult to guarantee as sources usually differ and records are incomplete, I still don't believe we need a photo of it. We don't use film stills to illustrate factual articles (we don't have a still from Waterloo (film) in the Battle of Waterloo article, for example). EyeSerene^talk 08:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos of re-enactors are not that uncommon in MILHIST articles- I suspect that this is because, in many cases, they are easier to get non-copyright versions of. While I agree that a contemporary image might be preferable, sometimes a reconstructed image (whether re-enactment or artistic rendering) might be clearer. It's also true that many articles on historical battles use works of art painted much later and with varying degrees of historical accuracy to illustrate them. Wikipedia has a preference for articles with illustrations rather than not but whether there is a general guidance on the need to select illustrations for their historical value, in either MILHIST or generally, I don't know. If not, it is certainly worth debating the project's intentions in this area. Monstrelet (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point you make about using paintings. I feel they're more valuable than re-enactments, again due to a certain notability and interest in their own right, but I too would be interested to hear more opinions on this. EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful about using such photos. AFAIK there is nothing preventing their use but IMO they would add very little to the article other than simply having an image rather than not having one. Admittadley I am arguing more from a sentimental point of view rather than from any basis in policy but personally I think such images would only make any article they were included in seem armaturish. Of course there would be a place for them in certain circumstances (i.e. to demonstrate historical uniforms and equipment etc in articles about such items) however in an article about a battle, personnally no. Somehow, however, I feel paintings are a different issue and agree with EyeSerene that they would be more valuable than re-enactments. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anotherclown. Images such as File:Battle of salyersville.jpg aren't really of much use in articles on battles as the reenactment isn't at all authentic (I don't know much about the Battle of Salyersville, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't fought by middle-aged men clearly having a good time). Images of authentic reenactors are very useful where nothing better is available (eg, for ancient and medieval history) but are definitely a second-best option. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to dredge up an aging point, but I think that photos of reenactments so lack in educational value that an article would be better off with no image. I know reenactors usually pride themselves on authenticity, but the sheer number of variables and potentials for inaccuracies with known and unrecorded history make them virtually useless as a visual aid. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ther is a certain SS re-enactment gruop who are so old and fat they could well get turned down by the Volkstrumn. Its also been sadi that mist ACW re-enactors are consdierably more over weight then their 19thC counterparts. No I don't think they should be used.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Related question: What about the accoutrements, insignias, belt buckles, and flags, etc.. Are accurate reproductions of these items worthy to include in photos? I believe in some cases that a close facsimile of these things could be useful in articles.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats harder. In the SS example above the kit was fantastic, its just what held the kit up that was a joke. I would say that if its an accurate representation then it would be OK, but if its only a close facsimilie the answer would be no (example is the SS kit, it would ot be accurate becasue it was not "as seen in the field" but "as seen in the extra large section),to given another lillustratio there is a WW2 British unit one of whoes female members has copiouos tatoes, not very accurate. Besides why not just use examples from museams?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, close facsimile = accurate reproduction. All reproductions unless from the same molds will be off a tad bit. In some cases, the items may not be available for photos or available to Wikipedians. In some cases, the reproduction may be more accurate than the original as in the case of a Regiment flag. A color-faded, tattered and threadbare original would make a good picture but so would having the photo of a repro to compare it with so you can see what it was meant to be and started out as.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In many cases (such as the ECW) flags often are only known from black and white or incomplete descriptions. As such any "close facsimile" will be (at best) an educated guess, and at worst an in accurate assumption. This extends to uniforms (exactly what shade is cornflower blue?) and even vehicle colours. Yes they can be amazingly accurate, or widely conjectural. So unless it’s produced under the same conditions using the same materials (I remember seeing a highland re-enactment unit with purple jackets because the dyes had run in the rain) by the same methods and to exactly the same specifications it will never be accurate, just an approximation. We might as well do what a lot of museums do and use photos of toy solders; they will be as well researched as any re-enactor.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Campaign boxes: consistency or common sense?

That title sounds one-sided, but the issue isn't. Upon arriving at the Livonian War page, which I intended and now have put up for GAN, I found two navboxes, each of about 10 items - one listing battles of the war, in campaignbox format and presented underneath the article's infobox; the other listing truces/treaties of the war and presented as a horizontal navbox at the bottom. This seemed entirely pointless (although I do now recognise the same need for consistency here as I always have done on other matters) and so I merged them into the latter. The campaignbox didn't add much to the article because all the major battles were discussed in the article. Can it be possible to keep my preferred system, which works better for this article in particular, just at this page? (I don't wish to challenge the use of the campaignbox format elsewhere.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, one easy way of resolving the inconsistency would be to display the new navigation box in campaignbox "format". If you remove the "style = wide" parameter, the box will collapse itself to the narrower campaignbox width, and you'll be able to stack it with the other campaignboxes in the article. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There does appear to be an abundance of navboxes on the article. Anything that reduces the potential confusion while keeping the functionality seems good to me. EyeSerene^talk 10:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Endorse EyeSerene's ideas strongly. Sometimes there are large numbers of navboxes which clutter things and merely repeat information presented in another format. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User:MFIreland and Caubeen

