Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 100

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 95
• 96
• 97
• 98
• 99
• Archive 100
• 101
• 102
• 103
• 104
• 105
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

Trouble at George S. Patton

Could we have a few cool heads, good at evaluating sources, at George S. Patton and to a lesser extent at Battle of Cambrai (1917). It seems there are a few sources out there which state taht Patton was present at the battle in some capacity, but the major biogrpahy of him is clear that he wasn't. We seem to be getting close to biting going on. David Underdown (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How does there seem to be biting?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Straight out allegations (not from you) of sockpuppetry. David Underdown (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources that say he was there in some capacity are anecdotal, and some of them also make claims about the presence of U.S. or U.S.-operated tanks taking part, which is impossible. That must cast doubt on their credibility. Many of the claims about Patton's presence as an observer bear a strong family resemblance. That could be construed as weight of evidence or that they have simply been transferred from one book to another. Patton's principal biographers, using his own papers, can find no mention of such an event. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but one must wonder why a man whose business was tanks does not mention his being present at the biggest (although not the first) massed tank offensive of the War so far. That is evaluating the sources, not merely counting them.

Through mud and blood to the ole cotton fields back home.

Hengistmate (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

IDF 120mm mortar

As a novice editor I am seeking some specialist help. I have a source describing the Israeli army (IDF) using 120mm mortars in April 1956. I have checked Category:120 mm artillery for a description but none seems to fit. I could make a guess - USA, USSR, France are all possibilities - Any suggestions? Padres Hana (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The US didn't use a 120mm back then. I can't speak to the French, but I suspect that the Israeli mortars were Soviet, or German copies of the Soviet weapon, possibly imported through Czechoslovakia. Later I believe that the IDF used Finnish Tampella mortars, but I don't know much about them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Belligerents", defined

Hi all.

There's a slow-burning debate that's recently reignited at Talk:American Revolutionary War#Belligerents over who to list in the infobox for that article; specifically, whether or not the German states (Hesse, Hanover, etc) were "belligerents". The specific issue was certainly discussed a few times before, but has apparently remained in limbo for years! It seems to have bogged down into a bit of a two-way exchange of monologues, this time, so an outside perspective would be appreciated.

Generally speaking, this is a bit of a minor issue, but it has two broader implications which made me want to bring it up somewhere central -

a) it's suggesting the prospect of a bit of an inconsistency in our various ARW articles;

b) the possibility for yet another debate on how we label the bits of the infobox. Is "belligerents" always appropriate? "Combatants"? "Participants"?

Thoughts on either the specific case (over there) or the general case (here) appreciated... Shimgray | talk | 00:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I second the request for input on this issue because coincidentally we're having a similar discussion at Template talk:WW2InfoBox. 'Combatants' might slightly alter the situation we have with 'belligerents'. At the moment we're focusing on whether or not Vichy France should be on the WW2 list, as it never formally declared war though it cooperated with Nazi Germany and killed around 6000 Allied troops at Operation Exporter etc where it features on belligerent lists. About five hours ago I surmised:

Obviously it all boils down to principles for inclusion: whether the threshold is (i) verifiable notable combat, or (ii) verifiable formal declarations of war. Obviously I support combat, per WP:DUCK, as the threshold for inclusion. We can always request comment from MILHIST if we keep going round in circles here. Besides, a Wikipedia Military History convention may be just what is needed throughout the subject area.

Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with the duck test calling for engaged in combat. The catch with the ARW stuff though is that the [German] troops were mercenaries, right? In which case I'd say no - unless we're going to list "Switzerland" for every conflict Swiss mercenaries were involved in... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Swiss aren't the worst of it, incidentally - the War of the Austrian Succession had regiments provided by Hesse to both sides... Shimgray | talk | 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself admits that infoboxes simplistically categorize states, which causes problems. I'm a great believer in the solution of making things less simplistic by adding extra columns or rows and footnotes to the infobox. The wildest infobox of this type I've ever seen is at Bosnian War, but there are plenty of other examples. Maybe your problematic mercenaries could go into a third column or a second row? -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes should be about overview, not minutinae. If the position of something in the infobox can't be readily qualified in five words (eg "Ruritania (active 1875-1877, 1879)" then link to the appropriate section of the article or leave it out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Would you see the note for "British Empire" at WW2 as an ecxeption, as it is defining the term? -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thanks for your comment. Regrettably it hasn't gotten people out of their trenches at Template talk:WW2InfoBox. We could use some input from MILHIST specialists of every conviction over there. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

endashes etc

There's a discussion at WT:Manual of Style over whether it's "post-World War II" or post–World War II" and several war names with hyphenation or endashing. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Fishery Protection Squadron now open

The peer review for Fishery Protection Squadron is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Need help on RAF Bomber Command

Please see this post, thank you! --Bonty90 (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Dragon Quest now open

The peer review for Dragon Quest, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! 陣内_Jinnai 21:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments solicited on a GA nomination

The GA reviewer of Quebec Expedition is soliciting commentary on the inclusion of the fleet list in the article. Feel free to comment at Talk:Quebec Expedition/GA1. Magic♪piano 22:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Singapore strategy now open

The A-Class review for Singapore strategy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Iskra needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Iskra; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian battlecruiser categories

Category:Battlecruisers of Australia and Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:Indefatigable class battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:World War I battlecruisers of Australia have been nominated for deletion. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good thing too IMO - Australia has only ever operated a single battlecruiser, so most of these categories are not required. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for the F-111 Aardvark

I just noticed that a Peer Review for the F-111 started today. All editors are welcome to participate and I thought some of the members here might be interested. Thanks for comments and any help! --Kumioko (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Military history of the Aleutian Islands

Hello - I think a good map would be in order for the lead section of Military history of the Aleutian Islands to help it pass GA, but my image skills are really sub-par. Is anybody able to assist me with this, or, better still, find a free image to use? Thanks, Arctic Night 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Chilean battleships bought by the UK in 1903 or 1904

Hi folks,

I am working on the St Albans by-election, 1904, one of two by-elections which were triggered by the involvement of the sitting Member of Parliament (MP) in the purchase by the Admiralty of two warships which had been built for the Chilean Navy. The Chileans had not proceed with the purchase, and they were bought for the Royal Navy to prevent them from being purchased by a rival (see the vacancy section of the article).

There is a brief hint at this at Chilean_Navy#Civil_war_and_arms_race_.281885.E2.80.931915.29, but it would be nice to be able to include the names of the ships. Military history is not my territory, so I don't really know the sources ... so would anyone in this project be able to help me to identify the ships?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

They were the Triumph and Swiftsure . The background to this was that mediation had damped down the Chilean-Argentine arms race, so the Argentines sold the most modern Italian Garibaldi class armoured cruisers that were on order for them to Japan where they served in the Russo-Japanese War as the Kasuga and Nishin. See also Kasuga class cruiser. Japan was Britain's only real ally at the time, so naturally Britain did not want the Russians to buy the Triumph/Swiftsure class battleships in the period leading up to the Russo-Japanese War.

If you want to read about these ships, the best thing would be to go through different years editions of Brassey's Naval Annual.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those would be the two Swiftsure-class battleships, HMS Swiftsure and HMS Triumph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Double-ninja'd, as it were. But yes, those were the ships. Pretty interesting story behind them too! Oddballs are always fascinating. [i]Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships[/i] probably has information as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, folks! That's a wonderfully quick response, and has saved me hours of research.

It is indeed an interesting story, not least in that the eagerly-bought ships were soon redundant to the Dreadnoughts. But that's arms races :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

After writing on the South American dreadnoughts, a couple of my sources mention why the Chile bought them and their sale to the UK -- just let me know if you need anything. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, yes I do need something! Thanks for the offer :)

As you may have seen, I added a brief note on the ships to the article, at the #vacancy, but I don't have a reference for that. Would you be kind enough to add a source, and (if you feel appropriate) to clarify or expand the other parts of that section?

Thanks again! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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

A few more editors are needed to complete the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1943) featured list review; please stop by and help review the list! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Help requested with a ship article

Hi, all. A prod was placed on HMCS Fortune (MCB 151). I've contested it per WP:MILMOS/N and added a reference and a couple of external links. This is not a subject I'm familiar with, so I was wondering if some of our ships experts might be able to help add a few references. A couple of paper sources would be great to make it a decent stub. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Found a few gBooks refs that I've worked into the text, hope that helps! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for your speedy assistance! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think?

Should French campaign against Korea (1866) be renamed French campaign against Korea? This is the only campaign France engaged in against Korea. I also think Spanish–Moroccan War (1859) should be renamed Spanish-Moroccan War because it started in 1859 and ended in 1860. B-Machine (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. France also participated in the Korean War, but there seems little risk of confusion. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My first opinion in en. wiki: according to Nick-D, it'good idea. --Bonty (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kelly

Mark E. Kelly is currently part of this project. Though he's a member of the military, he's been on loan to NASA for 15 years. I am not sure how he fits in to military history. Could he be removed, or could his ranking be upgraded from starter?--Utahredrock (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark did fly many combat missions, however, so did many other pilots. While very important, does that fact alone merit his inclusion in the military history project?"--Utahredrock (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• He still has a Military connection. WP:Spaceflight has to be the primary project for him. There's no real reason to remove secondary related projects. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Also, WP:Military history does not have a C rating. Add references for a couple uncited paragraphs and it can be moved up to B class. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added multiple references. If anything specific is missing, please let me know. Hoping it's ready for an upgrade. Thx.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer the earlier question - yes, it does merit his inclusion in the milhist project; if somebody served in the military, that makes them "includable" for MILHIST. As for the article, it still has a slew of unreferenced paragraphs, unfortunatly, so it's still Start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

- I commented at Talk:Mark E. Kelly#References. That's a better place for further discussion. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments requested about a proposed backlog reduction drive

Based on some brainstorming among the coordinators, we're considering holding a March drive to reduce our "articles needing attention" backlogs. The discussion to date, and some currently open questions, can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Backlog reduction drive. We'd like to invite all interested members of the project to give us some feedback on the idea; any comments should be made at the strategy page, and would be very appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Category name question

Category:Air Defense Artillery is proposed for renaming at Categories for Discussion, here. Comments are requested and welcomed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source

HI all I am sure this must have come up before is Regiments.org a reliable site ? [1] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The old site that used to be there and went offline in ~2007? Yes, I would say so - it showed its working, more or less, and was never obviously wrong. The current incarnation? No - it looks like a run-of-the-mill spam site, and we should probably convert all the links to archive.org forthwith... Shimgray | talk | 21:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The old version seems reliable to me and I've used the archived versions on a few recent battalion histories that I've written. Incidentally, here is the archived link to the main page of the old version. [2] From there you can navigate to most of the other parts of the site. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the old version was a RS. The new version certainly isn't. Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationalistiv view edits by User:VJ-Yugo in Yugoslav military articles

Please have a look at the contributions of this user in Yugoslavia-related military articles. This user seems to have a nationalistic view, violating NPOV. We need someone with expertise in this era and area to restore these articles to a good state.. --Denniss (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about restoring the articles - that's really an editorial decision for the article writers - but I've given VJ-Yugo notification of WP:ARBMAC. Any further concerns can be dealt with on that basis. EyeSerene^talk 10:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:VJ-Yugo EyeSerene^talk 10:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

70 years ago: Hood, Bismarck, Holland, Lindemann

It has been almost 70 years now since the Battle of the Denmark Strait (24 May 1941) and the final battle of the battleship Bismarck (27 May 1941). I was wondering if we could make a consolidated effort to place one of the associated top articles on the main page of Wiki as a featured article. What do you think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. My vote: Holland. The ships get most of the attention; why not give their captains some for a change? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. I can't help much with sources but if you need a copyeditor please drop me a note. EyeSerene^talk 13:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "Ticket to leave (British military)"

Hi all - apologies for the long post ! I realise it is not entirely milhist related but as part of nomination for deletion I wanted to also try and get further advice.

I nominated an article for deletion, its nom page is here

The British military one seems to have nothing to support its claims although people were in armed service after being given a ticket of leave it does not appear that they were given the ticket to facilitate their enrolment as a way to serve less prison time. Indeed it is possible that the term is only used around the inter-war period and during the second world war to mean a transport pass for soldiers going on leave - in my opinion that may not pass notability for its own page and I will discuss this use in a moment. The Ticket of Leave system was abolished in 1949 in Britain [3] but as yet I cannot find any evidence to support military service being a condition of being granted a ticket of leave.

The Australian convicts one is factually inaccurate as it appears that the tickets were awarded to convicts from all corners of the British Empire. For example the Canadian Ticket of leave act was introduced in 1899 and abolished in 1956-58 [4] and a US system was also introduced p.365.

My reasoning was that the disambiguation page Ticket of leave would be cleared and the information from the Australian one would be inserted and made pan-global by adding information on the other areas the ticket was given. this would not solely be British as Canada, Ireland and the US also implemented systems of their own. The British military one would have been blanked and an addition made under the ==Britain== section for the term being used in the military (although it is as yet unsourced. This would definately be the "main" page and so would not be a db page any more.

I may have done the AfD in the wrong order - can a deletions-noob friendly admin give me some advice on this matter please?

In retrospect I think maybe I should have just been bold and merged them, then requested the delete notices of the blank pages. As the AfD is open, and as a non-admin, I assume that my hands are tied as there appears to be no way to withdraw, except speedy keep, which would not be appropriate if the page is then blanked and a prod added.

I realise that I could just wait another 5 days, and probably should to give more time for a more complete discussion, but as it seems clear to me that the merge should go ahead, I need someone to advise on which of the paths would be acceptable and correct (and indeed if there is another I have not spotted!). Chaosdruid (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottawa NATO Comcentre

I've marked new stub article Ottawa NATO Comcentre as needing some expert attention, as it seems to make some unusual claims with unclear referencing. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably needs to be nominated for deletion, it has no reliable sources that it is a NATO operation or that it is called "Ottawa NATO Comcentre", no indication that it is notable. Half the article is about an iffy allegation and made up opinion about somebody who may have worked there. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Prodded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to be confusing a secure communications centre in a foreign affairs department for something more important/sinister. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't see an individual ComCen as particularly notable. Standard conspiracy nutter fare really.

ALR (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review, if you are interested

I was looking for a peer review of 1907 Tiflis bank robbery to get it prepared for a featured article run, and I thought this might be of some interest to those in the Military History project. While normally a bank robbery wouldn't be of interest to this project, this robbery was conducted at the behest of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and other high level Bolsheviks to fund revolutionary activities so I thought it might be of some interest to this project. So if you would be willing to take a look at this article, I would greatly appreciate any thoughts you have on how I can improve it. Best regards, Remember (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Frigate Bezzavetnyy 811

Today's featured picture File:USS Yorktown collision.jpg shows Soviet frigate Bezzavetnyy, but we don't have an article on it. It would be good to have an article for that. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Joint Theater Level Simulation

Can anyone take a look at this article and see if it might be salvagable? It smells of copyvio to me, but I can't confirm that to speedy it, and that given I'm hesitant to risk biting the newbie by slapping on a PROD... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a look over the Rowlands website (who seem to run the JTLS), and I couldn't actually find anything that looked identical; I haven't got access to the other papers mentioned. There are major problems with the article though, beyond the copyvio issue. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I Googled chunks of the article and didn't get any direct matches so it's probably not a copyvio (at least from a publicly-available website). The article is close to being incomprehensible though. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot believes its not a copyright violation: [5]. I googled some of the text, and received hits back to the Rolands website. [6]. Not sure if it indicates copyright violation or not, though. I agree with Nick, the article is very difficult to read. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Template Gundisp

Hi all

I have just been looking at a requested copyedit of Canopus class battleship.

