Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Peer review request for Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq

There's a new peer review request for Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unorganized Hawaii State Militia

I speedied Unorganized Hawaii State Militia on the grounds that there was no assertion of notability. However, when I went to delete the Talk Page, I noticed that it was tagged as being under the purview of WikiProject Military history so I figured I would restore the article and ask here first. Anybody want to argue for or against keeping this article? Please answer on Talk:Unorganized Hawaii State Militia.

--Richard 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for American Gulf War Veterans Association

There's a new peer review request for American Gulf War Veterans Association that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 11:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

  • 20 September 2007 - expires 25 September
    • Individual augmentee policy (PROD by User:EvilCouch; PROD nominator states: "There are no references and likely there won't be any. A Google search turns up no results whatsoever, with the exceptions of WP pages." Excerpt: "Individual Augmentee is the term used by the Department of Defense for the controversial program that takes Air Force and Navy personnel and transfers them to the Army to 'augment' combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 19 September 2007 - expires 24 September
    • Tony L Sturm (PROD by User:Phgao; PROD nominator states: "not notable, is a service person" Excerpt: "After his death, an award was set up in his honor to acknowledge individuals exhibiting the same character and professionalism that he embodied during his service with the U.S. Air Force.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move for "Occupied Japan"

I have just begun discussion towards possibly moving the article Occupied Japan to another of several options of titles which include the word "Occupation." Everyone has different ideas and impressions based on what they've read and heard, but it is my experience that terms such as "the Occupation", "the Occupation of Japan", "the American Occupation" and "the Japanese Occupation" are far more common than "Occupied Japan" to describe this period. Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Occupied_Japan#Requested_move. Thanks. LordAmeth 22:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Generalizing {{Infobox Government agency}} to handle more than just agencies

Hi everyone. I just made a proposal at {{Infobox Government agency}} to generalize it to handle more than just agencies. In a nutshell, it would move the code to {{Infobox Govt Unit}} and then the agency template would call that. For non-agency pages, they could just use the more general {{Infobox Govt Unit}} instead of the agency template {{Infobox Government agency}}. This will allow all of the articles on government departments, offices, bureaus, commands, administrations, and programs to have a standard infobox, instead of just agencies. Right now this template is used in departments and offices (for example United States Department of Defense), but with incorrect subtitles (i.e. it labels it as an agency instead of a department), which my proposal will fix. I'd appreciate people reading the proposal and commenting on it at Template talk:Infobox Government agency#Proposed new version. Thanks, --CapitalR 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that he's finally raised it at Template talk:Infobox Government agency, as it appears he has finally realised that edit warring without discussion (which has led to the template's protection) is not a productive undertaking. Orderinchaos 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Admiralty Islands campaign

There's a new peer review request for Admiralty Islands campaign that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 00:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for B-52 Stratofortress

There's a new peer review request for B-52 Stratofortress that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ACW Portal up for Portal peer review

Please comment or participate in helping make a portal that features this project's content make it to featured portal status. It's only a good portal because we're churning out great pagespace. BusterD 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Colmar Pocket

There's a new peer review request for Colmar Pocket that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

image copyright tags

Hi there, a template relevant to this project was deleted as an alternate was deemed adequate. I volunteered to take care of retagging if the template was going to be deleted, and then I went and got myself a full time job :) Most of the images should simply need a retag to the other tag, but they also need checking to make sure they aren't copyvios. Would people on this project be willing to take a look at the images[1] that have the to-be-deleted tag and take the appropriate action? Thanks so much! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 01:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of British and United States military ranks compared

An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and United States military ranks compared. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tet Offensive now open

The A-Class review for Tet Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle Assembly

There's a new peer review request for Battle Assembly that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

SOF Mafia

Hello. I have come across the article SOF Mafia while watching new articles for COI issues (this was created by User:SOF Mafia). It is ostensibly an article about the US military but I don't know what to make of it. Would you guys have a look at it please? Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) now open

The A-Class review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of possible interest

Commons:Image:In the Navy Yard of Puget Sound - 1900.jpg

It would not surprise me if someone on this WikiProject could improve the description or categories for this image I recently scanned. It also would not surprise me if the image (or some portion of it) is of use in some Wikipedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) now open

The A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident now open

The peer review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident now open

The A-Class review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for C-5 Galaxy now open

The A-Class review for C-5 Galaxy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment now open!