I notice that this user has been discussed on here before for his POV edits to Irish articles, her appears to be doing the same at Caubeen, removing all references to its use outside the British Army's Irish Regiments. Could someone who knows more about such matters than me have a look and see if I'm being unreasonable. Thanks Lloydelliot10 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I will explain to you again just as I have done both on the Administrators' noticeboard and on your talk page, that the Glengarry beret worn by the Irish army is notting like the Caubeen bonnet the British army wear. Despite this you keep making edits about the Glengarry on the article page and adding an image of the Irish army reserve Guard of Honour which has notting to do with the caubeen. On your talk page I explained to you what a Glengarry is and added two links to pictures of the Glengarry. I also give you this link to the offical Irish Defence Forces website page on the Irish Armys uniform which names all the items of their uniform including the Glengarry.LINK--MFIreland • ^Talk 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also consider not removing good categories and adding dozens of citation tags to the Paddy Finucane article. If you have issues with the article start a discussion on the talk page. Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Croatian War of Independence now open

The A-Class review for Croatian War of Independence is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently writing a semi-formal review of the article. ("Semi-formal" means that it is more or less a list of critical remarks, without adherence to a particular reviewing standard.) Also:

• I'm not a member of WP MILHIST.
• I'm a member of WP Croatia.
• I'm Croatian, so I'm rather familiar with the subject.
• I have not been involved in the article's development.

If that's OK, I'd submit my text to the A-class review in a couple of days... GregorB (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, GregorB, that should be fine. Your participation is most welcome (there is no need to be a Milhist project member to take part in our ACRs). Please make sure that you list your review on the relevant page, though, so that the discussion is centralised and so that the nominator can respond to your points there. The page is here. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I've removed the portion of my edit-conflicted post that duplicated AR's response. I'll just add though that the closing coordinator will assess the review against the criteria so comments that are outside the criteria may be disregarded for promotion/failure purposes. However, everything that goes towards article improvement will be valuable anyway. EyeSerene^talk 10:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Originally, I did not have the WPMILHIST A-Class review in mind, I intended to simply post the review on the article's talk page. Since it coincides with the review, I guess the more eyes see it, the better. I'll post it on the assessment page as soon as it's finished. GregorB (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Penshurst Airfield

The Penshurst Airfield article is a current GAN. It's been placed on hold for a couple of reasons. The one area I can't expand myself is its early history as a RFC base. If any editor is able to expand this section it would be greatly appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hitler kidnap plot

Inside out on BBC1 in the South East tonight will have a section of the programme devoted to a plot to kidnap Adolf Hitler and bring him to the UK. Lympne Airfield was apparently to be the departure point and destination of the returning aircraft.

Preview (may only work in UK)

Question is, how can I incorporate the info into the article on Lympne Airport. As Inside Out is only available on the iPlayer for a week, and not repeated, it will only be verifiable for a short period of time. Could this verifiability issue be covered by a message on the talk page. Perhaps a list on Wikipedians in good standing verifying the ref while it is possible to do so? Mjroots2 (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• There was an article on this in Aeroplane a little while back, actually. I believe it was the February 2006 issue? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• My copy has long since been donated to the local surgery's waiting room. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• It was mentioned in the Crosswind column, December 2005 issue. Also in the book The Great Coup by Robert Hill. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that the preview does not work from Austria. But there is an accompanying article with a preview or short news piece that does work: [12]. There are also numerous mentions in various books. Hans Adler 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hans, that BBC webpage is likely to be stable, and thus useable. Will incorporate the info into the article tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You can cite it even if others can't immediately verify it later (I'm assuming it'll be put out of DVD, but if it's reliable, you can cite it no matter what). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This BBC news story covers the 'plot'. It sounds like nonsense to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Programme unlikely to be a DVD release. Nick-D, it is not nonsense. As the programme said, there are records in the RAF archives which verify the story. BBC passes WP:RS by a long chalk so there should not be a problem with the source used. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC iPlayer - available in UK only until 19:59 hrs, 24 January. Plot to kidnap Hitler was the middle of three items. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This webpage give the National Archives reference as AIR 16/619. Opinions please as to the reliability of deradlertag.info as a source. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the details of the plot may have been nonsense (as I recall from that Aeroplane article, alas I believe I've 'donated' it as well, the pilot's name in the message the British received was wrong, and mentioned a family he didn't actually have?) the scheme itself was very real and was given serious planning by the RAF. It was certainly less crackpot than, say, the idea that somebody in Hitler's inner circle would steal a Bf 110 and crash it in Scotland! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, lunatic doesn't mean untrue. Seeing there were serious considerations for assassinating Hitler, a plan to kidnap him doesn't appear quit so nutty after all. And as I recall, there was a serious plan mooted to poison Stalin with uranium oxide in a sword. (AFAIK, it never left the planning stages except in somebody's alternate history novel, tho.) Plus the proposals to assassinate Lenin after WW1. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured List review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1943)