The template {{Gundisp}} is causing a problem though. It could do with an additional field "calibre" as it automatically defaults to the American English spelling "caliber". Whilst not causing too many problems it is the only flaw in this British English article.

If this matter has arisen before, then apologies. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know that this template existed. Aside from the spelling issue there's also the problem that the caliber should be hyphenated as it's a compound adjective. Both of these are fixable by an expert in templates, but I'd just drop using it until that happens.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Gundisp}} could use a spelling field (sp=us) like {{convert}} has. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I created it, and I could concievably do that... sometime in the future :P Besides, could not we have Canopus in American English (the REAL english)? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, Brit English as it's a British ship. Better get used to it if you want to work on the RN and its associated navies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Curiously it's only used in two articles - both on British ships. So the simplest answer would be to change the template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just remembered you have to be careful with British naval 4.5 inch guns since name and calibre don't match. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

General Etienne de Nansouty B-class nomination

Hello, just to let you know, should you be interested to participate in the review, I have nominated the article about Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty for the B-class status. Best, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Special Relationship

The article Special Relationship, concerning US-UK relations, is being turned into an anti-British diatribe by a new user. I have reverted more than once; it was outright vandalism the first time. More eyes would be helpful. Lachrie (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've rollback the last couple of changes that he made and posted a note about discussing his changes on his talkpage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I've fully protected the article to prevent further edit warring and to encourage Mythbuster2010 (talk · contribs) to use the article's talk page. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles la Primaudaye Lewin

Hi, just popping over from WP:CRIN. I've been trawling through redlinked first-class cricketers who played for Devon and I came across Charles la Primaudaye Lewin, who played a single first-class match for the Royal Navy. A quick google search reveals he was a rear admiral,[7] so I thought I'd come here to see what anyone can dig up on him to expand his article. I've left out the cricketer infobox so a Military Person Infobox can be put in. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to choose which version of English to use

As an attempt at my first ever article, I'm drafting a slightly bloated stub biography of Francis A. Dales. I'm the only contributor to the article thus far, and I can easily write it to be in American English, or in British English.

The subject of the article was;

• born in the USA (as far as we know) and died there, and presumably a U.S. citizen
• a member of the U.S. merchant marine
• notable only for his involvement in a British convoy relieving a British occupied island (which won him a U.S. medal)
• serving on an American ship at the start of the convoy
• rescued by a British ship half way through the convoy
• defended a British-flagged and operated (but American built) ship from then until the end of the convoy

The article itself;

• is mostly related to articles like Operation Pedestal and SS Ohio which are in Commonwealth English/British English
• uses sources which are about 50% in British English (heavy use of the Malta Times) and 50% American English (particularly the official U.S. sources about his medal etc)

I'm tempted towards the conclusion that, based on all this, it doesn't really matter if it's in British English or American English (so long as it's consistent, of course). Is there anything that would sway the decision one way or the other? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little more inclined to use AmerEng since he was on a US-flagged ship and served in the US Merchant Marine, but I'm not going to get worked up about it either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• The most relevant related articles will be about Malta operations which I presume are generally written in British English, so for the sake of consistency of user reading experience one might go for that. Perhaps also had wikipedia existed then, this article would more probably have been written by Brits and/or with contemporary British sources than conferred him wp:notability. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; it's your choice. If it doesn't read quite right one way, change it. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 05:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Your call. But given he is American I would lean to AmerEng. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, AmerEng is probably the better option, though either would be fine. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the New York Times - Feb 27, 1944 has him as American as it states he is "from Augusta, GA." Chaosdruid (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments everyone. Still very borderline, but I have decided to go for American English. And yes, there's never been any doubt about his nationality :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, when I checked nothing I found actually states his nationality - just that he was in the American forces. I do not have any published sources so cannot check, but would be interested to see something which shows whether he was born in the US or not, he could have been an Irish immigrant for example. Was it the case during the 30s and 40s that you could win a citizenship by serving in the forces? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. I will dig a bit deeper. I am confident the information is out there, I just haven't got my grubby paws on it yet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment time targets?

Was going to ask this at the assessment department talk page but that diverts here, so everyone gets a look :) Do we have targets for how quickly we try to get a project article initially assessed? I'm fairly regular there looking for things I feel competent to help with but I notice that some articles in other subjects can be there for weeks. In practical mode, might it be possible to produce a bit of coding that identified items that had been there longer than a certain time e.g. moving them to a different "overdue list" or perhaps changing the colour of the entry? Monstrelet (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any data—even if it's only anecdotal—for how long articles stay in that queue? My impression was that even the worst-case lag was reasonably brief, or at least enough so that we don't really need to flag individual items.

I think the article on Tactics of the Iraqi insurgency has been there for at least three weeks. It's not something I can comment on, so I haven't tackled it. Monstrelet (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On a tangentially related note, WP:MHOT does flag the categories with "backlog" indicators when they exceed a certain size; but that's not necessarily tied to how long any particular article has been there. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kevin Benderman

The article Kevin Benderman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E

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.--S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bushranger's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, The Bushranger, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of The Bushranger's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviet submarine K-222

Soviet submarine K-222 has been requested to be renamed Papa class submarine, see Talk:Soviet submarine K-222. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Appending southern kalaripayuttu with varma ati is illogical

Varma ati or marma ati is a part of kalaripayuttu. And southern kalaripayuttu is different from northern and central. Y delete the article SK because of vandalism. please reconsider.. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.160.12 (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Military history of the Aleutian Islands now open

The peer review for Military history of the Aleutian Islands is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for HMS King George V (41) now open

The peer review for HMS King George V (41) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review review for Third Battle of Kharkov needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the Featured article review for Third Battle of Kharkov; please stop by and help determine whether the article should remain listed as a Featured Article. Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR First world war v. World War I

Hi all

Sorry to be a pain, but with the current discussions at ANI rephrasing_by_User:Hmains, and the old one delinking_by_User:Hmains, as well as on the MOS dates & numbers I thought I should first give you a heads up.

Secondly I would like to mention that the MilHist MoS only seems to have "World War I" in it, as I cannot see First world war anywhere.

If it is true that changing it from First world war to World war I is in fact an ENGVAR violation, then surely we should have it in the MoS as such? I could not find anything about it in either the MilHist or the main MoS. In fact I have let similar cjhanges go through without comment as, after reading the MoS I thought they were doing the right thing, and since then have avoided using "First world war".

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, First World War is the commoner usage in British English but WWI is the common abbreviation (I've never seen FWW). Similarly Second World War/WWII. I don't study the scholarly works of the period, so there may be different conventions there. However, I would be concerned by an attempt to standardise when common usage has both terms.Monstrelet (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Monstrelet. I *think* that Great War/First World War/Second World War is more common in articles that use British English, while World War I/World War II is used more in American English, however, in my experience in Australian English either construction is fine. I believe that both are acceptable terms and so long as there is consistency throughout an article, I'm happy with either. Thus the rule I tend to follow is to go with whatever the original contributor used. If there is a mixture in an article, then I will try to make it consistent based on what seems to be used the most throughout the article, or if the original contributor has expressed an opinion, then I'd go with that. Another option is to establish concensus on the talk page about what convention to use. There should be no need for wholesale changes except to maintain internal consistency within individual articles. That is just my opinion, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to support and agree with the opinion of AustralianRupert, as only World War x is mentioned in MILMOS it has been taken as being definitive, should we add a note to reflect that x world war is also acceptable. MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As with other instances of English variation, an article should be internally consistent but either form should be acceptable. I would oppose any global change imposition of a "standard form". If we are in agreement the MILMOS should be modified to be clearer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as that - World War I is the explicitly preferred format for categories, AIUI. But in general, yes, it's a simple ENGVAR issue. Shimgray | talk | 15:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• A quick note - even if desirable (which it probably isn't), mass-changing from FWW to WWI without manually checking is a bad idea as the sentence construction won't agree. We already have a surprising number of cases where this sort of change has been made and left sentences like "During the World War I, it was found that..." Shimgray | talk | 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB cannot make decisions of consistency, it needs a rule which defines only one possibility and changes things to match that. Although a rule can be made within its options to look for "During the First world war" and change it to "During World War X" I do not think that is the way forwards. I can do a quick AWB run on MilHist articles and search for "the World war X" to correct it and think that anyone from the project who uses AWB could similarly create a rule, hopefully that would catch any errors already existing.

The ENGVAR thing is a little more tricky. Using WW II and Second World War is something I would think has occurred by editors, including me. I would assume that there may be a defence to having made the changes saying ENGVAR does not apply as "the MoS shows it as World War I" and so either it should be changed, or we should drop the First/Second World War phrasing as I can see no middle ground.

It is a little confusing to me that it is being written as First World War rather than first World War - World War is definately ok, but after the first one I cannot imagine anyone using first in either form as they did not know there was going to be a second? I imagine it would have been the Great War or the World War - obviously no one thought the war was great and the best thing to happen since the Boer War, so I can see why the US version is that way round, although it still seems as if it wan't really a real World War, we left out Africa, India, China, ... oh hang on no, we didnt did we, we already had a few with them lol!

• If the choice is both the MoS needs to be changed, HMains needs to understand that he needs to desist with changes and we need to inform MoS talk page of the still standing ENGVAR violation.
• If the choice is to adopt one only then we would need to adopt World War X as the cats are already formatted that way, and the MoS already has that as its examples as well as we would be effectively making the British.English English a fringe variant.

Personally I think it should be "both allowed" - if a rule was decided that said "both are acceptable except in categories, where World War X must be used" it throws a little confusion onto the matter, why cats would be only one and text could be both (I already came a cropper on that one when trying to assist with Commons cats a couple of months ago and my discussions on "Why cant I use First World War?" leading to me giving up on it)

It is a fairly straight forwards process to adapt AWB for either outcome.

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick AWB run on around 50 articles and only found 1x "the World War X". I will do another random one later today and see if any more come up. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible solution

I have been chatting with Hmains on possible solutions and he asked about a more specific search using (or at least I think that is what he was asking) the standard Wikipedia searhch boxes at the top of the page. After some research it appears that the Wikipedia search engine is Lucene, which led me to this page [8] It seems as if this works quite well:

• "the?world?war?I" NOT "World War" NOT "World" NOT "War"

If you put that in the standard wikipedia search box it gives Eastern Front (World War II) as the second result, and, lo and behold it has a "the World War I" in it !! Woohoo ! so, to do world war two would be:

• "the?world?war?II" NOT "World War" NOT "World" NOT "War"

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

British English uses both one only has to look at this image of the monument to the Women of World War II in Whitehall that was unveiled in 2005. However I do not think that a bot or AWB should be used to change Second World War to World War II nor FWW to WWI. There is no reason why an article should not be made consistent, with agreement on the talk page on what to use or if agreement can not be found with first usage as the determining factor. But there is no need for consistency across articles. There is also the silly situation that bots will create where someone writes First World War (FWW) and the uses FWW in the article it will look unprofessional to change "First World War (FWW)" to "First World War (WWI)" just as it would to have "World War I (FWW)". -- PBS (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for heaven's sake let's just be satisified if it's consistent within each article -- I've always been a "World War x" bloke myself, even when some reviewers urged me to change to "x World War" because of its supposed appropriateness for Commonwealth military articles, but I see no need for a mass change from one to the other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What is an army of observation? Worth having an article about?

I've seen the term "army of observation" pop up in a bunch of places; ran a gBooks search and see it used often, but not really clear on what it actually means. My vague impression is that it's kind of like big LP/OP, placed somewhere to simply keep an eye on the landscape, and if an enemy force appears they engage them and slow them down until a larger force can come and relieve them. Is that about right? Is it worth having an article about the overall concept, and then maybe list out some times/places such units have existed? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's definitely worth an article, since we seem to have references to the term everywhere (cf. Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days#Armies of observation, etc.). As far as the meaning is concerned, I think you have it more or less correct; I've usually seen it used to refer to a reasonably large force placed to watch a frontier or something along those lines. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a great topic for an article. From memory, the term 'Army of observation' was also used as a euphemism at times (when governments wanted to downplay their intentions). There's probably also a very good article to be written on the similar modern concept of 'tripwire' forces that are deployed with the express purpose of escalating the war if they're attacked (which acts to deter the war starting in the first place). Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Kirill and Nick. These armies are simply field armys - with a covering force type role. Before we set up a separate article we should expand the field army article and establish a well referenced section there. If that gets too big we can always split it off. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

During the Napoleonic Wars, in the French army, an Observation Corps was an "Army Corps that has not yet been given an assignment in the schematics of the Grande Armee. It is the case, for example, of the 1st Observation Corps of the Gironde between 1807-1808, before its intervention in Spain. In general, Observation Corps are given proper Corps names and numbers once a clear mission is assigned to them." (French military historian Alain Pigeard, Dictionnaire de la Grande Armee). Hope this helps. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Military aviation sources

Over at WP:AVIATION, we now have a resource page (WP:AV/R). Some of the research sources there will be of interest to editors concerned with military aviation. Additions of more useful sources to the resource list welcome. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This list is causing the introduction of sourcing problems to aviation and MilHist articles: see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on the WP:Aviation talk page but I can't see that the existence of the resources page has caused that much trouble in under 4 weeks. I expect most articles citing Baughers work were created a long while ago.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I used to check (via Special:External links) for this regularly, and when Baugher was finally expunged as the Aviation editors acknowledged the issue, I stopped checking: I just checked via the Special external links, and found numerous new articles (and two GAs) sourced to Baugher, and have encountered several regular Aviation editors who defend Baugher's hobby site as a reliable source. The problem is growing, to likely several DYKs and at least two GAs (Douglas XCG-17 and Grumman XSBF), and I do suspect that page (as well as other likely problems on it) may be the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is elsewhere, but since it's mentioned here: Baugher's site is not a "hobby site". It has been stated as and used by multiple published aviation history and transportation history authors as a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Following extensive discussion at WT:AVIATION overnight, I've raise the issue of the reliability of Joe Baugher at WP:RSN#Joe Baugher so that editors independant of WP:AVIATION and WP:MILHIST can give an independant view on this issue. I have asked that members of these two projects disclose the fact if they comment. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention for RFC bases

I'm currently working on a List of airfields in Kent at User:Mjroots/List of airports in Kent. The question of how to name RFC bases has arisen. Where it can be proven that a base was in operation after 1 April 1918, I am titling articles RAF Foo, but there were other bases in user prior to, and during WWI, which were RFC bases. These are titled RFC Foo. None of them currently have articles, so it's not that big an issue yet. I admit to having created a few redirects from RFC titles to relevant Wikipedia articles - RFC Marden, RFC Penshurst to name two. MilborneOne (talk · contribs) is not sure that this naming convention is correct. My reasoning is that we have RNAS foo articles such as RNAS Lee-on-Solent, and RFC Foo fits with this. I have also found evidence off-wiki for such a naming convention being used. Is this a useful way to deal with the issue, or are there any better ways to deal with this? Mjroots (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this Mjroots, I dont believe that at the time the Royal Flying Corps used the term "RFC Foo" I think they were just Foo Aerodrome or similar. Cant find any evidence but I think that the RFC Foo form is a modern reverse history invention to fit in with RAF Foo format. So far I have not found any contempary references in the RFC Foo format but welcome anybody with information on naming of Royal Flying Corps airfields, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with MilborneOne on this one, RFC Foo is artificial. The aerodromes were army bases which don't use a prefix to the name so Foo Aerodrome would have been the common way of referring to a location, especially when it is remembered that most home establishments were little more than fields when taken over by the RFC. Even in RAF days when the airfields were fully named RAF Station Foo it was commonplace to refer just to Foo. NtheP (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A rumamge through Flight archive throws up the phrase "Service Aerodrome" eg in this 1919 list of places where a civil aircraft could land in an emergency GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept MilborneOne's comment about reverse history invention, but a similar situation applies in respect of early Royal Navy warships which are all at HMS Foo titles. Whilst RFC Foo may not have been contemporary, I have shown some evidence that these bases can be referred to under those titles in modern useage. Redirects under RFC Foo titles do no harm and I don't think that there can be any serious objections to their use. Individual article titles are only going to become a real issue in the event of an article being created.