A peer review for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open here. Your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated! Thanks, Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil War Regiments Naming Convention

There are currently about four or five principle ways in which articles relating to Civil War regiments are named, including: 1st Ohio Infantry, 1st Regiment Delaware Volunteer Infantry, 32nd Regiment of New York Volunteers, and 1st New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment. I'm sure that isn't all of them. I understand that there are a few cases where specialized naming conventions are appropriate, such as 1st Louisiana Native Guard, but I would have to believe that after some concesus, we can come up with a standard naming convention for the approx. 400 articles (or more) which cover Regiments of the American Civil War. I believe that in most cases, 1st New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment would be the more formal and correct way to title, but I am curious what other historians think. Thoughts?--Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force asking for input. Kirill 22:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
For reference, the formal convention (WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME) merely states:

An article about a unit or formation should be placed at "Name of unit (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit belongs, or, for units that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature.

I'm not really sure which of the two cases is best applicable to these regiments, though. Kirill 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The variations in names are generally because these were regiments authorized by state legislatures and each of the states had different standards for naming the units. Although it is obviously appropriate to include the formal, legal name inside an article, it would be great to have a common naming convention so that authors of battle articles can easily link to them. The most common way in which modern authors referred to these units is
ordinal-number   state   combat-arm   [optional: Regiment]
So, for example:
  • 1st Minnesota Infantry [Regiment]
  • 2nd Virginia Cavalry
  • 10th New York Heavy Artillery
and then subsequent references to those units often omits the combat arm if no confusion would result. So my recommendation would be to use this naming convention for the title of the article, appending Regiment. If this common convention were followed, I and other battle authors would be more motivated to provide links to those regimental articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but couldn't the linking issue be handled by creating the appropriate redirects, regardless of whether the article was actually located at that name? (Not that we couldn't rename the articles, of course, if that's the appropriate course of action; but I think that ease of linking needn't be the most significant factor in that decision.) Kirill 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it would be possible for every article to have a corresponding redirect. However, I understood Wikipedia's policy is to use the most common name for an article so that people can go there directly. For example, the actual name of a popular article is Stonewall Jackson, not Thomas Jonathan Jackson or some other variant. Therefore, it would behoove us to select a naming convention that would have the highest probability of direct success on the first hit. And the one I have recommended is probably the simplest means of achieving that. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I think perhaps our formal convention is a bit too limited regarding the choice between formal names versus common names, so I've proposed a clarification here. Kirill 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on the page for XXII Corps (ACW) right now and the way I'm doing things are as follows:
14th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry|14th Massachusetts Infantry
The page name is "14th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, and what is seen is 14th Massachusetts Infantry. Its pretty much a given that the word "Regiment" follows and that "Volunteer" is in there somewhere. Problem is, even searching across the internet, I've found the title to be "14th Massachusetts Infantry Volunteers Regiment" or "14th Massachusetts Regiment of Infantry" and "14th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment of Infantry". It makes for a lot of typing, but like I said the words "Regiment" and "Volunteer" are pretty much a given. It might not be to anyone who is new to the subject. Therefore, what I propose is "14th Massachusetts Infantry" for the title of the article and "14th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment" listed in the first sentence. The only difference would be for 28th Regiment United States Colored Troops|28th Indiana Infantry (Colored). The title of the UCT is, in some cases, more usual that appending the title of the Regiment with "(Colored)". The only reason I've done it this way is to keep the same format.
This also applies to names and battles as well. For instance Ulysses S. Grant has in its title Ulysses S. Grant and Hiram Ulysses Grant. The most common name is the title, and the other names are listed right off, and a search of Hiram Ulysses Grant leads directly to the page.

Was this ever resolved satisfactorily? I'm having trouble finding the clarification proposal alluded to by Kirill above. I'm currently working on upgrading the page on the 24th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment, and in all the contemporary literature I've seen (ALOT) that term has not appeared once. Another gripe for me is the use of numbers in expressing the ordinal, i.e. 24th instead of Twenty-fourth - the vast majority of references simply don't do that. --Harlsbottom (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This was cleared up with an addition to WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME a while back, giving preference to the names commonly used by historians. Kirill (prof) 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident now open

The peer review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for News media and the Vietnam War now open

The peer review for News media and the Vietnam War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Navy SEALs now open

The peer review for United States Navy SEALs is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident now open

The A-Class review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Service branch templates

I was thinking that we may wish to convert those from infoboxes into navboxes. They tend to be fairly large, and often can distort the article (especially TOCs). Another alternative could be to reduce them to the most basic, then have a more expansive navbox on the bottom of the article.