Maybe someone here is interested in reviewing? I had first submitted this list for review in early November 2010. So far two people have commented. Check here. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Category renamings

As part of a overall renaming effort to bring more categories into "X of Y" format compliance, there are discussions at CfD here and here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

5th Air Army

Good day. I think that article 5th Air Army should be splitted into two articles - 5th Air Army (USSR) and 5th Air Army (Russia) (like ru:5-я армия ВВС и ПВО, ru:5-я воздушная армия (СССР)).--Movses (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Was this not the same unit but under different 'ownership'? Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nick; this is the same formation under two different flags. The article is also very short. Movses, please, we'd probably be quite happy to split it if it were long, but right now, it's barely a stub. Please add some more data and we can consider the issue at a future date. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understood. Sorry, but my English is bad, so I can't add information. --Movses (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Alan Charlesworth needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Alan Charlesworth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Military map symbols guide needed

Our articles on military history generally feature maps with unit symbols showing force positions. The maps are much more interesting and useful if you know what the symbols mean. But we should not assume our readers are familiar with those symbols. The only article I could find on the topic is APP-6A, which is at least a redirect from Military map symbols, but it is long (you have to scroll down quite a ways to find out what xxxx means) and reflects current NATO usage. I would suggest making Military map symbols a more introductory article covering the most common symbols, perhaps with discussion their evolution and of non-NATO symbology, and then adding a small (symbols) link to the caption of the first map in each military history article incorporating such symbols, the link going to Military map symbols.--agr (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote Academy/Creating maps for the MilHist Academy a year ago. It includes a detailed symbols template (zoom in fully for the template). Maybe this could help. Rgds. Farawayman (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a useful guide. I'm kind of in two minds about using symbols though - I did on some early maps I created, but have moved away from it since (File:Caumont Gap.svg, File:Hill 262 20 Aug 1944.svg) for reader accessibility reasons. I also found there were potential WP:OR issues when it wasn't clear what type of symbol should be used to represent a formation, and where formations - as particularly happened for WWII German units - were ad-hoc battlegroups composed of whatever could be scratched together. EyeSerene^talk 12:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We have lots of historic maps that use standard symbols, so I still think there is a need. I added the Academy symbol chart File:Template of Military Symbols.png to the Commons category:Military map symbols, which I recently created. Maybe a link to that chart is all that is needed at first. Perhaps we need a template (in the Wikipedia sense) that could be added to captions to create the link. That way we could change the target easily.--agr (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

APP-6A seems pretty useful for this purpose, though its a bit complicated for readers wanting a quick explanation and its title would also be off-putting for these readers. It would probably be worth creating an essay to provide a brief explanation of the most common symbols and examples of this kind of unit. Military map symbols are pretty offputting initially, but I think that can be easily explained. Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As a first move, might I suggest we change the title of the APP-6A to the formal manual name, 'Military Symbols for Land Based Systems,' and to indicate the originator by making the article title 'Military Symbols for Land Based Systems (NATO)'? What do people think?

I would support a separate essay. It could grow to include non-NATO symbols as well as some history of symbol evolution. Renaming the APP-6A article would still be useful, perhaps 'NATO Symbols for Land Based Systems' would be simpler. I'd also like to see that article reorganized to put the unit symbols and unit size section up front, before all the icons which readers are less likely to encounter.--agr (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

APP-6A has been moved to NATO Military Symbols for Land Based Systems and reorganised as per agr's suggestions. Can anyone write an article about Soviet or Wehrmacht military symbols? - I can never understand Wehrmacht symbology. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

US SOF categories

Pootling around I chanced upon 24th Special Tactics Squadron, prompted by that Squadron being listed as Tier 1 SF and the various specialisations within USAF SOF being listed as Tier 2. This is probably a domain knowledge thing, hence asking the question here. Is there any distinction, particularly one that could be sourced, or is this just fairly standard Special Needs Forces competing for who can be more self important?

ALR (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If the articles on US special forces are anything like those on Australian and British SF, no reference will have ever been provided attesting to what 'tier' the units are considered and this 'tier' level will be part of a slow moving edit war between various SF fanboys. Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems the 'tiers' for the US come from here...FWIW. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The terminology has been floating around for a while. It's probably genuine, but (for fairly obvious reasons) there doesn't seem to be an unclassified official list of what classification each SF unit is considered to be. I might get into trouble for this, but I struggle to regard anything written by Oliver North as being a RS. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From PhD research, I can say the tiers have completely official status, and Tier 2 units 'hold the ring' or cordon while the Tier 1units carry out whatever the mission is. Best well known example would be Task Force Ranger in 1993 in Mogadishu; the 75th Ranger Regiment components were intended to allow Delta to carry out their operations undisturbed. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The initial nicknames for the Joint Special Forces Support Group - 'British Rangers' - demonstrate this; the JSFSG was intended to stand in the same relationship to the SAS as the Rangers did to Delta in Somalia in 1993. For ABCA armies the relationships are reasonably clear. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear from the traditional SF activities perspective where I think it's less clear, and what's prompted this, is probably more specific to the US system where SOF embodies quite a lot of routine green army soldiering activities.