I've gone through my list under construction and changed all RFCs to RAFs where provable that the base was in operation post April 1918, with one exception for now. Lydd is an awkward case. There was a WWI balloon station, a WWI landing ground, a WWII ALG and a WWII Chain Home station (not an airfield, but known as RAF Lydd, as was the ALG and both on separate sites as far as I can discover), along with the current civil airport. Therefore I've got a RFC Lydd and a RAF Lydd (WWI) entry to differentiate the two for now. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Invasions of the British Isles

Perhaps Invasions of the British Isles could be restructured? The article, which I created under the name "Medieval invasions of Britain," has become rather long, yet some sections in it have no content. I think that finding information on this topic would be easier if the article would be transformed into a "parent" article, with links to various "sub-articles." The sub-articles could be expansions of the page's current sections. For example, the section "Invasions of England (793-1284)" could become a separate article, as could the as-of-now-small "Invasions of Ireland" section. This would also allow for greater attention to be paid to each topic: "Invasions of Ireland" could be treated as completely different from "Invasions of England and Wales (1284–1513)." DCI2026 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

IIRC this conflicts with the consensus when this was last discussed. One of the problems is that it does split the Anglo-Scottish Wars into two articles, depending on who invaded whom first. Another is the Viking interventions make more sense as a whole rather than relating to later national boundaries. On the plus side, the national elements have been completed differentially - the English one is far more complete than the others and the Welsh and Irish ones are a bit on "nice idea" level. I would not be opposed to it, though, if we can overcome the problems. Monstrelet (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

foreign-language phrases

I just learned that we should use the {{lang}} template for foreign-language phrases (assists screen-reading technology, see WP:ACCESS for more details). I think this should be considered, at least at FA or A Class reviews. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Allied Military Currency

New article by a new editor, which I found tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax (declined). No references but I think that there should be some out there after reading this . Anyone able to assist? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 13:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to get personally involved in the article development, but this looks like a promising source for anyone that does. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article, the "fictional" reference appears to be a well-meaning attempt by the creator to refer back to themselves as a source... Shimgray | talk | 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

After poking around a bit more, we could really do with an article on the overall topic of military currency - it's odd, but there doesn't appear to be one! Lots of individual pages, though. Shimgray | talk | 01:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Article on Kristian Østby

Right now, the mention of Norwegian Cmdr. Kristian Østby is a redlink. I have almost nothing on him. Anyone have any ideas? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Pages on Non-Commissioned Officers

Hello all,

I am writing this posting because I saw your project's header above the page Non-Commissioned Officer. While browsing Wikipedia I noticed there is a page called Sub-Officer. I think these pages should be merged for various reasons; but don't know how to do such a thing. Being the Military History Project and having that page in you scope, perhaps we can help each other?

Sincerely,

Korporaal1

Korporaal1 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No. 50 Squadron RAF

I've just discovered that the article is a copyvio, and was on creation. Anybody wish to write a new article to replace it? Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've started a temporary page here- if anyone wants to help they would be most welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice start. Will do the necessary once it's ready for release. Mjroots (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its more or less ready to move back to aminspace if someone is willing to do the honours.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

All sorted now. Article as it now stands has no copyvio in its history. Reassessment needed as it's clearly not Stub class. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed on mainpage

Battle of Musa Qala is on the mainpage; Marskell (talk · contribs) wrote it before he left. Another editor reported to Raul654 (talk · contribs)'s talk page that the article had cleanup tags, so I went and had a look and found that one IP had defaced the article with what appeared to me to be gratuitous tagging while on the mainpage, with little explanation on talk (in fact, one I can't decipher). I don't know where the vandal watchers were, or if they thought the edits to be legit. This is the state I found it in; it appears that the IP thinks every sentence needs citation, and some of the other tags appear gratuitous. I could be wrong, some of the edits could be good, but we can't have a defaced article on the mainpage with no decipherable commentary on talk explaining the issues. I restored it to the version before the IP started, and then compared to Marskell's last edit and the featured version, and did not find major article deterioration-- before the IP started what appeared to be gratuitous tagging, the article was largely Marskell's work with cosmetic changes (citations, date delinking, etc.). I need to go to sleep now, and I'm not able to determine if any of the IPs edits were justified. I would greatly appreciate it if any MilHist folk could get in there today and see if there are problems that need cleaning up, watch the article, and try to determine if any of the IPs concerns were legit. Marskell was a good FA writer, had almost a dozen FAs as I recall, and was the WP:FAR delegate for Raul; he didn't write bad articles, but he didn't typically write MilHist articles. The article did not go through MilHist A-class review, but the FAC received supports from Woody, Kirill and Roger Davies. A UK IP opposed the FAC; a UK IP did the tagging. User:Richard Harvey also worked on the FAC, and he is still active. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed some of the refs needed and a couple of statements that were misinterpreted from the refs as well some other bits and pieces, will do a quick copy-edit now in a little while? as there seems to be a hive of activity lol :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you hard at work-- thank you so much. I will not likely find time to look at the list on the talk page today, after being up til sunrise! Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem

Seabees. This is a very informative article. Long, in depth and obviously created by someone well acquainted with the subject. It also has a grand total of 5 cites. There's an 'in popular culture' section now some years after they were supposed to be broadly excised. There's also some tone issues. It's written in the style of a military history book, not an encyclopedia. I dont mean anything extreme, or egregious, just a pervasive rah-rah that doesn't really jive with a neutral point of view. This should be one of our best articles, and its symptoms aren't unique to it, i followed it from a sapper article with similar sourcing and tone issues. I suspect I know why this problem develops, but this wikiproject seemed like the logical place to look into organizing some sort of general category cleanup effort. -- ۩ Mask 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Atlanta now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Atlanta is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding Category

When is appropriate to use 'Category:Battles involving xxxCountry'? Is it appropriate to use it in the articles (battles) which happened on the territory of another state, but involved significant number of soldiers from xxxCountry? The question is same for the battles that happened in xxxCountry, but didn't involved any (or insignificant number of) soldiers from xxxCountry. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be the former - so, say, the First Battle of El Alamein could be categorised as a German, Italian or British battle, but not as an Egyptian one. Shimgray | talk | 13:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so for example Battle of Lissa (1811) should not have 'Category:Battles involving Croatia' just because it happened in today's Croatia, but Croatian–Bulgarian battle of 927 which happened in today's Bosnia, should have that category due to its belligerents (although it was Kingdom of Croatia as on of belligerents, not today's Croatia)? Correct, or a new category should be created, like 'Category:Battles involving Kingdom of Croatia' ?? Kebeta (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the universal answer for anything involving national definitions and the Balkans is "that sounds mostly right, but be careful" ;-)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLES is the relevant guideline, though it doesn't mention much about exactly how to define the boundaries between different "generations" of states. Category:Battles involving Croatia has a note at the top saying it's for Croatia, defined as "7th century–present" - so it seems to cover the old Kingdom, plus modern Croatia. Shimgray | talk | 16:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Kebeta (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

MK Barbier

Just wondered if anyone had info on the author M. K. Barbier

Seems to have been co-author on a couple of books and has authored Kursk: The greatest tank battle, 1943 published by Ian Allan, first imprint 2002 (ISBN 0 7110 2868 0) Books page on the publishers website and on Google books

The problem is this Kursk 1943: The Greatest Tank Battle Ever Fought as it appears to be the same cover picture yet is published by Zenith. It is listed as by Kathryn Barbier which one could assume is the K in MK.

Anyone know whether this would be a good source or not, are the publishers considered reliable and does the project have a list of "not reliable sources"/"reliable sources" anywhere?

I have recently acquired the book (Allan version) but cannot, for example, find anything out about the author and the book does not have any references listed in it, nor a bibliography, nor a foreword nor introduction!

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ian Allen were (and presumably still are) a well established publisher - one of their specialities was aviation. Most of the stuff I've seen from them in that field is perfectly reasonable - although how well that corresponds to the book in question I'm not sure.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Zenith is in the U.S. and Ian Allen is UK-based. It is probably a matter of Zenith publishing the book for IAN Allan in the U.S. I have some books that mention arrangements like this with the publishing info. See what you can find the book on zenithpress.com and ianallanpublishing.com. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the publisher "Zenith Imprint" which is widely used as "publisher" on many references on Wikipages, such as that on the Bazooka:

Green, Michael and Green, Gladys, Weapons of Patton's Armies, Zenith Imprint Press (2000) ISBN 0760308217, 9780760308219

Also the Zenith Press page does not appear to be their page. Nor does the website it seems to be at (www.qbookshop.com) have a listing for the Kursk book.

The Barbier book, from Google books page, although listing publisher as Zenith Imprint gives more info on the IFC page as "MBI publishing company" (Motorbooks International) and "© Amber books 2003". It gets more confusing as one gets further into it all!

I am beginning to suspect that Zenith Imprint does not actually exist, instead it should be Zenith Press. (as per this statement). Zenith press says they are expanded into Qbookshop.com who list "Our publishers" to include Motorbooks, Zenith Press and Quayside distribution services (listed as Zenith Imprint.

All these seem to be linked to The Quartro Group and these then redirect to Qbookshop. It also seems strange that there is no listing for the book at any of these Qpublishing sites.

My main concern is that it might be in some way self published, it has no biblio and no references listed so I think for now it has to be treated as not reliable as I cannot find any information on the author either - For all I know it is self published. It also makes me wonder about the other books that were listed as "publisher=Zenith Imprint". Chaosdruid (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) According to the bibliographic data page shown on Google Books for the Zenith version, the book was published by MBI (maybe they were renamed or Zenith acquired them in recent years). Worldcat recognises the MBI and Ian Allen versions as separate editions of the same book (which most likely means an overseas publishing arrangement like Fnlayson refers to). Looking at other results Worldcat links to for the same author, I gather that the author's initials stand for Mary Kathryn, and she's fairly prolific. I have no comment on the book's reliability, although the lack of bibliography or references is usually a strike against. -- saberwyn 23:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info so far guys, that has at least reassured me that the author is credible ! Listed on the Society for Military History Directory of members as "Dr Mary Kathryn Barbier at the Department of History, Mississippi State University".

Cheers once again. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just chipping in a late two cents, both MBI and Ian Allen are well-established and reputable publishers with an excellent reputation for reliability and readability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

11th Airborne Division (United States)

Could someone look over this and fix the infobox for 11th Airborne Division (United States)? I'm trying to, but can't figure out what is wrong with the mark-up after some ip vandalised the article. Skinny87 (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A single unmatched ], I think. Fixed... Shimgray | talk | 11:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured list review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944)

The featured list review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944) has been open for a while; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER

Presently it is part of an essay, however, as with WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ATHLETE, or other subject specific criteria, I would like to see either WP:SOLDIER, or a more concise version of it, supported with this essay as a wider net for those that don't fall in it, to be elevated to that of a guideline. Stating that, what do we need to do to get that done? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: United States

Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sharpe series characters

Several Sharpe series characters have been nominated for deletion. As there is no current list of characters article for the Sharpe series, there's no obvioius merge target. See WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 22 . As Napoleonic Ficiton work group is under the Napoleonic Era task force of this wikiproject, I thought I'd let you know. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Adopt-an-FAC

Hello good folks: Would anyone here be willing to "adopt" Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente/archive1? The nominator (XavierGreen) has gone missing. Some progress has been made at the FAC, and I'd hate to simply archive the nomination because the nominator has disappeared. Obviously it would have to be someone with access to the sources since some substantive concerns have been raised about "mistakes" in the article. If not, I'll archive it and wait for XavierGreen to come back.