For example:


Thoughts? bahamut0013♠♣ 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite nice, but, per WP:MILMOS, it should use {{military navigation}} instead of the plain {{navbox}}. ;-) Kirill 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm not too savvy on the coding, but is there a way to unify them in a single template, and have one at the top and one at the bottom, or would it have to be two separate templates? Also, I'd like to be able to display the official colors, much like Template:NCAAFootballSchool does; can we do it without editing the template? bahamut0013♠♣ 12:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure which templates we're trying to unify or have separate; is there another template that hasn't been mentioned yet?
As far as official colors go, the idea behind the {{military navigation}} template was to match the common color scheme used in all the military history infoboxes, so there's no support for changing the overall colors. To be honest, I'd be against it anyways; I think that having a standard overall color scheme is neater than having each template a different color. Kirill 01:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The unifying under a single template refers to my suggestion to have a navbox and an infobox in a single template, though as far as I know, we can't do it without seriously messing up every article. And as far as colors go, you should look at the example provided. I wasn't referring to changing the colors of the box, but to including them in small sample boxes like the NCAA template does. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok; I didn't understand you correctly, then.
  • There's no way to combine the two templates internally, but if you remove "style=wide" from the navigational template, it'll shrink to a size that stacks correctly with the infobox; see, for example, Matanikau Offensive.
  • There are fields in {{Infobox Military Unit}} that can be used to indicate the colors.
Kirill 17:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's re-sum the proposal as it stands so nobody else gets confused: I want to convert the current service branch templates into infoboxes about the branch itself, and then add a navbox so that readers can peruse the relevant links (which is what the current templates do, serve as navboxes in an infobox form). Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? bahamut0013♠♣ 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created Template:US Marine Corps navbox and begun replacing all instances of Template:US Marine Corps. Hopefully, I can finish today and move onto the Army tommorrow. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've created Template:US Army navbox and begun replacing all instances of Template:United States Army. It took a lot longer to take care of the Marines than I thought, and since the Army is considerably bigger (and I am considerably less familiar with it), it might take even longer. If anyone would like to make some changes to the template to be more organized/clear, please do so. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:US Navy navbox is up and running. bahamut0013♠♣ 14:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:US Air Force navbox is up and running. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Template:US Coast Guard navbox is up and running. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Release of official NSA Indochina history on the web

The U.S. National Security Agency just released its official history of its involvement in Indochina from 1950 to 1975. Even better, it's posted on the web at: http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/spartans/index.html. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for United States Army now open

The A-Class review for United States Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cold War now open

The A-Class review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Army Special Forces now open

The peer review for United States Army Special Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Constitution now open

The peer review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive now open

The A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) now open

The peer review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Army now open

The peer review for United States Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) now open

The peer review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinity test GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this task force's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Trinity test and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln assassination GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this task force's talk page since the article falls under its scope and so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Abraham Lincoln assassination and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I left messages for the other WikiProjects/task forces and the main contributors to the article so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Koli Point action now open

The A-Class review for Koli Point action is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem on Eldon P. Wyman

The article named Eldon P. Wyman actually tells the story of Robert H. Wyman, who already has his own article named, well, Robert H. Wyman. Can someone be so kind and sort out the mess ? Have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New templates - Please check my work

I've made some new templates for decorations:

The first 4 are navboxes, and the last one will put up to 8 (total devices - i.e. 5 oakleaves counts as 1 because it only uses 1 silver) oak leaves, service or award stars, and/or a V or an arrowhead on any ribbon image. Example:

V
Silver oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Gold star
Gold star
Gold star
Arrowhead
Silver star
Silver star

Unfortunately, it can only use resolutions of 106, 80, or 60px wide, because the positions need to be mapped out exactly, but that should be fine because most articles use one of those resolutions.

Any feedback would be appreciated. – I. Pankonin (t·c) 07:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! Kirill 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

incomplete assessment

'David Petraeus' is rated B-Class, but the template checking it for B-Class article attributes for it has not been filled out. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Army Says It Will Restore Public Access to Online Library

WASHINGTONPOST DOT COM

Army Says It Will Restore Public Access to Online Library

Saturday, February 23, 2008; A02

The Army will restore public access to the largest online collection of its doctrinal publications within two weeks, an Army spokesman said yesterday.

Col. Michael J. Negard said the Army "underestimated the impact" of its decision to make the Reimer Digital Library password-protected on Feb. 6, a move that shut off public access to an electronic archive that is popular with researchers for its wealth of documents on military operations, education, training and technology. Critics of the decision noted that most of the documents in the library had specifically been cleared for public release.

"Our intent was to protect sensitive information, the server itself, and the network from attacks by outside sources, not to deny the public access to publicly releasable information," Negard said. "We absolutely respect the freedom of information and the American people's 'right to know.' "

Negard said the Army will still limit access to "unclassified, but sensitive" documents in the archive to certain military members and Defense Department employees.

Steven Aftergood of the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for all of the publicly releasable materials in the archive, called the announcement an "encouraging response."