Of course notwithstanding all of that where US Army SF really fit in is up for debate, with Delta being the explicit T1 capability and peers of SAS etc.

ALR (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick, the Tier terminology is real and it's used in the UK community, although it's only applied to SAS and SBS. I haven't looked at the SF JSP for a few months but as I recall it's mentioned in there; Tier 1 and SF Support. SRR are a different beast again and don't really fit in to that approach.

What's prompted the question is the article making the distinction between one USAF SOF Squadron, and the others. I don't have a close enough knowledge of the US hangers-on to appreciate where they fit in the system. I guess the issue is that most of the USAF SOF capabilities are stuff most recce troops can do.

The single source used in the article is very weak, and I share your scepticism of North.

ALR (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

ALR, my guess is this: 24 STS keeps on coming up again and again as a rather 'special' STS, rather than the other combat controller/parajumper units. I've seen a number of seperate references to them. I would guess that they did supply the USAF element and support to organisations such as Task Force 145 etc etc, now see Task Force 88 (anti-terror unit). Thus yes and no; they don't do the door-kicking, which will be done by Delta/DevGru etc, but they would be an integral part of the JSOC task force and supply the in-task force USAF liaison for CAS etc. Disagreement and comments very welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately he SF JSP just refers to T1, but doesn't define it.

It's a domain knowledge issue for me, in the UK we train the soldier and marine as a JTAC or paramedic.

The nearest parallel I can think of is probably 18Sigs, where the SF Communicators don't consider themselves as blades, although we've had a handful go on from SFC to complete selection.

ALR (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Friedrich Lauther

Currently, List of Germans has the following entry;

• Friedrich Lauther (1890–1957), General and commander of the German Sixth Army, later promoted to Field Marshal (1910–1943)

Does anyone know if this is a genuine person? The 6th Army (Germany) does not list him as a commander and I could not turn up anything on a superficial google search. SpinningSpark 17:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think somebody's having some fun as I'm pretty sure the entry should read Friedrich Paulus.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Russian Vienna Offensive; Fuh Gren Division

I recently read the article about the Vienna Offensive; When I read about the Fuh Gren Div I couldn't help but wonder if that was a reference to the Fuhrer Grenadier Brigade that participated in the German Ardennes Offensive. I had a copy of the Avalon Hill game : Battle of the Bulge, and the game designers listed the Fuh Gren unit as a brigade. In the game designer notes that came with the game they cited US military and German military archives as references. As a corollary, I read a TIME / LIFE hardcover entitled the Battle of the Bulge; and although it wasn't detailed it did refer to the Fuh Gren unit as a brigade as well ( fought in the area of Bastogne ). I'm not a contributor ( yet ) , so please send feedback to sph180@hotmail.com 71.41.248.20 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the brigade - Führer Grenadier Brigade - says it was upgraded to a division formally but never received the resources to actually reach divisional strength. This accords with my memory as well. It was probably technically a division when it fought the Russians during the Vienna Offensive but you might have to go deep into the archives to find exactly what its strength was in men and vehicles. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Luis Daoiz de Torres now open

The peer review for Luis Daoiz de Torres is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Porton Plantation now open

The peer review for Battle of Porton Plantation is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of German history terms

The German military history task force might be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Bringing a particular issue to your attention. Boson (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-enactment articles

Another of my occasional series of "What is MILHIST's guidance on this?" :) Given the discussion recently in which it was argued that it may be better to have no illustrations rather than use re-enactment photos because of their low historical value, should articles on re-enactment groups or events be tagged to MILHIST? If yes, what are the governing criteria? A recently assessed example would be Tewkesbury Medieval Festival Monstrelet (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles McGee

I started a stub on Charles McGee (pilot)‎, one of the Tuskegee Airmen. Please help to expand it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

{{WWIIWesternDesertCampaign}} at TfD

I have nominated {{WWIIWesternDesertCampaign}} for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:WWIIWesternDesertCampaign. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

US Navy in Fremantle during WWII?