Xavier seems to be active again as of today. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed the majority of the outstanding comments on the FAC talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

MFIreland (Part 3)

Can I have some fresh eyes on Operation Banner. MFIreland has added some POV commentary to the last paragraph in section 'Reception by the Catholic Community'. MFIreland has removed the OR section tag I've added. He has a long history of POV editing and edit warring and would like a fresh look by another editor to prevent edit warring on the article Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Napoleon_I#Move_to_Napoleon_Bonaparte

All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:08, 24 February 2011 (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) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty now open

The A-Class review for Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Backlog elimination drive

Hey. I just wanted to note the GAN backlog elimination drive set to begin in March. I don't usually spam project pages, but since Milhist is both one of the larger backlogs in terms of articles and has many of the more active reviewers, I figured you guys might be interested in helping out, even if it's only to tackle what's nommed in the military section. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Collaboration

I just wanted to let you know that I am having discussions with the National Maritime Museum about them releasing a large tranche of information about Royal Navy warships for use on Wikipedia projects. If anyone's interested please have a look at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM and ask any questions/sign up. Regards, The Land (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's excellent. The NMM is a world class museum and I noticed that it has a large research centre when I visited it a few years ago. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this is great news! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Good news - I've been impressed by their material previously. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Great job, perhaps you should get chevrons for your efforts, if you have not received them already. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for No. 79 Squadron RAAF now open

The A-Class review for No. 79 Squadron RAAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Klagenfurt

I've just prodded that as a hoax. Could somebody take a second glance over it and either come and tell me I'm an idiot or just confirm it is a hoax. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Although it's a rubbish article, it would appear to have some basis in fact. [9] and others. Not sure though; it definitely needs improvement either way. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the book shows dates about five months earlier than the article. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

FAR for Third Battle of Kharkov

The FAR for Third Battle of Kharkov (review page located at WP:Featured article review/Third Battle of Kharkov/archive1) has been open for a while. However, there have been no comments made in the FARC section regarding keeping or delisting, despite that section having been open for comments for over a month. This will most likely be delisted, unless someone steps up soon to work on the article, as no work has been completed on the article during the review phase; however, a few editors need to actually make this explicit for the review to be closed. If a few of you could step over there and give your opinions, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS New Ironsides now open

The A-Class review for USS New Ironsides is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Military settlement

I've just done the initial assessment on this article and was surprised to discover it only covered a short period in Imperial Russian history. Obviously, military settlements are a much more widespread phenomenon. It would be clearer if this was disambiguated but, in the absence of a wider article, this would be pre-emptive and not allowed. How could this be resolved? Monstrelet (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename it to Military settlement in Russia perhaps? Military settlement in general would be a cracker of a topic for an article given that this policy has been used from ancient times to the present day. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuze / Fuse spelling

This has popped up again at Contact fuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

March backlog reduction drive

Hi everyone! Please note that the MILHIST March 2011 backlog reduction drive starts TOMORROW!! For those of you who don't already know about it, this is a month-long effort to reduce the number of articles marked as needing attention to referencing, structure, coverage, supporting materials, etc. in the B-class template. The goal for this drive is to reduce the number of articles tagged as needing attention while simultaneously increasing the number of B-class articles in the project. Barnstars will be awarded for your efforts (unfortunately, the coordinators' expense account does not allow the awarding of a new car at this time...). Please sign up in the Participants section of the drive page, and as of 00:00 tonight, start working! Good luck to everyone, and please just ask if you have questions! Dana boomer (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The drive has now begun! Everyone get in there and start improving articles!! (Anything else I can use exclamation points for? :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What is an "ACCL" medal (British India)?

On this page/section, Maratha#Military_service, there are several medal names which appear to have no article. Are any of these redirectable to other existing articles? I'm particularly unclear as to what an "ACCL" is. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think these are actually post-independence awarded and ACCL is Ashok Chakra Award Class II Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Speedy (1782)

I jumped on this FAC to try to avoid a repeat of the 1st FAC. Benea, who did most of the work, hasn't edited in 6 months, or responded to my email. I've ordered one of the sources (Henderson); it should be here shortly. If anyone has any other relevant sources and wants to take a stab at some of the reviewers' questions, I'd be much obliged. - Dank (push to talk) 23:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Fort Sumter now open

The peer review for Battle of Fort Sumter is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Mike Jackson now open

The peer review for Mike Jackson is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ernst Lindemann now open

The A-Class review for Ernst Lindemann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Atlanta needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Atlanta; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 3 March 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) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

USS SC-42

USS SC-42 has been nominated for deletion, but the deletion rationale seems to indicate this is a test case for a wider ranging deletion of most non-capital-ship articles. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

US General encourages use of Wikipedia to promote army's message

Moonriddengirl recently posted this at the Village pump. Probably it's not something that should cause us huge concern, but it may be worth keeping half an eye out for unusual/promotional edits to US Army-related articles. EyeSerene^talk 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Collaboration with and participation by the US military. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"World War [Cardinal Number]" or "[Ordinal Number] World War"

There is a discussion going at WT:MOS#ENGVAR and internal consistency concerning the use of "World War I" and "World War II" in titles of articles on the World Wars concerning the UK and other Commonwealth nations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely, we discussed this and reached a conclusion a couple of weeks ago? I thought wikipedia had rules for not taking the same question round every forum until you get the answer you want?Monstrelet (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Armoured fighting vehicle

Armoured fighting vehicle has been requested to be renamed. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Conflicts in 2011

In Category:Conflicts in 2011, the Libyan insurrection battles are being directly categorized there. Should a subcategory be created for those rebellion clashes? Category:2011 Libyan uprising is the main category for this political brouhaha. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) now open

The A-Class review for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow the fleet

Copied from Talk:Submarine

Is there enough information out there to warrant a separate page on the fleet sub? The redirect to Submarine doesn't seem terribly helpful in describing the technical details & development. I'm not sure if it wouldn't just reproduce what's in the individual class pages, tho. Nor am I sure a page on a U.S.-only term (if it is...) is wise. (FYI, also posed here.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you mean a submarine able to keep up with a surface fleet, then didn't the British sort of invent the concept with the J and K (poor unlucky Ks) classes? The term is still in use for British nuclear subs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Capable of, & designed for, operation as a fleet component, yeah. I confess I was ignorant of RN priority. :( I shouldn't be surprised, tho. I had in mind this & this & their like. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A broad church perhaps? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I could live with that, but I think the very different design approaches & geographic realities make two pages more sensible, if there's to be "fleet sub" at all. That is, the Brit boats were mostly pretty small (tho a quick search found Grampus, which I'd never heard of :( ) compared to even Cachalot, which was on the small side for a USN fleet boat. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, we don't have an article on fleet carriers either... we have it for most other major types of carriers, except the main type... 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ship boat

HI all

I just wanted to give this as a point for thought, rather than a point for discussion, about whether it is notable enough as a reference point. [10]

I do realise that discussion is inevitable though :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Twelfth Army (United Kingdom)

I've started to edit the article Twelfth Army (United Kingdom) to discuss the use of the name Twelfth Army for military deception. Any MILHIST members willing to have a look over the article and suggest improvements or other data sources.Graham1973 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Friedrich Marnet and Ernst Wieblitz

A new editor has recently contributed articles on these two German officers who served in World War I. I'm not sure that either of them meet the MILHIST notability threshold; maybe someone here could take a look and provide some guidance? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say neither is notable. Sources would be very hard to find. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Need some help with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 7#Category:Defense universities

There is no parent article for defense university, but there is a difference of opinion as to how these articles relate to either military academy or staff college, as a quick look seems to show that some are one and some are the other and maybe some are both. We could use some knowledgeable input. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Helicopter wars

A new book by Boyne:

• Boyne, Walter J. (2011). How the Helicopter Changed Modern Warfare. Pelican Publishing. ISBN 1589807006.

Could be interesting. Binksternet (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

RAF Lympne

The article on RAF Lympne (ok, it's not the article title but I needed to get your attention!) is currently at GAN, and has been identified as needing a copyedit. The nomination has been placed on hold. Any MILHIST members willing to have a go at this please? Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at about 1/3 of it. It's a very long and detailed article, which might be better hived off into component subjects. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, over-detailed in places to my mind. I skimmed it for a while then gave up. I'd split off military from civilian aviation for a start. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There's problems with splitting RAF Lympne from Lympne Airport. The aerodrome was opened by the RFC in WWI, later passing to the RAF on formation. It the became civil between the wars, before being requisitioned by the RNAS and later passing back to the RAF, and becoming civil again post-war. As for size, I don't forsee any further major expansion of the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the article can't be split, but I'd like some suggestions of how to handle the two periods of military use before a split is performed. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts that come to mind. A very long, well-written, detailed article. A casual reader will start reading it and drift away I suspect. I enjoyed it but well. I'm me :)

1. The introduction is four paragraphs long. Understood the airport has a long and distinguished history to it. However I would first split off the three paragraphs after the first into an Overview, or Introduction section, rather than having it all at the top as the first thing the reder sees.

2. Splitting between the civil airport and the RAF airfield. From reading the article, the civil aviation section is much longer than the military history. Suggest first set up a framework article "RAF Lympne", using a Infobox military structure to encapsulate the highlights of it's RFC/RAF history. Leave the Infobox Airport on the Lympne Airport page which has the pertinent airport details there. No sense in duplicating the same informatoin on both pages. (ex: Niagara Falls International Airport ; Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, leaving linkbacks to each page to tie the two together.

Once you've established the framework for RAF Lympne, then extract the pertinent sections from the airport article. You'll have to create an introduction and also a small section to summarize the civil use between the wars.. a "see: Lympne Airport" for more details, preceeding it also. Then a short summation after 1945 for it's civil use over the past 50 or 60 yeas (already in the article now)...

You also may want to consider breaking up the "Civil operations" and "Return to civil use" into subsections. They are just long, long, long paragraph after paragraph and by sub-sectioning them into smaller topic subsections you'll improve the readability...

Just some thoughts. Take care and good luck :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've split the civil sections into subsections, roughly by decades. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Lympne Airport and RAF Lympne are now separate articles. Any improvements to either articles are welcomed. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog of articles to be assessed

There's currently a large backlog of articles for which editors have requested B class assessments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Any assistance there would be great. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Twelfth Army (United Kingdom) now open

The peer review for Twelfth Army (United Kingdom) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC for Battle of Fort Sumter has started

This one has had less review than most of our FACs, but it would be nice to get it on the main page on the 150th anniversary coming up in April. I'll be happy to help with the copyediting, after more people have had a chance to review it and make changes. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Overlapping project...

...it appears somebody has started a WikiProject Intelligence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also the World Intelligence Task Force, which seems to have been started by the same people. They've taken to stealing our shortcuts, apparently. We should probably see if we can roll both new pages into the existing task force before the tagging and such get out of hand. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also a WP:WikiProject Espionage ... which this "intelligence wikiproject" would overlap with. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I nominated WikiProject Intelligence, the redirect page in articlespace, for deletion, so if it should disappear, the link you need to get to the wikiproject would be WP:WikiProject Intelligence. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to be getting myself into an unknown position! I am with the WikiProject Military History due to World War II and have made me go into other wars and battles to fix up articles or assess them. In December 2010, I signed up for WikiProject Espionage, the founder hasn't been actively contributing since May 5, 2010. Where has this founder gone? Over the last few days, I've been suggested a new WikiProject, which is of course WikiProject Intelligence. Now my concern is, the articles I've tagged for WikiProject Espionage and there have been at least two, I have been reading the discussion going on about the various WikiProjects, should this WikiProject merge with that one etc, etc? I'm in no position to decide what WikiProject goes where because I am only normal user who's recently started to learn "Twinkle" with help from Chzz. The only thing I can recommend is the Administrators and/or Coordinators the people who have the right to ultimately decide what stays and goes. What stays, stays. What is decided to shut down or close, will need to be re-tagged with the appropriate WikiProject template that has been closed. Hope this helps! Adamdaley (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of WikiProjects are unfortunately inactive, usually because the project didn't attract enough editors to become self-sustaining. This project is one of the more active ones, and because "Military history" is such a big subject we've split the project into a number of task forces dealing with different areas. We already have an Intelligence task force (here) - you'd be most welcome to sign up for it if you're interested in working in this area.

To answer your other points, we're all "normal users" :) However, it can take a long time for less-experienced users to find their way around Wikipedia and you've done nothing wrong by setting up your own WikiProject - anyone can. However, to try to prevent duplication there's a WikiProject council that tries to coordinate projects on Wikipedia. Generally it's best to propose new projects on this page before creating them. Other editors will then advise if there's already a project in that area and if a new one is likely to be viable. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I happened to find Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Navy today while stomping around with AWB. Just FYI. Brad (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The various intelligence-type projects are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject Intelligence, WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Military Intelligence Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bangladesh Navy project appears to be moribund with no meaningful edits pages for a couple of years. I've tagged the project as such subject to it being revived (though I'd imagine its content comes under the South Asian military history task force). EyeSerene^talk 12:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Florence War Cemetery

Only to tell you about this new article. Just in case it needs some copyediting-Bye-Pierpao (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have given it a quick copyedit - unfortunately the article seems to have been translated from [11] and then back again. I have tried to avoid copyvio and plagiarism but it needs a little more detail as well. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually i wrote it directly but i haven't found any other reference than cwgc.--Pierpao (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Otto von Colinburg

An unknown IP editor has introduced general Otto von Colinburg in various articles giving the impression that this person existed. To my knowledge this is pure fiction. Can someone please help verify my assumption. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Google gives 600 hits but when you chase them they say "not found." Too mysterious for me. Does the IP give refs? Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

None that I found. What triggered me was that she/he had introduced him as a senior commander of the 9th Army (Germany) by replacing Adolf Strauß with Otto von Colinburg's name. This discussion here also indicates that this is a hoax. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It passes the duck test for a hoax, but proving it definitively might be harder. Replace the refs with mentions of Strauss and see what happens? Rumiton (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Failed GAs

Can we compile a list of articles in this Project that have failed GA? I'd love to contribute to this project, but I generally like contributing to articles close to GA.

If we can't do that can we make a list where users can post articles that they feel are close to GA?

Thanks

--Iankap99 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Easier to get to GA, eh? I feel the same way. FAC Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 02:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

By the numbers

The discussion here got me thinking there may be a wider issue of conflict between two reliable sources. We seem to have a tendency to choose one stat with a source & lock out any others, when, in fact, there may be equally reliable sources saying different. I'm not looking to create opportunities for edit wars (!), but if this is as widespread a problem as I suspect (& serious historiographers have mentioned it in their own research), I'd say it needs to be addressed. My first thought was to mention in the footnote, "Other sources disagree", or "Source foo says number foo", without getting strings of opposing notes. (Let's hope not. :( )

The same discussion also suggests new tabular markup able to translate changes across pages, which strikes me as potentially very useful here, if it could be made to work.

For your consideration. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Trek, what do you think of the format I used in Brazilian cruiser Bahia#Loss? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your fn1 (Miramar Ship Index) is almost exactly what I had in mind. :D (Except the POV bit "should be most accurate". ;p) If that became the standard, I think we'd avoid both potential confusion & endless edit warring (well, any more than usual :( ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweet! The sources for that article had a lot of contradictions... The "most accurate" bit isn't POV -- I think it's common sense that builders' records would be the most accurate, given the sources. :P Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

♠I only raise the "best source" ish because (some) builders' records might be a bit chaotic. (I recall vaguely reading of cases where the builders had no clue. 8o ) I think readers can probably guess the builders' records are best, absent evidence they aren't, in which case a note saying they aren't the most reliable might be needed. (Also, it gave me the chance to bug you a bit. ;p)

♠For information's sake, did you get disputes with other editors? How did you resolve their conflicts, & the documentary contradictions? (If you can say without it getting into a project in itself. ;p ) I think the process you followed might be of help here, too, if only as a guide. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if they were Soviet or pre-WWII German builder's records... :P I see your point here, though. Let me sleep on it. I didn't get any trouble on how I organized that, possibly because it is a rather obscure article. I spelled out the contradictions in that footnote and the Loss section (esp. the death toll figures, which were all different), something which may not be suitable for a large-scale article. For these articles, perhaps linking readers to a footnote that leads to a subpage, e.g. World War II/Contradictions, would work. This presumably long subpage would have a numbered list and discuss historiography of various disputed points... things that need to be in the article but don't fit with summary style. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

♠Actually, as I recall, this was a Brit yard, & the Admiralty was trying to backtrack the construction history of a ship, & couldn't. 8o

♠At a glance, I'd say you resolved the contradictions as well as they can be. Glad to hear you didn't have more than the usual headaches on it. :D

♠The subpage sounds like a good idea. I imagine it as a "branch" of the MOS or something, so disputes can be resolved systematically, preferably in advance. (It looks like you have in mind a Project subpage, so we may be thinking of variants on a theme.) I also imagine a simple guideline, with ref to the subpage if needed, might be needed; if not, IMO it's desirable anyhow, pre-emptively.