"It does the Army credit," Aftergood said. "I'm hopeful that the prior level of public access will soon be restored. When it is, we will withdraw our FOIA request."


-- Christopher Lee

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

American Revolution GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed American Revolution and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this task forces's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other task forces/WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Iraq War troop surge of 2007 now open

The peer review for Iraq War troop surge of 2007 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Marion now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 53rd Pennsylvania Infantry now open

The peer review for 53rd Pennsylvania Infantry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Benjamin Brice now open

The Benjamin Brice for Benjamin Brice is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) now open

The peer review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment now open

The peer review for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Question re categories for US naval air stations

I'm working on cleaning up the categories pertaining to US naval air stations, so I left a couple of questions at Talk:Naval Air Station#Categories?. But after a week I haven't had a reply, so I thought I'd try here.

Here are short versions of my questions:

  • Is it technically correct to consider a naval air station to be a particular type of "navy base"?
  • Is it really appropriate to consider an installation to be a type of unit on a par with a brigade or an air wing?

There's more detail on both questions on the NAS talk page.

Any help would be appreciated. Cgingold (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 20th Engineer Brigade (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 20th Engineer Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) now open

The A-Class review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Comfort (AH-3) now open

The peer review for USS Comfort (AH-3) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol now open

The A-Class review for Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

copyright query

On Wikisource, a new page has been created from an unknown edition of Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships: s:USS LST-737 I roughly convinced that this is {{PD-USGov}}, but have asked for confirmation at Talk:Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships#copyright. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Marion now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Varsity now open

The peer review for Operation Varsity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) now open

The peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Special Operations Command now open

The peer review for United States Special Operations Command is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


A-Class review for Montana class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Montana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of units using the B-26 Marauder during World War II

Hi folks I have just come across this on the talk page of this article maybe someone could help-

To whom it may concern: My father Irwin Jerome Steinhardt Was a staff seargent in the Army Air Corp. He served in the European theatre. He was a radio opperator waist gunner on a plane named the( Lilly Marlene) his id number is 32844381. I am trying to find out as much about his service record/flight crew as possible. If there is any one out there that can help me please contact me at ( astein2167@msn.com ) I am his son Andy Steinhardt I have my fathers flight log and would like to share the information with all that would be interested. Thank you for the help Andy.....

Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've placed the NPRC how-to guide link on the user's talkpage. Buckshot06(prof) 09:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

John McCain

Its been requested that a military biography infobox be added to this article. I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable then myself with the US decorations be able to do this--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I reworked the infobox for you a bit listing the awards by precedence and only using the personal decorations and leaving out the unit and campaign awards. On another note I got rid of the Red link for VA-46, so if anyone has any info on the squadron please feel free to add it. Cheers.--Looper5920 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. At least the squadron got an article because consensus decided the infobox was not warranted--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Approach to Pearl Harbor

Copied from Milhist talk page

Trying to resolve grammatical issues here raised the prospect of a split to address planning & doctrine issues surrounding the attack. Comment is invited here. Trekphiler (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit of a tangle, isn't it? Probably best if editors comment on the article's talk page to keep the discussion centralised. I've copied this to the US, Japanese and WWII task forces. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Engineer combat group nominated for deletion

This article has been nominated on the grounds that it is unreferenced and has been tagged as being of dubious accuracy for over a year. Can anyone confirm whether this was a genuine form of military unit fielded by the US Army during World War II? Any comments are welcome at the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineer combat group. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

4th Force Reconnaissance Platoon

Hi, I'm not knowledgeable at all about military stuff ans am not even sure this si the rigtht place to post this.... I stumbled upon this article and wondered whether this platoon/company is notable. In any case, the article does not look very encyclopedic, but it was created by a newbie so I don't want to barge in and bite his head off. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about this subject could have a look at it. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt that this is a notable unit. A google search produces no useful sources. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Um yes, it does, but it's misnamed. Force Recon is organised as companies, not platoons, and is notable as an independent company. (I believe the state of the discussion on this is that battalions are notable, and so are separate companies, but stand willing to be corrected.) Looking for 4th Force Reconnaissance Company produces some minor mysteries. It seems to have been moved from Hawaii to California, and may have been deactivated as far back as 2006. Unless there's any further comment here within the next few days I will move it to 4th Force Reconnaissance Company. Buckshot06(prof) 12:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Any independent SF unit is probably notable given the vast number of books and website which are produced on special forces. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Free photos

In images.google.com, you can limit the search to return images from the site or domain ".gov" and {{PD-USGov}} usually applies to such images. There is plenty of articles in Category:Military of the United States that need images, so if you have the time ... Thanks. Suntag (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/United_States_military_history_task_force/Archive_4&oldid=1190122974"