Does anyone here know where I might find more information about the presence of the US Navy in Fremantle during World War II? Specifically, the buildings they built while they were here. There is a warehouse on Cantonment Hill, and a laundry building next to the Arts Centre; that's all we can think of. The latter may be about to be demolished, and I'm just trying to marshall a bit more of its history. Just thought I'd ask.  :-) Thanks! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 11:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There's some information here and here, though not very detailed (and it may not qualify as WP:RS). Have you tried contacting the Fremantle History Society? There's an email link here. Sorry I couldn't find much more, though maybe you'll have more luck with some of our knowledgeable and helpful Aussie members. Normally you can't throw a rock around these parts without hitting one... :) EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene! I'm reading through those sites. I'll also try to get down to the Army museum this weekend, see if they know anything (although, last time I went there, they didn't even know that the US Navy warehouse on Cantonment Hill wasn't Australian!). Hopefully, I'll find some reliable sources. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 13:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The standard work on the US Navy's submarines in World War II is 'Silent Victory' by Clay Blair. It has lots of information about USN submarine operations from Fremantle (so is good for providing context) but very little about their support infrastructure. U.S. Subs Down Under. Brisbane, 1942–1945 covers the operations of American subs from Brisbane and, from memory, does go into considerable detail about support infrastructure. It might have something on Fremantle and/or references on this you can follow up on. The other main US Navy unit in Fremantle during the war was Patrol Wing 10 which operated PBY Catalina flying boats. I think that it operated from the Swan River, but am not sure where from. It's still active [13] so you could try contacting the unit to see if it has any information. If you haven't done so already, it might be worth contacting the Royal Australian Navy's Sea Power Centre and the Australian War Memorial's Research Centre as well. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Australian War Memorial's collections database also has lots of photos of Fremantle during the war so would be well worth looking through, though from a quick skim they're mainly of the artillery batteries in the area. This photo from the AWM shows USN subs at Fremantle shortly after they first began to use it as a base. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Western Australian Maritime Museum[14] may also be worth contacting, as this would likely come under their scope, and I recall from sonewhere that the slipway hosting HMAS Ovens was used by USN subs during the war. -- saberwyn 23:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Christie's subs also operated out of Exmouth Gulf, & there were facilities built there. In the main, they relied on the tenders, not shore facilities, tho, so elsewhere, IDK if there'd be much. Also, recall 7h Fleet was involved; whether that was more out of Fiji & points more distant, I don't recall. Might give Roscoe & Holmes' books on sub ops in WW2 a look, & of course Morison. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your suggestions; I'll chase things up this weekend. I've just read an article by Lindsay J. Peet, a "defence heritage consultant" here in WA, which mentions a "USN 1944 Facilities Report for Fremantle and Perth" and says that "by September 1944 at least 22 buildings had been constructed on the site". I've emailed him to see if I can republish the paper on the web (he wrote it as a submission to Council), and I'll try to get a copy of the report (perhaps for Wikisource?). — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 03:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the paper: http://fremantlesociety.org.au/blog/2011/01/21/interim-report — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Better quality than domestic? Huh. Reader's health warning, tho: his claim for Freemantle boats sinking more (unless he's limiting to WPac, which isn't clear) isn't borne out by the stats in Blair. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think that the statement that the base at Fremantle was almost as big as that at Pearl Harbor is incorrect. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The report that Peet talks about in that paper is now online at Wikisource:Index:Base_Facilities_Report.djvu. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 15:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

500 FAs

Congrats all on MilHist achieving a target of 500 Featured Articles. Well done Nick-D on being THE ONE to hit the magic number with Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) (and Rupert as coord updating the showcase)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, January is shaping up to be an excellent month for FA and A class promotions. Well done to all those that have contributed to this process. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

...and we're already up to 503 FAs! Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; congratulations to everyone who has contributed to our reaching this milestone! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I dare we say we have our editorial for this month :) This would be an outstanding article for the bugle. And Yes, Congrats to all who helped make this dream a reality. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent news! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! This might be something worth mentioning in the next Signpost as well. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, and a big "thank you" to all our article writers! EyeSerene^talk 15:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

...and reviewers! Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of our great reviewers, it'd probably take only one or two more to get a decision on Ian Dougald McLachlan before the end of the month (no vested interest here of course!); Action of 1 January 1800 looks like it's due for promotion already... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Croatian War of Independence needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Croatian War of Independence; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am having trouble with loading this article fully (bad net connection my end) so I haven't been able to review the sources, check the image licences or fully read the prose. From what I can see the article has promise (from what I can see of it) and it would be a shame for it not to get the full treatment, so I'm wondering if anyone would be able to do a technical review to assist me (of course, all other comments welcome too). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Coalition Militia

Is there an article on this term somewhere. It is mentioned in a lot of War in Afghanistan articles[15] but there is little about who they are and how they are related to other groups in Afghanistan. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a vague US military PR label which is attempting to lump a number of different groups together. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably more likely to be sloppy journalism. The coalition is generally quite tight about specifying which of the various insurgent groups is involved as they're each quite different in their approach to CivCas and tactics.

ALR (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Nick-D is correct and it is roughly comparable to 'Anti-Iraqi Forces,' a term used by MNF-I. It's an early term though, I haven't seen it around for some time. We would be wise to break down each reference to whatever regional militia/AQ/Taliban/warlord group is meant in particular. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Third Battle of Kharkov

Due to lack of comments in the review, the article is now a FARC. Any comments, votes, improvement suggestions welcome here. D2306 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

References without page numbers.