♠In response to an answer on the other page, let me also raise the question of "subsidiary tagging". I've seen 'graphs footnoted, where it's not clear (to me, anyhow) just what is & isn't supported by the source. I know it's contrary to MOS, but I tend toward citing at the fact in question. Does anybody else think this might do with changing in the MOS? (I expect to be in a tiny minority again. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge WP:WikiProject Bangladesh Navy into WP:WikiProject Military history/South Asian military history task force

Hello, WikiProject Military history. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject Bangladesh Navy.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please discuss this proposal at WT:WikiProject Bangladesh Navy.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the banner as it caused a spurious category addition to this talk page. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arado E.381/archive1

We've got a question about what to call a "model" or "mark" of the Arado over at this FAC. "Baureihe" and "Marke" are words sometimes used to mean "model" or "mark" in German, but I don't know if these words were applied to the Arado, or what the best English translation would be if they were. Anyone know? - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

SS Zealandic

Could I enlist a bit of help with SS Zealandic which appears on todays DYK. I looked over the article and while making a few minor tweaks I noticed that a source clashed with what was written. I believe someone has conflated two ships: the original Zealandic which was renamed Mamari before serving as decoy for HMS Hermes and then sunk by E-boat(s) off Cromeraccording to this and a later Zealandic sunk by U-106 somewhere near Rockall.uboat.net. As a highish-profile (for 24hours) article, it could do with rectifying. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It does look like some confusion the second Zealandic appears to have been a refigerated cargo carrier built about 1928 by Swan Hunter. According to an advert in 1912 the original Zealandic was 10,897 tonnes slightly larger than the second ship. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Uboat.net has the 1928 Zealandic at 10,897, the Zealandic article at 8,000 or so. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Periodicals list?

I have recently completed going through the Infotrac Gale Cengage General OneFile to review the periodicals listed which directly relate to nations and regions of the world. In the process, I found a number of periodicals directly relating to the US Military specifically. Would the individuals participating in this group be interested in having a list of periodicals available from that newsbank, like some of the national and regional projects are now getting, or not? As I am rather less involved in this project, I thought it better to ask first. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds useful, particularly as those published by the US military will be PD. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes please Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will add them. It may take a few days to isolate them out from the rest of the listings, though. Given the number of sources involved, I have them on around 20 pages of notes, and it will take awhile to collect them together. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Treloar (museum administrator) now open

The A-Class review for John Treloar (museum administrator) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle for Australia article

Could other editors please review the Battle for Australia article? I'm a bit worried that an editor with a conflict of interest concerning the topic (the existance of this battle is disputed, and the editor was a proponent in having it recognised by the Australian Government) is turning it into a content fork by adding overly detailed accounts of actions which come under this 'battle' as well as, at times, pushing an interpretation of events. Comments on my edits and talk page posts would, of course, also be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles Picture Question

I am wondering if anyone can tell me what the medal is that is around his neck in this picture. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In that picture, you can clearly see his World War I Victory Medal and his Army of Occupation of Germany Medal on his breast pocket (easily distinguished by the ribbons visible). So perhaps the one around his neck is his French Legion of Honor? Cromdog (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but when compared with the photos we have of that medal, it just doesn't look right. I almost thought it was the Medal of Honor, but it wasn't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is his Legion of Honour, just that it's not laying flat but is slightly twisted so we're getting a 3/4 view of it. Compare it with these images of Clint Eastwood receiving the LoH recently http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Entertainment/Legion-of-Honor-Medal-Ceremony/2524/5/. NtheP (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to make sure. I just couldn't see the white in the medal, which had me confused. Thanks for the help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

WP: WikiProject Rocketry

There is a suggestion to merge WP:ROCKETRY to WP:Spaceflight at WT:WikiProject Spaceflight. As most rockets do not have anything to do with space, and most notable rockets are weaponry, I thought I'd let you know. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agincourt

There is a proposal at Talk:Battle of Agincourt to try to tidy up the article to see if it can get to B class. This is an important medieval battle article and really should reach basic standards. If you feel like helping, there is a suggestion to break that task into do-able chunks. If HYW battles are your thing, you might be interested to help out at English longbow. In the course of routine editing, I found that it doesn't meet the modern B1 criterion and it has to be downgraded to Start. Again, there are some suggestions about the worst section (tactics) here.Monstrelet (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove icons from {{Air force}} ,{{Navy}} and {{Army}}

I would like to suggest the icons in these templates are not required and should be removed per WP:MOSICON Gnevin (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. I think that flag icons should not be used within {{Infobox military person}} for the alligiance and branch fields, which is where the motivation for your request comes from if I may be so bold to guess. However, that is not the sole usage of these templates, so your suggestion would also affect appropriate flag icon usage in other instances. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That was where I was coming from. Your suggestion works for me Gnevin (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Further, they are also used occasionally in {{Infobox military unit}}, such as 216 Parachute Squadron Royal Signals or 542nd Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States). We should also get a consensus for that as part of this discussion, I think. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally remove icons from biographical infoboxes under that guideline. I frequently see images for everything from nation to branch to unit logo to rank to individual awards. Generally, I remove everything but national flag (but I do remove any subdivisions, like states and cities) because there seemed to be previous consensus on more than just military-related biography. However, all the rest can be more properly worked into the prose, if an image is needed at all (especially awards).

So, yeah, I support that suggestion because I'm already enacting it. I'd be suprised if there was serious resistance to it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As per previous discussion on here, the consensus was to leave Allegiance and Branch populated with icons and remove all other icons from Bio Infobox. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

An overlooked source

The HMS Constance (1880) AfD was snow kept this morning. I managed to find quite a bit of info on the ship from The Times and piece together her short career. I think that this source will prove valuable in expanding many naval vessel articles for ships serving between 1785 and 1985. Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

RAF Northolt peer review

This is very late of me but RAF Northolt has an open peer review. All comments are welcome. Thank you. Harrison49 (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Standard Proposition for Rank articles

I've noticed that the American military rank articles are widely differing in their organization. I understand that many of the ranks share with other countries and so the Scope of their articles will change. However at least the American portion of the articles should be consistent. Some list America and then have bullet points for the different branches. Some list each branch of the American military as a different section with America prepending the section title. Some list the title of the branch, and list countries with similar branches as bullet points. It would serve the site well if a standard could be agreed upon for articles. I personally believe that a section for each country, a sub-section for each branch, would be the best method of organization the rank pages. -- Cflare (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence opportunity

Just officially announced...

"This summer, we hope to strengthen our institutional relationship with the Wikipedian community by hosting a Wikipedian in Residence. We are currently seeking applications for this student position for the 2011 summer. The Wikipedian will gain an insider’s look into the National Archives and develop an appreciation for the records and resources we have available." — US Archivist David Ferriero

This is a summer intern position, with stipend, for a student to work at NARA 2 in College Park, Maryland. This person does need to be a US citizen and a student.

Given the awesome work of the Military history WikiProject, I especially encourage WikiProject folks to apply. NARA has quite extensive holdings pertaining to military history, as well as other areas of government and history.

Full blog post and

• Full blog post - by David Ferriero
• Application + details (pdf)

Please spread the word and encourage all good candidates to apply. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A fantastic opportunity with long-term ramifications. Grampa Binksternet sez you kids go get 'em! Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If only I stilled lived in San Bruno where there is a NARA location. This is a great opportunity. Good luck for those who apply.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"This person does need to be a US citizen and a student" - Damn! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If I hadn't already committed myself to working near home this summer, I would be on this like Garfield on lasagna. Damn. Here's hoping for a second opportunity in 2012. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming of article - Intelligence

Chaps

A bit of a recurring theme is the naming of articles on Intelligence, the most recent being the name of the article Intelligence Assessment. The whole corpus needs quite a bit of work, as most of the articles are quite opaque, and I'm not entirely sure that any one of them actually acts as a capping piece to discuss Intelligence in the round.

I'd be grateful for views on what a capping piece could be called. It should be just "Intelligence" but that's inappropriate given that the term applies to more than just the discipline of informing government and military leadership. There is a suggestion that it should be "Intelligence (Information Gathering)", personally I take issue with that as collection is only one part of the discipline.

My preference remains Intelligence Assessment, but it appears that this could lead to mild conflict with the psychologists.

Grateful for any views.

ALR (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The links are at Intelligence assessment, and the redirect is from intelligence (information gathering). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is more about the general point, what should an overarching article be called?

ALR (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What term do other encylopaedias or government bodies use? And having looking over all the related intelligence articles, I'd say that if they were a house you'd pull it down and start again. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - the article as it stands Intelligence assessment has 50 works given under References and yet contains only a bit over 30 lines of text (as displayed on my screen). Only one sentence has a citation and that lacks a page number. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The discipline is just "intelligence" and the process that analysts conduct is "intelligence assessment".

I would agree about the articles, they're hellish.

ALR (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment Talk Page/B-Class Sweeps

First of all, shouldn't there be an assessment talk page? This really belongs here.

Second of all I always thought that this project should be doing B-Class and A-Class sweeps. Because a lot of the articles there aren't of the adequate quality, especially the old ones. For example .30-40_Krag. Doesn't really seem like B-Class quality. Would it be too difficult to have B-Class sweeps? Even if we wouldn't have sweeps, there should be a reassessment department.--Iankap99 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of recommendations for this as well.

1. If the article is GA or better then we should eliminate the B class checklist. For these higher class articles the checklist provides no value because it is inferred in the articles assessment and IMO clutters up the category.
2. I also recommend that teh Checklist be removed from Stubs. Again a stub inferrs that the article doesn't meet the B class checklist on at least a couple of criteria and again IMO distracts by filling the category with articles that need a lot more work. --Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with the assessment talk page was that it was too low traffic. The use of this main page opens it to a wider group of editors. A high proportion of traffic here is assessment related, usually around individual articles. However, I see your point that talking about how we do assessment as opposed to individual assessments might be better done elsewhere - the strategy group, perhaps?

I'm not into assessment in a big way - I just do a bit to pay my dues to the project. But I think your point about stubs is a good one - it would cut our incomplete list, bringing them in only when they reach a certain scale. In fact, I'd like to see a simpler system for adding blank B class lists to start articles, either automated (lots of things happen automatically when you assess an article as start, why not attachment of a blank B class list?) or a one click button on the template. I think I'd complete more B lists that way. Monstrelet (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Stub status negates the B-class checklist, there's no point in removing it. But I'd like to echo Monstrelet that more automation of the assessment process would be very welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to retain the B-Class checklists on all articles: Stubs, because it's there as a placeholder and makes assessing them slightly easier (per Monstrelet); and GA and above because technically GA is outside the project assessment hierarchy and an article can be both B-Class and GA (or A-Class and GA for that matter), and also because having a completed B-Class checklist may be useful when downgrading a higher-class article. EyeSerene^talk 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the project determines B and A but GA and FA are out of project control. Also if an article is downgraded to B or below (heaven forbid!) it would be advantageous to retain the B class checklist. In my experiences with the Robotics project there have been more times where the article is so radically changed, from when it was assessed as B prior to GA or FA, that there is often a need to re-assess completely anyway. I do not have enough experience with the MilHist GAs and FAs to comment on whether that would be the case here though.

Perhaps there is a need for an archive of B class ratings? A separate page where they are kept would maybe help on this matter - they could be kept in drop downs with a separate header for each assessment by date or alpha ordered. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that whenever an article is downgraded we should reassess anyway; it would be pretty poor form to just assume that, say, a demoted A-Class article still meets the B-Class criteria without actually checking. Regarding assessment records, there is a bot-maintained log of changes in article status at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Log which includes assessments. It's not sortable in the way you suggest though and I'm not sure if older changes are archived anywhere (I guess Kirill might know!) EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The old assessments are in the page history of the log itself, but the assessment bots don't create any stand-alone archive. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Within Scope?

Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics

And all the other Lockheed articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lockheed_Martin --Iankap99 (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say many of them do but not sure that all of them would! --Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Kumioko - I think each article should be considered on an individual basis. EyeSerene^talk 09:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's worth noting that we've historically taken a pretty relaxed approach to articles being in and outside of the project's scope, so if you think that it's in scope its unlikely that anyone will disagree. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me, I just tagged John, King of England, for Milhist, and it's at FAC, so someone who knows what they're doing should probably add it to our review page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Anna Kreisling? Hoax??

A link to this recently created article about an alledged Female Lutwaffe test pilot was just been added to the Junkers Ju 390 article. It claims that the subject was flew Junkers Ju 52s over Stalingrad, was co-pilot of the Ju 390 when it overflew New York, personally saved Hirohito's life in 1945 and was captured by American ground troops when test flying a prototype Horten Ho 229 jet fighter. The article seems to be a complete hoax however - For example the New York flight almost certainly never happened, and only two Ho 229s ever flew, one of which was an unpowered glider, and the other crashed fatally in February 1945. The article seems to be a complete fantasy to me. Opinions?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not a deliberate hoax (see [12]), but at best an unsupported story promoted by the author of the linked site that seems to have taken on a life of its own (see [13]). There may be a case for CSD G3 (blatant hoaxes), but we could equally assume the author has been taken in by the plentiful misinformation on the web and created the article in good faith. Personally I think WP:PROD (followed by AfD if contested) might be the best route, though others may have different thoughts :) EyeSerene^talk 20:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree AFD this. I have had a quick look and can find no sources (beyond the saem artcviel copied).Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead with the prod as you were posting. If it's contested I'll be happy to file the AfD (unless someone else does first!) I'll keep the article watchlisted in any case. EyeSerene^talk 20:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The linked site is also pretty suspect (IMO)...not what I'd consider a reputable source.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The reply on the Axis History Forum (my second link) is interesting - the author there seems to think that someone is deliberately faking these stories (fake female Luftwaffe pilots & fake SS personnel). Maybe someone with too much time on their hands, or some kind of social experiment to see how quickly disinformation will spread? Anyhow, there's no place for it here... though I can see us having to regularly delete this article for some time to come :( EyeSerene^talk 20:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For information, a search of The Times for the term "Anna AND Kreisling" for the period 1-1-39 to 31-12-45 returned no results, as did a search for "Kreisling" in that period. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to nominate this for AfD and that would give you a good mandate to delete and salt it. As it is, anyone can argue against a PROD even after it is deleted and then we go through all this again. Woody (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that. Thanks for the advice Woody - I've opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anna_Kreisling#Anna_Kreisling. EyeSerene^talk 10:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, the article has now been deleted and salted against being recreated. It's possible that it may reappear at some point at a slightly different title, but we now have community consensus to shoot it on sight if it does. Thanks Nigel Ish for spotting it and to everyone who contributed here and at the AfD :) EyeSerene^talk 11:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of HMS prefix for pre-1660 English warships?

Your attention is drawn here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#HMS_prefix_in_old_English_warships. The Land (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandal?

Sorry guys, I don't have time to do the research today, but this guy seems to be a serial vandalizer of Milhist pages, he just did it again 10 mins ago. Any admins wanna check his contribs for signs of usefulness? - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked the diffs; all that user's edits have been reverted by somebody. The only thing left to do here is see if the IPer does more unhelpful edits. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked them for 72 hours. There seem to be an unusually high number of IP vandals at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminder List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944) featured list review

May I ask the community to participate in reviewing List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944)? The article has been up for review since 8 February and not drawing much attention so far. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal

Ok i am sure you guys have noticed the new portal -- Portal:Canadian Armed Forces - hope its to your liking (its in the style of the other Canadian portals. I have also started a Bibliography at Bibliography of Canadian military history (that at some point we can make a stand alone list). Anywas y i am here i i am having trouble finding pic for Portal:Canadian Armed Forces/Selected panoramic picture if anyone knows of some pls let me know here or add them at will. All the best guys and thanks for all the great FA and GA articles you guys have made - made my job of filling portal easy. Moxy (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you need more ships. :p But seriously, that looks pretty good to my untrained eye. Nice work and I hope to see more in the future! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks quite, good (although perhaps the blue links in the header boxes should be made a more contrasting color). I'd suggest putting a link to the Canadian military history TF somewhere on the page, incidentally, as most other military-related portals link to the correspond task force(s). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done --> Portal:Canadian Armed Forces/Canadian Armed Forces Featured articles - as for blue links in headers will have to make a new code - will take some time (as the default is blue)Moxy (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like {{purge}} doesn't handle nested spans gracefully, but I've managed to get Portal:Canadian Armed Forces/box-header to render the link in an alternate color. I'm not sure whether yellow is a good choice for both title and link, though; you might want to play around with different arrangements. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kirill GREAT JOB in fixing the color of the purge (i stole the code and fixed some other portals that had the same problem). As per the norm with this project you guys are great with helping. AND are by far one of the most respected and like projects here. I am glad i could do my small part for the project. PS you guys have a commons section on panoramas ???Moxy (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Portal:Canadian Forces using common name. I applaud your initiative, but we usually discuss this before we create Portals. If you look in the deletion logs, there have been several CF portals that have been deleted. Ng.j (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you pls ask for help if you wish to move this ...I have reverted the move - as it was not done properly. Would be best to see Wikipedia:Requested moves as they can do this properly and with a bot fix all the portal links if you wish. PS On Wikipedia you dont need to ask permission to create articles, essays, portals, projects, etc. Moxy (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Massacre of the Ninth Legion

Massacre of the Ninth Legion - this doesn't seem to be real. Is this real? I can across this after reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12752497 - Apparently the Ninth Legion was mysteriously lost. Also, we have an article describing exactly what happened to them... Wha? I guess someone saw a "What if...?" program made by HISTORIANS and made an article describing it. There was an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of the Ninth Legion, but I still can't tell if the article is fiction or not. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be written as this sequence of events is known to be what caused Legio IX Hispana to vanish as there's been a very long-running debate over whether it was or wasn't wiped out in Britain that will probably never be settled. I think that this should be redirected to Legio IX Hispana#Disappearance which seems to do an OK job of covering the historical debate. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mixing up two events. The article is about the Boudiccan revolt in 60AD, the disappearance is dated post 108AD (two theories - a massacre in Scotland cica 117AD, transfer to the East, lost in battle circa 160AD). The IX was rebuilt after the Boudiccan revolt. Monstrelet (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops :o you're right Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I conflated the two. Still, by the talk page and AfD, and the fact that one cannot easily read the refs, I still get the impression that the text is fictionalized history. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't brilliant, as relies on an original source (Tacitus) and only one proper secondary (Webster). Webster was a respected academic, though, and the account looks like others you'd see in a basic coverage of the Boudiccan Revolt. The article as described by the AfD has clearly been worked on as suggested there. So, I think the "fictionalisation" is just repeating one historian's reconstruction - not uncommon in smaller wiki articles - and speculation about where the battle site was - again not uncommon. Whether there is genuinely enough for a separate article or whether it should be merged into either the IX Hispana or the Boudiccan Revolt article is another discussion. Monstrelet (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of the Wilderness

Needs to be transcluded. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done this now. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move: Myanmar Armed Forces to Tatmadaw

There is proposed move here Talk:Myanmar_Armed_Forces#Move_request GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured sounds

Hi! Um, I'm afraid you may have missed some things in the latest Bugle: Several military bugle calls have been promoted to Featured sound this month, including Taps, Reville, and To the Colors. More will likely follow. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The usual automated tracking systems (e.g. article alerts, etc.) don't usually pick up sound files, so we've mainly been using the "Features & Admins" reporting in the Signpost to keep track of featured sound promotions. I'm guessing the implication here is that said reporting is (or has been) incomplete? That would be unfortunate (though not entirely surprising).

I suppose someone should probably go through the main featured sound listing and make a list of military-related sounds that we can use to cross-reference against our showcase listing here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) now open

The peer review for Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

• There is an ongoing content dispute; see the PR; Talk:Chief of Defence Force (Singapore); User talk:HJ Mitchell#Help mediate a content dispute? and User talk:Foxhound66. I am requesting that experienced MILHIST editors review the dispute and leave advice on the disputed content. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Russian and Soviet missiles

Hi! there is a problem with "Template:Russian and Soviet missiles".--MaxDel (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

More details would be helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I solved (a bracket was missing).--MaxDel (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the entries, S-400 (SAM) could use moving over S-400 (missile) as a better disambiguator.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

About S-400 (SAM), I have noted that there is a redirect from S-400 (missile) to this page. I think that maybe hardly changing.--MaxDel (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A Ship Question

The Frank Buckles article is currently under peer review and the reviewer, User:Wehwalt, is wondering when talking about the ship "the Carpathia" if the "the" is necessary or as he put it "advisable". Hence I am asking you all here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS member butting in! The use of the phrase "the Carpathia" or Carpathia on its own is fine, per WP:MOSSHIP, but a single style should be stuck to throughout. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know we had a SHIPS project. Neat! :) We have been using "the Carpathia" and "the Titanic" (as it is mentioned in passing). Mostly cause, being a Navy brat, that was the way I was brought up to say the ships names. It was "the <name>". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Generalfeldmarschall

Generalfeldmarschall has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Generalfeldmarschall . -- 184.144.166.85 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PRC maritime warcraft prodded for deletion

A bunch of PROC maritime warcraft have been prodded for deletion. See Category:Proposed deletion as of 20 March 2011 . 184.144.166.85 (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox military structure

I've raised some questions at Template talk:Infobox military structure over the future of this template. I anticipate you'd be against a merger but if it is to be kept then it should be used more consistentally. I've witnessed at least three different infobox types used in articles on castles.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A military structure usually consists of more than a single building. It's commonly used for bases, posts and other similar facilities. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is, I think, a discussion to be had about the entire set of military "location" infoboxes. Note that we actually have three distinct templates:

• {{infobox military structure}}
• {{infobox military memorial}}
• {{infobox military test site}}

Assuming, for the moment, that any changes to the memorial infobox are a secondary consideration—although there's probably a legitimate argument to be made that military memorials should use either the infobox for "regular" memorials or the infobox for historical military buildings/monuments/etc.—there is still the question of why test sites are so different from other types of facilities that they require a separate infobox.

One possible approach might be to merge the building-specific parameters from {{infobox military structure}} to whatever the normal infobox for buildings is, and then add parameters to {{infobox military test site}} to make it usable for all facilities broader in scope than a single building or set of buildings (including test sites, bases, and so forth), turning it into {{infobox military site}} in the process. This would simplify the choice of available infoboxes for most articles, but might require some thought for more extensive fortifications such as the Maginot Line (would they be considered buildings or sites?).

Another possibility might be to combine {{infobox military structure}} and {{infobox military test site}} into a single {{infobox military facility}} that would include both building- and site-level fields. This would, however, complicate things in terms of keeping any level of consistency with non-military or partially military buildings.

Yet another approach might be to create a dedicated {{infobox fortification}} for actual fortifications, and then create some sort of combined infobox for the non-fortification facilities and sites. This would allow for more specific fields for castles and such, but would again raise questions for systems of fortifications.

Comments? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

An infobox|fortification would probably be a good thing, which would allow us to discriminate between fortifications and other types of military buildings which may or may not be associated with fortifications.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a few ways this can be done. One would be to have a general, encompassing, I don't know.. "Military Facility" which would have many options inside to cover a wide number of types of military structures, bases, test sites.. etc.. The other way is to have a large variety of military templates, specific to the type of installation. Personally, I would prefer the more general template, but having specific ones is fine also. If it's the latter, I would suggest "Military Airfield", as the Infobox Airport is focused on civil airports; not military ones. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing a Military Airfield infobox, we do the best we can with the Airport one but really the only justification I can see for using that same template is that some military airfields are colocated with civil ones, but even then the facilities are generally separate, with just a common runway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. I've come across this with RAF stations. By turns they are an airfield/airport, a unit and a structure (base) and I have seen all three templates used - some articles are currently using two at the same time (see RAF Coltishall for an example). The infobox airport suffers in part (though it does attempt to cover military airfields) because it displays empty fields ie ICAO and IATA codes when many airfields predate these organisations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The display of ICAO and IATA codes when no info is enteres could be sorted out by a tweak to the template so that these are only displayed when an entry is made. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Very intelligent proposal Kirill. That was sort of the idea that any needed parameters are added to the infobox building and that any articles which are not buildings but military establishments use some specially made template. Its just in regards to historic buildings whether it is old castles, manor houses or whatever I think it is important that we try to make it consistent with a one infobox style.The problem is that many people, myself included tend to view castles as historic buildings/architecture rather than from a military perspective. The way to go I think is to develop infobox building so it can cater for most types of buildings and the parameters are made more flexible. I'd support a merger of castles and forts for example to use infobox building with updated military parameters from the current template, and then I think a merge rof the others into {{infobox military facility}} would be ideal. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see great value in combining the templates into one, but only if the parameters are arranged so that it can be used for a large base/installation, specific structure, or a general type of fortification.

That said, integration with {{Infobox airport}} is tricky, much like how {{Infobox military person}} other biographical infoboxes interact (such as the compromise with {{Infobox officeholder}} that wasn't perfect). However, since we managed to make {{Infobox military person}} embed virtually perfectly within another infobox, I haven't found any problems that can't be fixed by integrating them. I imagine we can probably arrange something similar, which would also be helpful for the many article that aslo have {{Infobox NRHP}} (though I personally think that infobox should be embedded into the military one, a function it supports). bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What are these?

What is the correct name for these? Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question. From the architecture and the location they look like they could be Atlantic Wall bunkers for a 4-gun artillery battery. Or maybe they're something to do with the adjacent airstrip? The Land (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate tells me the German name translates to "Paderborn gun emplacements". I have heard them just called "pillboxes". The Brits used them too, see British hardened field defences of World War II. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Land is pretty much correct as to what they are. The location is Saint-Inglevert Airfield. I want to expand the article a bit more, but would like to get the correct terminology. Ref [1] is the relevant source, but it's in French. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion in German at leo.org gives a link to a German-English Military Dictionary that says "gun position, gun emplacement, position of the piece". - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So, would revetments be the correct term? Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

By my understanding of "revetment", no. Given the period & location, I'd say "pillbox". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

They seem a bit big for pillboxes, IMO, so I'd probably call them bunkers. But there's certainly no formal size distinction between the two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Germans tried standardizing the types and architecture of bunkers, pillboxes etc. to ease the logistics and speed up the construction for the Organisation Todt. I am guessing here but maybe the prefix "Paderborn" denotes a certain type of pillbox or compound of pillboxes. Last year I toured the Normandy landing beaches and you can still see the similarities in types of casemates, pillboxes and general layout of strong points. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I went with "bunker" in the end. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens between numbers and units

I am very familiar with the use of hyphens and non-breaking spaces as specified in WP:MOSNUM. However, I see many, many instances in military and naval articles where I think there should be a hyphen, but there is just a blank. I haven't been able to find anything in this guideline or its subsidiary style guideline that discourages the use of hyphens, but I wonder why hyphens don't seem to be used as much as in articles on civilian topics. The article "6 inch 26 cwt howitzer" seems to cry out for a hyphen before "inch" and a non-breaking space before "cwt" (as it is an abbreviated unit), although it does contain a mention a 5.5-inch gun. Have I missed something in the guidelines? Would an editor encounter flak if he or she tried to add hyphens or move an article to a hyphenated version of its title? Chris the speller (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For ships, it's just complicated. I think we have/had consensus for hyphenated page titles like Minas Geraes-class battleship, but no one (me included) has put forth the effort to move them outside of the South American dreadnoughts and North Carolina-class battleship. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the German ships have dashes as well, which irritates me because {{sclass}}, [[tl|ship}}, and nation-specific subtemplates don't seem to support the dash. Right now, there are ten greenlinks (redirects) on Portal:Battleships/Quality content because of this. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "6-inch gun" is necessary as it is a sort of designation, though I have often seen people unfamiliar with military terminology argue it should be 6 [[inch|in]]. The situation for "6 inch 23 cwt" is less than clear. Personally I prefer to leave hyphens out of ship classes though I wouldn't call including them an error... The Land (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree on 6-inch (tho "6in" wouldn't offend me ;p ), but not on ship classes in all cases. As a page title, no, because it's descriptive; in reference to a member of the class, yes: so, the group would be Iowa class, but New Jersey is Iowa-class. Which, I think, avoids a need for mass renaming. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For the hyphen in ship class article titles, this project is free to set its own standards, though it might be a good idea to put something in writing on the project page or one of its subpages. I'm more concerned with hyphens in measurements; does an editor who is changing "6 inch walls" to "6-inch walls" need to change gears when a military or naval article is encountered? I found this phrase: "with her heaviest guns being 6 inch quick-firers", which makes the reader pause for a moment to decide whether her heaviest guns are 6 in number or whether an unspecified number of guns have a 6-inch bore. This phrase would certainly be smoother with a hyphen after the number. However, I found over 100 links to RML 9 inch 12 ton gun. By the way, one link was from 1-inch Nordenfelt gun, pointing out the inconsistency. But a campaign to add hyphens to the article titles would involve changing "nn inch" to "nn-inch" and then changing "nn ton" to "nn-ton". Just for RML guns this might create 10,000 article links that point to double redirects. On the other hand, creating a single redirect page from "RML 9-inch 12-ton gun" to "RML 9 inch 12 ton gun" would allow other articles to use the fully hyphenated term without moving any articles. Would it be OK to have hyphens in the opening sentence, "The RML 9-inch guns Mark I - Mark VI were large rifled muzzle-loading guns" while the article title remains without the hyphens? I am beginning to see how things ended up the way they are; it's pretty close to the point of "you can't get there from here". Will it be OK to add hyphens where needed in article text while avoiding moving articles for hyphenation purposes? Chris the speller (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely okay, and will save us some trouble. No need to shift to a different set of rules, I think; in articles at peer review and A-class review, we usually remember to hyphenate "6-inch" in the text, and I haven't gotten any resistance over that. I don't have an opinion on hyphens in page titles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of this is a product of non-specialist editors, too. There's a usual practise ("convention" is a bit strong) to hyphenate, in what I've read, but I'll wager a lot of editors aren't as exposed to it. Same applies to adding spacing to firearm calibers. I'd expect some rvs when hyphens get added & resistance to pagemoves over it. I'd also say the hyphen should be in, or out, for the entire page, if only for consistency of usage. Using a hyphenated redirect makes a lot of sense, in all cases, IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the insight. I have a much better feel now for the use of hyphens in these articles. Let me know if I make too many waves; I'm not intentionally trying to rock the boat. OK, no more puns from me. Chris the speller (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff

The Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff article is currently on the Main Page as part of OTD. Unfortunately, virtually all the article is unreferenced, which I've raise at WT:OTD. It shouldn't be too hard to get some refs for the various claims, including the Hitler assassination attempt. Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Three Questions

1- In a document from WWI, it refers to "Cas. Det. Dem. Group". I have figured the "Cas. Det." part (Casual Detachment) but the "Dem." part confuses me. Does anyone know?