Many references at Military history of Germany point to entire books without page numbers. I am asking for opinions on whether this is acceptable at Talk:Military history of Germany#Page numbers. (Hohum ^@) 19:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO: References without page numbers are OK for up to B-class. For GA, they would only be acceptable if there was a link to the direct cite mentioned on Google Books (sometimes "snippet view" books have previews that show juicy information but, oddly, don't give a page number); if not, then it's a no-go. And page numbers are absoultely required without exception for A-class or FL/FA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that references without page numbers are acceptable in any circumstances. Such references are almost useless to people seeking to use the article as a starting point for other research (which is one of Wikipedia's main uses) an don't meet WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Nick here, I think page numbers are essential for WP:V. Having said that, apparently some editors do not hold this opinion, even at GAN. Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not provides some counter arguments. I do not personnally agree with this, but list it here in case others wish to have a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Page numbers is horribly worded. "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited. For example, in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book as a whole."

Ambiguous / non-specific / contradictory. (Hohum ^@) 01:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There are times when the book in question isn't handy for finding the p#... Isn't some cite, especially when the claim is being challenged, better than removal? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As I noted, if there's a link to Google Books, even without a page number it's verifiable. That said, page numbers should always be included, but their not being there isn't going to be something to panic over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

While I think page numbers are ideal and should be encouraged, we have so many articles with inadequate references (number, quality) I'd hate to think someone was going to start removing them. A vague reference to a book is more verifiable than a citation tag. Sometimes if you are trying to put citations into someone else's work, to actual work out the book they are using is all you can do, especially if you don't have access to the book. The idea of placing this as an A class standard I think is sound but, even then, there are IMO legitimate reasons to not cite page numbers e.g. when refering in a biography to authorship, refering to a scholarly dispute where the thesis of a protagonist is developed across a published work (for example, if I was refering to Luttwak's theory of late Roman defence strategy as a whole, I may not pick out page numbers unless I was discussing details of his argument).Monstrelet (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Something else to consider is different editions/versions of the same book, can have the quote on a different page depending on editing. I agree the page number is required. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've raised a similar point at Template talk:Cite book that with the increasing number of books available electronically, ways of recording location within them need to be looked at, most of the commercial ebook readers don't give page numbers. NtheP (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Monstrelet, I wasn't considering removing the references, just tagging them with {{pn}}. (Well, I have already done this, but it was reverted, hence this discussion). I also agree that there are times when references to an entire book is ok, but not in this case. (Hohum ^@) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding {{pn}} when there is no page number seems reasonable to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs

Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs is a quagmire sinking deeper and deeper. Currently, there is a dispute about captions added to two images in the article which attempt to "illustrate" the differnces between the two approaches by listing the casualties in the captions! It really needs attention from editors experienced in handling controversial material in a neutral manner. I'm seriously considering taking the article to AFD, but my philosophy on AFDs is to try to make a genuine attemt to "rescue" an article first, with an AFD as a last, not first, resort. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Having waltzed this particular waltz twice before I can speak from experience that afd should be the firs stop, not the last. I went ahead and filed for deletion; if the article survives the afd then we can talk about what to do with it.

Correction: this is actually the fourth time I have waltzed this particular waltz, not the second. Twice on the Iowa class page (one in 05, the other in 07), then with the King George and whatever counterpart battleship class they were compared to, and now this. At least with the carriers I'll get a little variety for a change :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Iskra now open

The A-Class review for Operation Iskra is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Russian battleship Rostislav now open

The A-Class review for Russian battleship Rostislav is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Horatio Hornblower

FWIW, I've made a few proposals at Talk:Horatio Hornblower that you may be interested in. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Kent Airfields template

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Kent Airfields template on the desirability or otherwise of a navbox for Kent Airfields. Members of this WP are welcome to comment. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Divisional navboxes

At the moment, there's three or four approaches to having navboxes on divisional articles.

1. None at all. This is the case wth many non-Anglosphere nations (France, USSR, etc).
2. Series - an old-style two-link template which takes you to the divisions "before" and "after" in sequence. See, eg, 76th Division (United States). All American divisions are done this way, I believe.
3. Per war - all the divisions from a particular country in a particular war are grouped together in a navbox, potentially with multiple instances for long-lived units. Australia has WWI and WWII templates; the UK and Italy have WWII only.
4. Complete - all divisions of that nation. Currently, only Canada - a template listing both WWI and WWII - but also Germany if we treat the Empire and Nazi Germany as seperate instances.

To me, #4 seems better than #3, and either undeniably better than #2. I've been toying with the idea of making some large "complete" templates, split up chronologically and by whatever other means seems appropriate - the problem is that they can rapidly become a bit outsized, but judicious use of collapsing seems to fix that. A UK-oriented draft is at User:Shimgray/scratch (currently covering WWI, WWII and "modern"; the pre-1914 & 1945-1990 periods will be added once I've figured out how best to organise them.); a US-oriented version will be forthcoming if people think it would work!

Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 12:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that #4 is best.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The series idea makes no sense to me since there is not necessarily a link between two divisions in this way unlike for instance office holders. I'm guessing the lack of a navbox for British divisions of the Great War is just a lack of interest in drawing one up - and with 80 items to fit in it's no quick job. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think navboxes are necessary - that's what the category structure is for. Bear in mind for the Soviet Union you would be talking about 400 plus rifle divisions, in total some 2,000 divisions if you count the divisions formed, destroyed, and reformed (multiple times), plus hundreds of artillery divisions, AA divisions, etc, and for 1945-91, 250+ motor rifle and mechanised, and 50+ tank divisions, not counting artillery and airborne... See List of Soviet Union divisions 1917–1945 to get some appreciation of the scale of the issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact that we have such navboxes (and they're still slowly being created) does seem to suggest people find them at least partly useful! The category-versus-navbox debate is a long-running one, but personally I don't see the harm in having both - categories are in some ways more powerful, but they don't have quite the same quick-reference practicability, especially for things in closely-related subcategories which you'd otherwise need to navigate to. You're right about the size issue, though; things like {{Infantry Divisions of the Wehrmacht}} are absurdly daunting to open up. I think this is where the section-collapse functionality comes in handy. Shimgray | talk | 22:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dashes replacing hyphens in war-names

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposal_to_stop_these_replacements_against_the_naming_policy though other sections of the same debate, and on related talkpages, address the dashing of war names, which has proceeded by way of speedy renaming allegedly in accordance with MOSDASH/MOSHYPHEN.....it's argued that Greco-Turkish War can be hyphenated because "Greco" is not lexically dependent, but if it were "Greece-Turkey War" it would be "dashed" even though the context is exactly the same. This argument began over the mis-application of dashes to geographic hyphenated names but wars are another example where the DASH policy has been somewhat dictatorially applied without consideration to either the sources ("MOS is more important than the sources", goes on OR-cant argument), standing conventions, or any kind of consistency....there has been a minor adjustment to ENDASH because of the geographic names, but nothing to specify that proper names of wars are still names (that capital-W "War" word makes them so) and the dash-defenders are digging in their totally illogical and SYNTH heels maintaining that Wikipedia's self-concocted typographical standards are more important that reality, the sources, or anything anyone else has to say to try and get these corrected.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft now open

The peer review for World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Marine Corps War College

I am trying to create either a stand alone page for the Marine Corps War College, or increase the amount of information available through the Marine Corps War College link under the Marine Corps University page. We have attempted this numerous times over the last year and it continues to be deleted. I was directed to get in touch with the Military History WikiProject to get this posted in a manner that does not violate Wikipedia's advertisement stipulations. I have attempted to contact user's Bahamut0013 and Looper5920 and have received no response. The page and articles are already created, I just need some third party assistance to get it posted so it will not be deleted. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The best way to contact me is via emial so I can show you what I have and get everything done. My email is JARED.DALTONUSMC.MIL. Thank you.

138.162.128.52 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Jared

I have contacted Jared and will try to facilitate this. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Buckshot. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, damn! I've had an email for him sitting in my outbox for weeks now! I'll have to resend it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Towton now at FAC

Hi all. After going through an A-Class assessment, the Battle of Towton is now at Featured Article Candidates. This article is about the "largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil" (29 March 1471). It should be an interesting read for all. Any suggestions on further suggestions and comments on its qualifications to be an FA are welcomed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Towton/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

BCE/CE over BC/AD

Hi

Considering it now seems common practice by professional historians and universities to use BCE/CE in favour over BC/AD; i propose that Wikipedia hold a community wide poll to gain consensus if we, the editors, should do likewise? I.e.:

A) Community wide usage of only BCE/CE (in part due to the religious connotations BC/AD hold, that are not used or accepted by the entire world considering the English wiki appears to be the flagship, of the various language wikis, and accessed worldwide by a range of people of different races and creeds (thus the removal of any perceived discrimination and an increase in accessibility))

B) Retain the current status quo (Retaining the ad hoc use of both or none across articles with some articles employing both systems. Overall a lack of consistency is shown across the project and in some cases BC/AD seems inappropriate for articles, for example, that deal with religious-historical articles that are not related to Christianity.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• This was beaten to death at CfD recently. The consensus seems to be that "[changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE is] a solution in search of a problem" that will only cause discrd in the community. And I still don't understand how BC/AD is "inappropriate" for anything; after all, the year 0 and the reason for selecting that year as 0 remains the same whatever label you put on the date. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that your points are strawmen that do not deal with the issue:

A) The current calendar is the only one that is globally and universally used and accepted, with no alternatives put forward to replace the whole system. As the article on this issue states and to paraphrase Kofi Annan, the calendar has lost his religious meaning and it is for everyone regardless of faith. Hence what the year zero represents is a non matter.

B) Two thirds of the planet are non-Christians, how can a claim be made that BC/AD are not inappropriate when they are imposing one religious model on a now universal non-faith based calendar system i.e. events/battles etc deeply significant to religions or to movements that were anti-religion (the French revolution for an example) be dated to xxxx AD etc, not to mention tribal movements or rock formations that happened thousands/millions of years prior to organised religion.

C) If one is only holding a solution and searching for a problem: it ignores why this change has started to be made by professionals etc

BCE/CE completely neutralises the calendar. So instead of some, essentially backwater discussion, on CfD why not hold a poll and democratically find out what the editors across the spectrum of the various history projects think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#AD_Vs_CE_Discussion for the most recent discussion of this. Any discussion on this topic should probably take place there, as that page is the manual of style subpage for date formatting. Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is probably a better discussion for the MOS page, but just leaving my thoughts here -- using BC/AD is problematic because of its overtly Christian undertones. For historians of any other religion or writing for any other audience, using BC/AD over BCE/CE can even be offensive. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Which I find bizzare seeing as for years (no pun intended) nobody had any problem with it. And for those of us who are offended by the use of BCE/CE instead, well, tough luck, I guess... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal, and so far, hasn't managed to garner support either way for a change in policy. Like many other norms/traditions/common practices that are disputed, all we can do is be consistant within an article, and not change it without a reason actually related to the article itself and not simply trumpeting "x is better than y". bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to trumpet this, just remarking on what I've heard and learned. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Article creation request → please read

Hi WP:MIL, I have a request for an article creation that I'd really like if one of you made. The article is for Elliott Loughlin (full name: Charles Elliott Loughlin, but his wp:commonname was Elliott). You see, I'm a big contributor at WikiProject College Basketball, and Elliott Loughlin was selected as an NCAA Men's Basketball All-American as a senior on the Naval Academy's men's basketball team in 1932–33. I was about to create the article myself since I am in the process of systematically writing every consensus All-Americans' article, but I stumbled upon this reference for Loughlin. He seems like a certified hero, but I am completely clueless as to standard WP:MIL page formatting, how to use your infoboxes (moreover, which infobox to use in this case), and what these medals/awards even mean.

If someone could write his article and entail all of his military information, including a military infobox, I would gladly step in and write the entire section of his collegiate basketball career, since that is a very notable part of his life. I am extending this request as a small collaboration between our WikiProjects in the hope that it can produce a very good, interesting article on a clearly notable U.S. Navy officer/basketball player. What are everyone's thoughts? Jrcla2 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What is an alliance ?

I'm a bit surprised by the title of the article Abbasid–Carolingian alliance. The lead says that the alliance was "attempted and partially formed". Moreover, I could not find any scholar results [16]. In French I did find a scholarly article from 2002 called "Les Carolingiens et le califat Abbisside" (I'm trynig to get access to the full texte). The article uses words like relations and connections rather than alliance. As I'm not a native speaker, I would welcome your expertise in that matter. --Anneyh (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The information of the first page is that there were peaceful contacts between the two coutries between 751-840AD, but surprisingly no arab sources ever mention it.D2306 (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's been in the article since it was created in May 2009; the editor responsible, Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs), is still active and editing the article so if you're unsure about the phrase why don't you use either the article's talk page or that of the editor concerned? Nev1 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I raised the point here because I think title issue is more general than just an article, it needs consistency throughout the domain. I admit I forgot to check whether the creator of the article was still active, that's really good he is. I now raised my question on the discussion page of the article. And I also got the full article from Jstor (now I need to read through the 21 pages). --Anneyh (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We've had similar problems before with articles by this author -- see the talk page of Franco-Mongol alliance, the related Arbcom case, etc. User:Elonka may be a good person to talk to for cleaning this article up. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I'll get in contact with this user. --Anneyh (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(replying to query) The time period being discussed is just on the fringes of PHG's permanent topic ban. That ban is mostly related to the Crusaders, Mongols, and interactions between the two cultures. The article that Anneyh brings up is not directly Mongol-related, since it's 8th to 9th century, and the Mongols were not even in the area until a couple hundred years later, but the Abbasids did eventually have major interactions with the Mongols (since the Mongols wiped out the Caliphate in 1258), and the article in dispute is again on the matter of relations or an alliance between the Franks (aka Crusaders), and non-Franks. So a case could be made that this article falls within the realm of the topic ban, especially if there are disputes over the "alliance" question. Hopefully the dispute can be resolved through normal means, but if the problems intensify and seem to be being exacerbated by PHG, it might be worth filing a report at WP:AE and get other eyes on the situation. I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, please let me know and I'll try to offer a statement. --Elonka 03:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A-class Recognised Content - gone?!

For some reason it seems the bot removed all A-class articles from the Recognised Content pages. Was it supposed to do this? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Has anyone linked the bot operator here? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd check here first just to be sure it wasn't planned. I'll alert the botter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes & no. The bot did exactly what it was told it to do, but what it has been told to do in the past is probably not what you want anymore and you need to update the bot instructions. For example, on the Military aviation task force page, the instructions to the bot are to list the A-class articles from Category:A-Class Military aviation articles, but the correct category appears to be Category:A-Class military aviation articles (the others also have a similar change in case). I'm not sure where this changed occurred ({{WPMILHIST}} doesn't have any recent edits, but it's a complicated thing with sub templates), but when the categories or templates change names, the bot needs to be told. As I don't know your projects, I'll leave it to you to check the bot settings and update appropriately. Let me know when you have and I'll re-run the bot against them. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the detailed reply. I corrected the category link on the Military aviation TF page. -fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ran it and the page has been updated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)