2- I am trying to figure out how someone was discharged in 1918, but promoted to Corporal in 1919.

3- On this discharge paper, it refers to a "W.D. letter". What is a "W.D. letter"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"WD" will be War Department; I believe 30 November was the date a general demobilisation was ordered, but I could be wrong on this. The discharge is dated 13/11/1919, not 13/11/1918, so this explains the discrepancy - demobilisation was authorised by an announcement on 30/11/1918, but it took just under a year for him to be actually discharged. I'm not entirely clear on "Dem" - "demolition group" is unlikely, but "demobilisation group" might be possible. Shimgray | talk | 17:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am so glad we have people who understand this stuff. :) I will definitely add this to the article (see Frank Buckles). - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another question on the above: We have that Buckles was in the 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment, but it later says he was in the 122nd Prisoner of War Escort Company (though I can find nothing on them on Google). Would that be a division of the 1st Fort Riley or a completely seperate detachment? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The discharge papers list "PWE Co. 122, Cas. Det. Dem. Group" - if PWE is "Prisoner [of] War Escort", this would fit. It suggests that the 122nd PWE was a subset of the Casual Detachment; given that we already know it involved ambulances and despatch riders, and will have been an all-purpose unit covering miscellaneous roles at (from?) Fort Riley, this seems quite plausible. These organisations are very lightly covered in the general historical record, so it's no surprise nothing appears on Google! Shimgray | talk | 19:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am having a tough time finding anything, really, about his service in WWI. I can find nothing about his early life like parents names, siblings, etc. The LOC is helping to an extent, but it is still few and far between. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Dem" could stand for "Demobilization", as the U.S. Army was basically "shedding" people at this time. It wouldn't be unusual for a Casual Detachment to be formed at Fort Riley, as that was a major mobilization/demobilization center at that time. I would speculate that the 122nd PWE was formed as an ad-hoc detachment, and he may have been shifted from it to the Casual Det. for demobilization purposes. There was a pretty exhaustive study of the U.S. Army in WWI done by the Army itself. It's discussed here but without the title.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have an email into the biographer for Frank Buckles asking the same above question, but since he (Buckles) just passed away, I am not expecting an immediate response on this one. I am hoping we find out what the "Dem." means and if the "PWE Co. 122, Cas. Det. Dem. Group" is a "division" (for lack of a better term) of the 1st Fort Riley, before I take this to FAC (which I intend to do). - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of armored cruisers of Germany needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of armored cruisers of Germany; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen or not

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian-American history#Move request. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Proposal: Submitting A-Class articles to GAN

I found several dozen of our A-Class articles are not of GA status, This is a problem as A-Class articles are only recognized by our project where GAs are recognized throughout the community. This would also help us with our goal of 1,500 GA. Another reason is to help out WP:GA with their lists of GA in recognizing quality articles.

I propose that we start a task of bringing all of our A-Class articles to GA status. --Iankap99 (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been talking about this on IRC with Ian, and I agree. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As A class is higher than GA class, any articles not meeting GA class should be downgraded until such time as they do meet GA class. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Some here don't bother with GANs when they do ACR as they intend to go right to FAC, which if successful will supplant GA anyway. Me, I tend to go for GAN and ACR more-or-less simultaneously no matter what, as I think it can produce a more well-rounded article since GAN reviewers aren't always specialists. I think it's fair enough to try to get our A-Class articles through GA if they aren't already, but best to ask the main contributor(s) to the A-Class articles if they'd like to nominate, as a courtesy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As a contrarian view, wouldn't this be process wonkery? For an article to have reached A class it must exceed the GA criteria, so asking editors to conduct GA reviews of these articles doesn't seem like a good use of time. I take the point that there are central listings of GAs and a natty tag to place on articles, but I haven't seen a military history A class article where the rating isn't recognised by other projects and A class ratings were used by the WP:1.0 project to select articles for inclusion in their CDs. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

But it was stated above that some A class article do not pass GA class criteria. If it's not of GA quality, then it can't be of A class quality either, and therefore should be downgraded to B class at best until a GAR is carried out. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there's some misunderstanding here. It was stated that they do not have GA status—that is, they have not formally been flagged as GAs—not that they do not meet the criteria; there's no reason to believe the latter is the case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As an outsider just passing by, can I suggest that this is a good idea to ensure a semblance of uniformity? Maybe - and I'm just floating ideas here - a discussion could be held to have ACR qualify as a GA review? If that could be applied retroactively there'd be no extra burden on the GA process either. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 09:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Much of the focus at GAN is on independence of reviews, and having the same people from the same wikiproject deciding on GAs is more or less the opposite of what they're looking for. OTOH, if we can consistently produce articles at A-class that meet the GA criteria (we're not 100% but we're doing well), we could always ask over at WT:GAN if any reviewers would like to read the notes from the A-class review when they're reviewing. Most GAN reviewers would prefer to get their job done relatively quickly with a minimum of fuss, and what they see at ACR might reassure them about what's been looked at and about how easy the nominator is to work with. Conceivably, this would reduce the average time in the queue for these articles. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was musing on the independence factor myself... I guess an oversight would be required. But no more than, I should think. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Nick on this in terms of this being process for process sake. If they are A-Class then, for the vast majority of articles, they meet the GA criteria. We don't need to further burden the reviewers at GA simply to tick a box and nor do I see the need to push those that don't have the official tag through GAN in order to reach our target of 1,500. Whilst I understand the sentiment, I think this would just be an unneccessary exercise in trophy collecting. Woody (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Nick and Woody here. Taking articles that have passed the A-class criteria (which are supposedly stricter than the GA criteria) and putting them through GAN just to do it seems like nothing more than trophy collecting. The purpose of GAN, ACR and FAC is to improve articles - whether there ends up being a banner on the talk page or not - and I don't see how putting A-class articles through GAN is going to significantly improve the quality of those articles. Although it would be nice to think that GANs mean that the articles get outside-the-project reviewers, that is often not the case, as many MILHIST articles get reviewed at GAN by other MILHIST editors. All of the review processes are laboring under increasing numbers of articles with low reviewer numbers - there's no need to further clog the system just for trophies (whether on individual articles or project goals). Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd agree with y'all, but I'm currently reviewing the Panzer IV article which is riddled with cite and dubious tags. In other words a real candidate for a A-class retention review and I have no intention of passing the article until all of those tags are dealt with. So, for all the trophy collecting that may or may not be involved, I view it as an opportunity to validate the A-class status of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the articles get improved taking your Panzer example, I submitted last night to GAN, and there are a good amount of improvements to be made.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panzer_IV/GA1 --Iankap99 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Re PzIV, that was something JonCatalán and I were working on a couple of years ago with a view to FAC, but a content dispute developed with a rather determined new editor (see the article talk page) and after the addition of numerous dubious edits we both kind of lost interest. Unless it's been significantly cleaned up since, I wouldn't have thought it was ready for GA (and should probably be put up for A-Class reassessment tbh).

Re nominating A-Class articles for GAR, I think it's easy to forget that project assessments and community reviews are parallel processes; although GA appears in our assessment hierarchy it's not really part of it and in reality doesn't slot neatly in between B- and A-Class (in fact, it overlaps both). GA reviews and milhist assessments look for slightly different things; as such, it's technically possible (if unlikely) that an article could pass milhist ACR but fail GA with no contradiction involved. Because the emphasis in each process is different I see some value in nominating A-Class articles for GA review; outside of FAC it may be the only time a milhist article is reviewed by a non-milhist person. However, the points about overloading review processes with articles that probably don't need more assessments (there will be exceptions) are very valid. EyeSerene^talk 10:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Would everyone be happy if we give instructions at A-class something along these lines? "If your article passes A-class and has never passed GAN, and if you want to take the article to FAC, we suggest you at least list the article for a few weeks at GAN and see if there's interest there in reviewing it before you go to FAC." Theory: I'm pretty sure FAC reviewers will have a bad reaction if they think that our position as a project is that no benefit would be derived from review outside our project before heading to FAC ... that's exactly the kind of review they like to see, when we can get it. Of course, Milhist people generally do the GAN reviews, but at least we'd be giving everyone a whack at it. Things are going well at FAC these days ... I'd like to encourage just about anyone who gets an article through A-class to take it on to FAC at some point ... but "well" doesn't mean "no problems", and some of these problems would be caught in the more relaxed, one-on-one atmosphere of a GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me.Hchc2009 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I'd also gently encourage anyone who does nominate an article at GAN to have a go at reviewing one as well :) EyeSerene^talk 11:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep to both of those, Eye. As I said earlier, GAN is good for at least having a shot at getting an outside perspective on the article, and you can't have too many people looking something over before it goes to FAC. Even if you don't go on to FAC and just top out at A-Class, a GAN should polish it just that bit more. As to the last comment, well you really shouldn't throw something up for review without doing some reciprocal work... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Both of those work for me as well. I don't think anyone will really object to the idea that we should encourage people to go through all the available reviews, since that gives us the best shot at a successful FAC in any case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good for now. Eventually, we'll probably want to expand the material and pull it into the ACR Academy course we keep discussing; but that's not an immediate need. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But what to do about the 60+ current A without GA?--Iankap99 (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, for the ones that look FAC-worthy, hopefully we could get someone to submit them to GAN first. For the ones that might not meet current A-class standards, a trip to GAN as a first step might be a good idea, since they're more likely to succeed there than at an A-class re-evaluation, and collaboration is easier when it's done in a context of succeeding. That just leaves the articles that we believe are A-worthy but not FAC-worthy, and A-class is stringent enough these days that there probably won't be a lot of those. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suppose you could go through and nominate the articles yourself, if you think it's important that they go through GAN. Personally, I don't think it's really a priority; in relative terms, running articles that have already been heavily reviewed through yet another review offers fewer immediate benefits than doing so with, say, the better B-Class articles. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gonna play devil's advocate here: does anyone think there would be value in making GA a prerequisite to being submitted for ACR? Like Dank said, the requirements for each are not necessarily the same (GA seems to be more oriented toward MOS and formatting, while ACR is a bit more content-specific and technical), and it seems to make some hierarchical sense to me. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna violate my usual rule and vote for the choice that makes life more difficult for me: no. I'd love to see more polished articles at ACR, but you know how it is, people get excited about their articles for a while, and then, not so much. I don't want their interest to run out while they're sitting in the GAN queue for weeks ... if they think it's A-class material, I'll be more than happy to give feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well I've now reviewed Lee-Enfield at WP:GAN and the review is now On Hold, (see Talk:Lee-Enfield/GA1). I'm also inclined to seak a new A-class review; its certainly better than B-class, but I'm not too convinced that it is now an A-class. Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking, I see it passed review a little over two years ago - is this perhaps more a sign that we need to be more alert to "quality decay" in articles? Shimgray | talk | 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Libyan Uprising/Civil War

There are a large stack of new articles on actions being fought in Libya at the moment. I'll leave it to recentism devotees to decide whether this is appropriate but I have noticed what seems be DAB issues. Articles First Battle of Brega and Second Battle of Brega imply no previous battles in that place, though there was action there in WWII. Likewise Battle of Benghazi - should this be disambiguated because of the action there in WWII, even though wikipedia doesn't have a discrete article on it? Monstrelet (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The names seem quite dubious to me - we're giving very formal historical names to these events without any evidence anyone is actually using them. "Second Battle of Brega", for example, is a term that doesn't appear to be used outside of enwp mirrors! Not quite sure how best to deal with it, though... Shimgray | talk | 14:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming has been discussed on the Battle of Benghazi talkpage, though not in any great depth. We already have a Second battle of Benghazi listed but not linked List_of_North_African_Campaign_battles#1942 as 28th January. I'd say a hatnote link to an appropriate sub-section of Benghazi#History, but according to that article nothing apart from some bombing happened between 1940 and 1986! (though the Timeline of the North Africa Campaign shows it changing hands five times). A mixture of disambiguation and hatnotes perhaps. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why the 1942 one is described there as the Second Battle of Benghazi. The linked source doesn't explicitly name it, and the official list of (Commonwealth) battle honours only mentions the one Benghazi, no disambiguating date or number - so if 1942 was second, I have no idea when was the first... Shimgray | talk | 18:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

this says the Royal Sussex Regiment recived the battle honour Benghazi for an action in 1942. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the one - "Benghazi", 27th-29th January, awarded to the Royal Sussex and the Welsh Regiments, both part of 4th Indian Division. I've been through the rest of the list and if there was an earlier battle at Benghazi, the honours list calls it something else. Shimgray | talk | 21:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been a long-running issue with articles on recent battles. The group of editors most active in these articles tend to make up grand names that aren't used in the references such as 'Battle of X' for ground battles and 'Action of YY Date Year' for naval battles. I'd suggest keeping an eye out for copyvios from news stories as well, as this is also a long running problem with these types of articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation names

On a related article naming issue. The Canadian contribution is at Operation MOBILE. Is this a case of incorrect use of caps or are Canadian ops acronyms? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Per this page, it seems the preferred CF style is to cap operation names; there's a list here, and it seems that our articles are a bit of a mismash. I suspect the best thing to do is decap and treat it as a proper name - there's various military conventions involving the use of capital letters for things (eg ship names) which we ignore in favour of a more natural style. Shimgray | talk | 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is I believe British practice to write Operation names in caps, and also for units, in documentation but we don't on wikipedia. I'll see if a move is possible. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Found the appropriate manual of style guidance (MOS:ALLCAPS) but Operation Mobile already exists as a redirect. Any one in a position to move it? Failing that how do I flag it up as what ought to be a non-controversial move? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion on the talkpage in favour of caps - I'm not sure this is right, but on the other hand it certainly suggests it's not going to be non-controversial! Probably worth a wider discussion... Shimgray | talk | 20:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted, I'll comment there. If anyone else comments here I'll link to this discussion as well. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This BBC article might be of some interest:

"For a single country contribution one word is used, and since this refers to Canada's contribution, one word MOBILE is used. Additionally, because Canada is a bilingual country, the word chosen must work in both official languages. MOBILE is spelled the same in both English and French."

The use of capital letters is just a custom and not significant, she adds.

- which is about what I suspected, stylistic rather than anything more critical. Shimgray | talk | 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Military-related featured sounds

This is an attempt at a complete list, as of today, per Kirril's suggestion above. I thought it best to make a new section, given how quick new topics appear here.

This is an attempt to list all Military-related sound files. As some of them are judgement calls, I've cast the net a bit wide, but divided it into categories so you can just select the ones you feel are sufficiently connected to the project.

N.B. "It's a Long Way to Tipperary", in your current list, has been delisted from Featured sounds due to excessive editing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Undeniably Military

Things which few would question as being military and/or military-history related.

---

Probably Military

Sound files, with a strong, but not direct connection to Military history, e.g. songs popular in the U.S. Civil War.

---

Don't have time to check

Speeches by U.S. Presidents that probably have some Military connection, but which are long.

---

Slightly Military

Weak connections or dramatizations of highly fictionalised military accounts.

---

Honestly not sure

Things I don't know the subject well enough to judge.

---

Civil Rights Movement

Not sure if this is considered part of this project. Probably not?

---

Performed by United States Army, Air Force, or Navy Bands

...But otherwise not particularly military-related. (See also: National anthems)

---

Suite No. 1 from Ottorino Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances (1917). It is based on Renaissance lute pieces by Simone Molinaro, Vincenzo Galilei, and various anonymous composers.

Discussion

Off the top of my head, I would suggest the following approach for each category above:

1. Undeniably Military: include these, obviously. I'm not sure that Obama's oath of office necessarily belongs in this category, though.
2. Probably Military: these seem to have enough cultural association with military history that we should include them.
3. Don't have time to check: I don't believe any of these speeches have much (anything?) to do with the military, so I would suggest not including them.
4. Slightly Military: I'd be tempted to include the Ride of the Valkyries, but more because of its association with Apocalypse Now than for any real military ties. Other than that, I'm not sure if any of these really belong in our scope.
5. Honestly not sure: I don't believe this one is military-related.
6. Space Programme: Some of the people involved were military, but I think our general approach has been not to include the civil space programs per se.
7. Civil Rights Movement: as Adam suggests, this isn't really part of our scope.
8. National anthems: March of the Volunteers might have enough military association to be included; the other ones probably don't.
9. Performed by United States Army, Air Force, or Navy Bands: there's probably no reason to include things merely because they happened to be played by a military band, considering the breadth of some bands' repertoires.

Comments? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd include a specific president's oath of office. When it comes to U.S. music, I also don't think the national anthem should be considered military per se. Most of John Phillip Sousa's compositions could be considered military, though, as he was a prolific regimental march composer in addition to his more famous Marine Corps work.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Star-Spangled BAnner is a description of a Military engagement. I consider that military, though you may want to cut the instrumental from the list, and use the vocal recording, File:MargaretWoodrowWilson-TheStarSpangledBanner.ogg.

In any case, my goal was to set this out for easy consideration, with my best attempt at categorization. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I largely concur with Kirill re the top two or three sections. I'm in two minds about the Star Spangled Banner - its origin is certainly military, but as a national anthem I'm not sure it qualifies as enough of an exclusively military-related tune to come under the project. I wouldn't include Obama's oath of office or inauguration speech. Ride of the Valkyries maybe, again per Kirill. The rest ("Honestly not sure" onwards) are probably not within our scope in my view. Thank you Adam for taking the time to put together this list - it's very kind of you and greatly appreciated! EyeSerene^talk 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Potential additional featured sounds in Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/U.S._Air_Force_Marches. I'd suggest Washington Greys, composed for a Civil War Regiment, should definitely be in if it passes, and The Gladiator March, Sousa's first hit, is probable, but mostly because it's Sousa. The other two lack sufficient connection. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

hyphenating ship classes (and dashes)

There is a request at WP:BOTREQ to hyphenate ship class articles and categories, you may be interested in commenting on the naval ones. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For a list of pages to be renamed and their proposed names, see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Snottywong/Ship_classes . 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There will be some dashes involved as well, so the selection of dash/hyphen is also being discussed. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Northern Thais Campaign a hoax article?

A new editor has just created the Northern Thais Campaign, which appears to cover intense fighting between the Allies and Thailand in November 1944 and is entirely unreferenced (it's also written in very broken English). I'm pretty sure that no such fighting actually took place as the Allies focused on driving south to take Rangoon and didn't bother with the Thai/Burmese border area. Can anyone confirm that this did or didn't take place? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is a hoax. The British commanders listed were in Europe. The forces in Northern Burma that held Myitkyina in Northern Burma were US and Kuomitang Chinese. British 14th Army did not make its thrust into central Burma until February 1945. See Burma Campaign 1944-1945. The Japanese took over French Indochina (Op Ma-Go in March 1945 - the Japanese Army were building up forces for Ma-Go since summer 1944.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, does anyone know anything about the supposed Thai invasion of northern Malaya on 8 December 1941 which is another new article? I've also never seen a reference to Thai forces participating in the invasion of Malaya before (the Japanese invaded Thailand on 6/7 December so it seems unlikely that the Thais were rushing across the border with Malaya the next day). The Japanese invasion of Thailand article states that Thailand and Japan didn't reach an agreement until 14 December and Thailand actually declared war on Britain (which was Malaya's colonial power) on 25 January 1942. This really looks like a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is a hoax too.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

These both look pretty hoaxy. Intriguingly, this isn't the first time this has happened for the Far East campaign - cf/ Battle of Prome (1942), and the old version of Taukkyan Roadblock... Shimgray | talk | 11:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I received this message a few minutes ago.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I see you marked two recent articles, Thai invasion of northern Malaya and Northern Thais Campaign, for speedy deletion as blatant hoaxes. However, they're not sufficiently blatant to be clear vandalism, which is what speedy deletion requires, so I've removed the speedy tags and taken them both to AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thai invasion of northern Malaya and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Thais Campaign. Please do add your comments there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Battles of the Mexican–American War

Battles of the Mexican–American War has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War.

65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Main battle tank countermeasures

Does anyone want to provide a third opinion for this? Talk:Main battle tank#Replacing the duplicate Abrams. Marcus Qwertyus 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured Pictures

Want me to try to do with pictures what I did with sounds? I may miss some, but I suspect I'll miss less than are missed already. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The FP listing is probably more up-to-date than the FSo one was; but if you have the time and inclination, we'd certainly welcome any help. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability of recipients of decorations

The notability guide says that anyone awarded their country's highest award for valour is by default notable. I generally agree with this. However, I have seen people quote this to justify, for instance, the retention of articles on anyone awarded the French Légion d'Honneur. It needs to be noted that many awards are awarded in several grades and only the highest grades could be considered the highest award of their country. The lower grades are extremely common and to claim that they are equivalent to, say, the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor is ludicrous (and somewhat insulting to the recipients of the latter awards). The lowest levels are equivalent to no more than an MBE or Mention in Despatches in British terms. A Bronze Star maybe in American terms. Although in fact they are probably even more common than these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Beware blanket acceptance of U.S. Medal of Honor recipients, too. I've seen mention of cases pre-WW1 where it was given for any meritorious service (or at least nothing I could see was exceptional), & not limited to acts of extreme bravery. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the Legion, technically an order, has civil and military divisions, and currently some 84,000 members, including most French mayors etc. In 1998 it was awarded to all surviving French WWI veterans. If there is a military class deserving automatic notability, this is not clear from our fairly lengthy article. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In light of the above I've made this edit to WP:MILPEOPLE. Your thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Note - I just wanted to mention that all Medal of Honor recipients after the American Indian Wars has an article now. The only recipients of the Medal of Honor that still do not have articles are in the American Civil War and the Indian Wars but these are being addressed battle by battle. Articles should exist for most of these by the end of the summer. --Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Question is if we are going to edit WP:SOLDIER, to what extent should the Highest military award for valor notability should be edited? Should a note be placed stating that for awards with multiple levels of awarding, only the highest awarding should be deemed automatically notable, and then given an example like the one given above?

What about 19th century recipients of the MoH, should there be a special note there as well? Would this create the situation where there would require a note for each nation's highest medal awarded for valor?

Should we as editors, interject our POV, and state through creation of individual note's for each of these medals that falls under this part of WP:SOLDIER, that one nation's awarding criteria is less notable then another nations? To what extent will this diminish or improve WP:SOLDIER?

While we are discussing WP:SOLDIER some editors are very concerned about the General/Flag officer notability, which IMHO is OK as is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I too see no problem with the notability of general/flag officers. They should all be by deafult notable, as should other senior official, civil or military. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Would the creation of this footnote effect the second criteria for notability? Would in the case of the medal which was used as an example, would the second highest medal for valorous acts in the case of France be the next lower grade of the highest medal for valor at the secondary military grade? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this stands to reason. It strikes me that if people are dim enough not to realise that the criteria for the highest award also apply to the next highest then they probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia in the first place! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to think Wikipedia to be as inclusive as possible when it comes to potential editors. These individuals that maybe considered "dim" may come here with good intentions and may also be attempting to expand and/or contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way. These potential editors therefore should be considered when we edit this essay, no? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Pilot

Sorry I may have missed this but I noticed that a few articles have been categorized in the "Article Feedback Pilot" category. Does anyone know what the selection process was? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the talk page of the bot, 3,000 articles have been requested by the Wikimedia Foundation above and beyond the original test scope of US Public Policy articles. No idea what the WMF selection criteria is, but a smattering (not all...so far anyway) of A and FA articles on my watchlist were hit. -- saberwyn 09:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It applies to some lower class articles too. History of weapons was tagged and it is Start class. Is there a page explaining the article feedback project and how it is supposed to work anywhere? It doesn't seem to come with a banner or hatnote saying the article has been categorised and here is what readers or editors are expected to do about it.Monstrelet (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

[14] is the original FAQ. If you look at the bottom of the page, there's a simple four-way ratings box (Trustworthy / Objective / Complete / Well-written) - the idea presumably is not to overwhelm the reader with it, but rather to keep it for when they "finish". Applying this sort of thing to a wide range of articles including lower-quality ones seems worthwhile - if readers consistently produce ratings which differ from our internal ones, it'll be an interesting datapoint, and there's more chance here than on articles where we simply expect "yes, pretty good"! Shimgray | talk | 12:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I see what's going on now. However, why put the assessment right down at the bottom in shades of grey? It does rather assume that a reader starts at the top and works all the way through to the end, browses the bibliography and then finds the feedback box at the bottom. A banner at the top, pointing to the box at the bottom would perhaps get a better result. As this is a pilot, perhaps they should trial that alongside the existing and test response rates?

The Blitz

Just interested in some opinions on the current stat of the article. I'm interested to know if people think the themes currently applied to it are sufficient, if its missing anything, or if what is already there (relating to Popular Imagery and Propaganda) is too much. Dapi89 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

For convenience, the link is The Blitz. I think the article is in pretty good shape as it stands. This not being my area of expertise, it looks to cover a wide survey of the available literature on the subject. I don't know that the Popular Imagery and Propaganda section is too long, but it could easily be split off into its own sub-article if that's deemed to be too long.

FWIW, I looked over the images in the article and everything seems in order, copyright-wise, though the NARA images might be questioned at FAC (if that's where you intend to take the article). They're clearly PD based on the NARA descriptions, but I don't know that the {{PD-USGov}} tag is right (since they're not actually works of the US government) - you might run into objections from the copyright people over that. Parsecboy (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Images: rather strange. I'll look into it. Usually this campaign develops into a battle ground between social and military historians; the later seem to believe it is more important as a social event which involved only the British. I have tried to strike a balance. Mainly sticking with military actions (German offence vs British defence measures) while slipping in a bit about ordinary people and some of the main tensions that existed. As you suggest, that last section relating to the aforementioned can be dealt with in that way. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Image reviewers can be pretty picky - I've had people quibble over the license tag for File:War Ensign of Germany 1903-1918.svg, which was just used in an infobox.

I don't know that the last section should be split off, just that it's an idea if others think the section is too long. Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On the matter of the photos, a couple of years back I had to track down copyright details for the Herbert Mason photograph of St. Paul's (the lead image in the article) which was being claimed as PD-USGov due to NARA publication - I'd caution against accepting the others as reliably PD without closer inspection.

In general, though, the article looks pretty good - I haven't had a chance to give it a detailed read, but it certainly seems a lot better and more coherent than it was when I last looked at it in September! Well done... Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read about half through, & not found major issues, just some needing clarification or wanting amplification. Then I lost concentration. ;p Hope to finish tonight. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've filled in the blanks left by the CE. It looks fine though I have not read through it properly. Dapi89 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some CE work but had a few problems. Please see the article talk page and advise me. Tx. Rumiton (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Book-based war films

The book-based war films series seems to be getting out of hand. Aside from the multi-intersection issues, there doesn't seem to be any standard for a war film to be "based on" a book, what ever that means, and whether the war was fictional or non-fiction. You would think that a film about a war primarily would be based on the war itself and it would be an odd lot for a film about a war to primarily be based on a book about the war rather than the war itself. Below is a list of articles in this area and others that might provide perspective:

• List of book-based war films
• List of films based on war books — modern
• List of book-based war films (wars before 1775)
• List of book-based war films (1775–1898 wars)
• List of book-based war films (1898–1926 wars)
• List of book-based war films (1927–1945 wars)
• List of book-based war films (wars since 1945)
• List of book-based war films (future wars)
• War film
• Anti-war film
• List of Allied propaganda films of World War II
• List of documentary films about the Korean War
• List of Estonian war films
• List of Polish war films
• List of war films and TV specials
• List of World War I films
• List of World War II documentary films
• List of World War II films
• List of World War II short films

Would someone please look over the book-based war films articles and come up with a comprehensive approach to get this back on track, perhaps even including renaming the articles (see Can't think of a good name to move these to). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Having had a quick look at the Second World War lot, the layout could be changed so that there is more tabulation and fewer sections. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Then, of course you have films like Where Eagles Dare, where the book was written after the film was made and the entire story has nothing to do with any historical events, and has several erroneous categories listed at the bottom of the article. :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for 102nd Intelligence Wing now open

The peer review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

Peer review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition now open

The peer review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

Peer review for Thomas the Slav now open

The peer review for Thomas the Slav is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

A-Class review for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk)