Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 103

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 98
• 99
• 100
• 101
• 102
• Archive 103
• 104
• 105
• 106
• 107
• 108
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

Charlemagne's wars

I mentioned this on the Charlemagne talk page but didn't get any responses so I thought I'd try here.

I was thinking that it might be useful to have a new article on 'Charlemagne's wars' in the same way that Julius Caesar has Military campaigns of Julius Caesar, as this would also enable us to look into more detail at motivations and consequences. Any thoughts or interest? Reichsfürst (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Reichsfürst (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If no one comments, just be bold. At the worst, you will start a discussion -- which is more than you have now. (PS, I have no opinion on the matter either way. Do what you think is best.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. It's a big task if done properly so I'll get to work on that in my userspace but I'm going to be away quite a bit in the next couple of months so it might be a while! Reichsfürst (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

e-Books and Citations

I am buying more and more books in e-book format. If I use such a book to add a citation from, the page number differs depending on the screen resolution and also, depending on what device I am using to read the e-book! We may have to re-think the whole approach of page numbers for this type of media - any suggestions? Farawayman (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same since I got a Kindle a few months ago. I don't know about other types of e-book readers, but the Kindle provides a 'location' number for each word and this could be used as a citation. Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I raised this issue at Template talk:Cite book#eBooks and page numbers some months ago and have not tested the proposal in my last comment there. If anyone wants to try, please do. NtheP (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a good way of handling this. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Style of unit names in article bodies

I was recently copy-editing 2nd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom) and a discussion ensued with another editor concerning (among other things) the capitalization of “the Brigade” when used to refer to the subject of the article. Is this the usual practice, to avoid repeating “the 2nd Brigade”? Or would it be preferable not to capitalize it? (I feel that this could be ambiguous where other brigades are mentioned nearby.) Referring to the unit by number alone, as is often done for regiments, would certainly be ambiguous: “the 2nd” might easily be mistaken for one of the battalions so designated, or for the NZ division to which the brigade was attached for a while.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically we should only capitalise "brigade" when used in the full unit title (ie "the 2nd Parachute Brigade"). If abbreviating the title causes issues then it's probably best to either write out the full title every time or rewrite the surrounding sentences so that "the brigade" is unambiguous in what it refers to. This is covered by WP:MOSCAPS; see "Titles of people" and "Military terms". Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 14:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I’ve taken another pass at the article to make the appropriate adjustments.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Northrop YF-23 now open

A-class review for the Northrop YF-23 is now open. Any comments will be appreciated. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

All editors are invited to assist with this review by providing comments on the review page or making improvements to the article. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for May Revolution now open

The featured article candidacy for May Revolution is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Now withdrawn. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

London Necropolis Company

I just noticed this one's FAC ... it's been there a while and could close any time. Largest military cemetery in the UK, and largest in the world at one time. Comments would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, that's not quite accurate; it's the largest military cemetery in the UK, but was once the largest civilian, not military, cemetery in the world. By the time the military section opened, the much larger Arlington was already open. – iridescent 2 13:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Iri. I've de-Milhist-tagged it now per an objection on my talk page; the Milhist tag is already on at least one linked article. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Project chatter

Hi. :) Some of you know me as User:Moonriddengirl. I'm not here in that capacity, though, but as one of my assignments under my contract for the Wikimedia Foundation, as its temporary community liaison. I've been asked to talk to a few projects and see if I can inspire some self-assessment: WMF wants to know what you think you guys are doing well and what might be improved. Being a big fan of your project, I thought to start with you. Your achievements are pretty remarkable. I'd also like to see if I can get some dialogue going on how your project can help welcome and nurture new users interested in your area. Is there something that can be done to help new users become sustained contributors? I'm hoping that you guys will be willing to help out with this. I'd love to present you and your work to the WMF as my fledgling project self-assessment group. :) If you're willing, I'll set up a subpage so we can talk without overwhelming this one and keep the conversation concentrated in one area. Are you guys up for it? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help, self-assessment is good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kinda questions you have in mind but if you have a format I can set up a self assessment for WikiProject US as well. --Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure we would be willing to help, I certainly am. Woody (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like fun :) Happy to help. Dana boomer (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; this sounds like a great idea, and I'll be happy to help in any way I can. As far as location is concerned, might I suggest the strategy department talk page as a good location for this discussion; it's not nearly as hectic as this one, and the department is supposed to be hosting discussions about project improvement. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll help in whatever way I can. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll help out as well. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too per all the above. A new thread at the strategy think tank department got to try harder to keep up as Kirill suggests, or a dedicated page, would work for me. EyeSerene^talk 09:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think discussing among ourselves and with the WMF what we do well and what we can do better as a project is an excellent idea. I'm happy to help if I can be of use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Great! Thanks. :D The two reasons I'd like to do a dedicated subpage, if you guys don't mind, are both to allow for sprawl (if I should be so lucky) and to give me a link to point the WMF to where the conversation is dedicated to this. (Alternatively, if you prefer I do it on an existing page, I can always copy & paste the final results to a subpage in my userspace or somewhere.) Just let me know where you'd like me to place it, and I will happily launch. (Kumioko, certainly the input of your project would be valuable, too! I do have a protocol, but it's untested, since Milhist is my first project. :) I figure that I'd be able to refine the procedure after I see what works here and what doesn't. If you would prefer a more polished approach, you might want to wait until after I see how this one goes. :D) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good I will be away for the next couple weeks but when I get back I will review whats been done here and see if something can be done in WPUS. --Kumioko (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with using a dedicated subpage if that's more convenient for you; might I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/Self-assessment? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's bluelinked. :) Although it may be that you'll all be aware of it from this page, I'll go mention it at strategy department talk page as well. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you want to proceed? Do we all just pile into the various main page sections, or discuss your questions on the talk page and keep the main page for more ordered summaries of those discussions, or... ? EyeSerene^talk 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there's a good question! I had intended conversation to be on the main page. If nutshells emerge, we can pull those out. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Flag issue

Further information: WT:MOSICON § Flags on AFV infoboxes?

An issue has been raised re the use of a flag in the infobox of the Vickers A1E1 Independent article, which falls under this WP. Mjroots (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue goes far beyond the single article, we could do with clarifying if/when/how to use flags/national links in military vehicle infoboxes. All the tank articles I've looked at seem to use flags with links, aircraft tend not to have flags, but sometimes link, warships tend to have a large flag in the infobox... (Hohum ^@) 12:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding an article

So I just wrote my first article, XM301 Cannon, and I was looking to add it to a couple projects. What's the protocol here? Throwaway85 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nthep has added it to the Aviation, US and Weaponry task forces (and by extension the Science & Tech task force), and I've assessed the article as B-Class. For future reference the instructions for using the {{WPMILHIST}} template are at that link. Thanks for your work :) EyeSerene^talk 09:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help! Throwaway85 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling to arms

Ever heard of the Pugachev's Cobra? Ever heard of a Sukhoi, or a MiG? Ever heard of "Foxbats", "Flankers", "Fulcrums", or Fullback"? Do you know what they are? Do you know what the Soviet aerospace industry is like? Do you know who the Americans really fear? Do you know how much headache it caused to the West? Do you know how much attention the fighters are getting? If the answer is NO, then there are clearly some catching up to do. During the next few days, I'll be working on the MiG-29K, Su-34, Su-35 and Su-37. I want to bring them all up to the same standard as the Su-33. If you want to participate, please come along and help out. Don't be hesitant. Give the Soviet aerospace industry the recognition it really deserves. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help here on George Welch (pilot)

It appears that an editor with (perhaps) personal knowledge is contributing to the editing and changing statements substantially. Can anyone help here? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC).

A-Class review for McDonnell XF-85 Goblin now open

The A-Class review for McDonnell XF-85 Goblin is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Constellation vs La Vengeance now open

The A-Class review for USS Constellation vs La Vengeance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

More input needed on non-article assessment classes

The ongoing discussion about adding support for non-article classes in our assessment system could use additional input; anyone with thoughts on the matter is invited to comment there. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Help finding names for Chief of Staff of the French Army

Hi, i'm not a member of the WikiProject, but i've been working off and on on the Unreferenced BLPs for the project. After going through the last few on there, I came across Chief of Staff of the French Army and set about adding references to it. However, I found that there are quire a few names, essentially all of them before the 1970s and back into the 1800s that haven't been added to the list. I've used some references as I can, but the sources generally just give the last name of the person and don't have the dates for when they were in that position. Do any of you know where I can find such a list so I can make the article more accurate? Perhaps on some French government site? Silverseren^C 00:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume you've copied all the relevant data from fr:Chef d'état-major de l'armée de terre? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I was missing two of the names from that and i've added them, but I think i've figured out the problem. That article is modern France-centric. Even though it is supposed to be about the entire history of the Chiefs of Staff of the French Army, throughout the various governments that it has had, it is only listing the ones from the current French Fifth Republic. In short, it's biased. I mean, if you compare it to Chief of Staff of the French Air Force, which covers the subject in separate sections throughout the different governments and especially WWII and the French Occupation, you see the issue. The French Wikipedia article on the subject is biased, it isn't even considering Chiefs of Staff before the Fifth Republic. In fact, that article you linked me to is supposed to be Chiefs of Staff of Armies for every country in the world, but it is only listing France and Canada. Do you see the problem? I don't know how to fix this, if I can't find a proper, full list of Chiefs of Staff of the French Army somewhere. :/ Silverseren^C 20:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work expanding the article. Now we will probably have to go to dead-tree sources to expand and reference the rest. Histories of the French effort in Algeria (France, Soldiers, and Africa) will have some of them, and histories of the French Army in general, plus Vietnam, WW I, Franco-Prussian War histories etc will probably help fill in the rest. Actually, if you browse through the articles like Battle of France, Battle of Verdun, all those battle articles you may begin to find army chiefs of staff mentioned, plus hopefully more sources. Good hunting ! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, Joseph Joffre. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah-ha; check the succession box at the bottom of fr:Joseph_Joffre Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That'll work. I don't understand though. If they have that info, then why isn't it in the French version of the article? Maybe it was vandalized. Huh. Thanks for the help. Silverseren^C 21:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't as helpful as I expected it to be. They only had the template on three articles and none of the others. Silverseren^C 21:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably because Frwiki started off the way Engwiki started - completely recent-ist. Please be careful to add all the incomplete data with only last names etc to the talkpage - will assist future expansion. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Special Operations Forces Tier System deletion discussion

This article has been nominated for deletion, but the AfD discussion so far doesn't seem to be pointing to any clear conclusion so more views on this matter would be helpful. The discussion is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Operations Forces Tier System Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War - help requested

As some of you may know, the Spanish Civil War started on 17 July 1936. Thus, the 75 anniversary of it happening will be in 6 days, and there is every indication that this will be marked in press around the world. There are many aspects of the war that are still controversial within Spain. I've been trying to improve as amny articles related to the war as I can in time for the anniversary, and have improved Background of the Spanish Civil War, Non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War, Nyon Conference and Spanish general election, 1936 to GA standard. The big prize, however, has eluded me: despite a lot of hard work, the Spanish Civil War page itself is not quite complete. I'm going away for the next 6 days, and unfortunately have been unable to yet get the resources to complete the last few citation points. It would be great if some of the milhilisters could pull together to get it finished off, as it represents one of the 25 most important (perhaps) wars on Wikipedia. I know that 'jumping in' is difficult, but I've done quite a lot - not only do the most controversial sections have enough references, but I've had the article copyedited as it stands (thanks to Qizix for that). Thanks for anything you can do. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabriele Nasci A request for assistance

Hello. I have written an Hebrew article about General Gabriele Nasci who was the commander of the Italian "Corpo d'Armata Alpino",During the Battle of Stalingrad in WW2. I lack the exact details about birth and death dates and places of the general, and ask your assistance in this subject. Thanks --Assayas (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You haven't picked an easy subject! I can't find anything on the Italian Wikipedia and the only reference I found to his birth date on the internet was this, which may or may not be reliable. You could try Google Books but I didn't have much luck. Sorry I can't be more help, EyeSerene^talk 15:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Noclador is a Alpini, located in Eastern Europe. Ask him - he seems to be an expert on the Alpini. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you both for your help. Yes, I have already written the basic article [1] and used this source. I sent an email to Italian army Archives, i hope they will help, and I will ask User:Noclador. Again, thank you. --Assayas (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle

Just wondering if there is a delay in the Bugle being delivered ? The last edition I received was in May.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering that as well. Can't wait to see what the Project's achieved in yet another month. --Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We always publish a month behind; that is, the May edition is published in June, and the June edition goes out in July. Last month's went out comparatively early (4 June). The June edition will go out as soon as WereSpeilChequers finishes his op-ed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that explains it.Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS New Zealand (1911) now open

The A-Class review for HMS New Zealand (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Iranian Embassy siege now open

The A-Class review for Iranian Embassy siege is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Essay to Guideline

PROPOSAL REJECTED:

No consensus exists within the wider Wikipedia community to promote WP:MILMOS/N from essay to guideline status at this time, although it remains representative of the Military history WikiProject's consensus on the relevant notability issues. Opposition arose as much from general concerns about the existence, use and proliferation of subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) on Wikipedia as from objections to WP:MILMOS/N itself, although concerns were also raised that in places the essay's wording may be open to an interpretation that could appear to contradict the site's General notability guideline (GNG). If there's a desire to take this proposal further, the Strategy department is probably the best venue for that. Thanks to all who took part, and especially to RightCowLeftCoast for their hard work. EyeSerene^talk 16:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is there any possibility of us, as a community of editors elevating WP:MILMOS/N from essay to Guideline status? Other communities of editors have had their notability guidelines elevated to such a rating, and there is no reason why we, one of the better organized communities, cannot do so as well, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What would be the advantages and are then any disadvantages, or workload issues?Monstrelet (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what is written within Wikipedia shows the difference:

Essays may range from personal or minority views, to views that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. Essays typically contain advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Unlike policies and guidelines, usually no formal attempt to judge the community's support for the essay's content has been made.

— WP:WES

Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.

— WP:GUIDELINE

In creating the WP:SOLDIER portion of WP:MILMOS/N there was a long discussion, and a tally of taken to reach consensus in its formation. In that sense it could be said to have already passed what WES states. In creating it the community also came to a consensus that it was under WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO, which we were following and in creating it provide guidance for other editors of what we as a community of editors who focus on Military History believe "well-known and significant award or honor" constitutes in the field of Military History, and under which "widely recognized contribution" would be in the field of Military History.

Elevating MILMOS/N to guideline status would bring it to equal footing to WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, WP:ARTIST, WP:CRIME, WP:DIPLOMAT, WP:ENT, WP:PORNSTAR, & WP:POLITICIAN.

Furthermore, it will for WP:MILUNIT, it will bring it in concert with WP:ORG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Elevating this to guideline status would be a good idea - as RightCowLeftCoast notes, when much of the essay was developed care was taken to assure that it was fully in line with the relevant notability guidelines. The process of elevating this (which requires wider community input) will ensure that it does in fact accord with the key notability guidelines and allow it to be quoted in AfDs, etc, more confidently. At present it seems to be very widely accepted, including by editors not active with military history articles, so it would be good to formalise this. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; I don't see any real disadvantages to promoting these to formal guidelines. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no objections so far how do we as a community go about formalizing this? Is their a noticeboard or a talk page where this is often discussed? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the above conversation, and linked development of WP:SOLDIER & WP:MILUNIT that lead to the creation of those essays. I have proposed that these Essays , as presently grouped as WP:MILMOS/N be promoted to Guideline level status. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As stated in Wikipedia:GUIDELINE#Proposals I am to list where I have notified the greater Wikipedia community regarding this proposal. They are as follows:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) diff
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide diff
• Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard diff
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) diff
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) diff
• Template:Centralized discussion diff

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You may also wish to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages and Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional notifications have occurred at the following locations:

• Wikipedia talk:Notability diff
• Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) diff
• Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) diff

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment There are a few issues before I would see this being good enough as a guideline.

• "appropriate focus" wikilinks to WP:UNDUE. That policy details how prominence can impact neutrality and not prominence in general. Giving something too much prominence is not necessarily a neutrality issue.
• "It does not include websites, newsletters and webcasts published by the unit itself or other non-independent agencies (such as a parent formation).[5] Also, it does not include passing mentions in otherwise suitable sources." should be clarified. New editors may misinterpret that as not being allowed to use primary sources at all when the real intent appears to be that it is not suitable for determining notability. Although it looks easy enough to not misinterpret, this is one of those things that could be used incorrectly in deletion discussions and it doesn't assist new editors in understanding notability. A line clarifying it would be useful since editors will be looking at this guideline instead of others.
• Note 3 throws me off. Spell out why the units from some countries have not been considered significant enough for an independent article. If coverage is the issue than consider if this guideline is even needed. Do "Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations" require significant coverage to be notable or not?

Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm generally opposed to any further proliferation of SNGs, and I think we need to demote some of the ones we already have back down to essays. Notability needs to be simple. The GNG's simplistic and occasionally leads to weird results, but the benefit of sticking closely to the GNG is that any editor can determine for themselves whether a topic's suitable for an article. The more we complicate the concept of notability, the harder it is for individual editors to make that judgment—and the practical effect of that is that editors don't feel they can create new articles without going through a committee process first. And the absolute last thing Wikipedia needs is more centralised control and more discussion-based processes. So I'm afraid I oppose on principle.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A large reason for the development of WP:SOLDIER was that under WP:ANYBIO there is this statement:

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times

— WP:ANYBIO

Given that there are multiple awards from multiple countries, part of what the essay was designed to do was to indicate what the consensus of editors who are interested in military/military history see as well-known and significant in this context.

For instance the Purple Heart is well-known and significant, but in regards to ANYBIO, it was the consensus that it was not something that would automatically confer notability; therefore the second part of ANYBIO and/or GNG would need to be fulfilled to be considered notable.

I shall allow those editors involved in the creation of WP:MILUNIT to comment as to how that portion of the essay benefits notability discussions as it interacts with WP:ORG, and helps improve it when discussing notability of military units. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am also not in favor of more notability guidelines, especially ones with such vague criteria such as "Played an important role in a significant military event" or "Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them". If such people are not covered by WP:BIO or WP:PROF, there's no reason we should include them just because they happen to have been soldiers or military scientists.  Sandstein  05:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why should BIO & PROF exist as guidelines, and no others, when PORNSTAR exist?

Individuals who "Played and important role in a significant military event", will due to the importance of the role have multiple independent sources which state the aforementioned action, and the event itself will be notable in those same multiple independent sources; a perfect example is PM2 Bradley or James Blake Miller.

I can see how Military scientist can be covered under PROF, however, cannot a similar guideline also cover Military Scientist without weakening PROF? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PORNSTAR sucks. And if you can't address the issue of several lines being "vague" (they are) then this RfC is a waste of time. See my comment as an "oppose" if improvement is out of the question.Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that first double entendre: PORNSTAR does, indeed, need demoting to essay.—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing (and bemusing) that people are opposing this because it's "vague" (which I guess parts of it are, and that should be discussed), when we have a guideline that means any dim-witted chav who plays ten minutes of professional sport can have an article. However, to answer Sandsteins's original point, the example that jumps to mind is the Falklands War. A handful of brigadiers (who aren't generally notable, because the UK doesn't consider 1-star officers to be general officers) played hugely important roles in the Falklands, like commanding most of the ground forces, but the few who never made major general (the lowest general officer rank) aren't catered for under any criteria but that one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Who said improvement is out of the question? All things can be improved with time, see Wine. ^_^

Perhaps a sub-section can be created for improving both or only SOLDIER and/or MILUNIT. This community is a reasonable and diverse group and are usually open towards most ideas that can improve its editing environment. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Another reason for WP:SOLDIER, like WP:ATHLETE, is to serve as a backstop for WP:BASIC. For instance, it has been decided by community consensus that all Baseball players that have played at least one game at the professional level to be notable. In a similar manor, it has become the overall community consensus that General Officers (and their historical equivalents) are notable, as well as the other criteria set forth in SOLDIER/MILPERSON. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• oppose; completely unnecessary. Let me lay it out for you people how notability is meant to work. If someone is "important", they will have coverage in reliable sources. If somebody won the bloody Falklands conflict, they will have coverage in reliable sources. If somebody has coveage in reliable sources, use the general notability guideline and be done with it. Guidelines and policies are not designed to be law, they are designed to be easily understandable rules of thumb to be followed when trying to make a decision keeping or deleting content in a fairly pragmatic and objective manner. This purpose is rendered completely useless when people insist on creating three hundred contradictory rules of thumbs because "other projects are allowed one so why aren't we?". Sure, Wikipedians should be trying to make things better. I don't see how that principle meshes with a proposal which essentially involves creating a ton more paperwork and confusion for very little gain. Ironholds (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU.

No one who is supporting the elevation of the Essay, that I have read, is opposing verification that the individuals meet WP:GNG. If one were to read the essay as it now stands, and the discussion that lead to their creation, one would see that it was the consensus of this editing community (as far as I was aware) that those who meet the criteria usually would meet GNG and/or BASIC. Therefore, I cannot see why the elevation of this essay would create a "contradictory rule" when it itself is bound by GNG, and was created when reflecting upon BASIC & ANYBIO when it comes to individuals and organizations which fall within the scope of this WikiProject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If everyone bound by this guideline would pass WP:GNG, you are creating an unnecessary wiki-clogging piece of paperwork that further heightens the learning curve for new users. If some people bound by this guideline do not pass WP:GNG, you are creating a wiki-clogging piece of paperwork that further heightens the learning curve for new users, and is also contradictory in nature. Which is it? Ironholds (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and please read the guideline on personal attacks before accusing me of one. It is perfectly acceptable to use "you" when referring to comments made by people one is addressing. Ironholds (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I had asked readers to see AVOIDYOU due to the possibility that some editors, including myself, could see the term "you people" in the sentence "Let me lay it out for you people how notability is meant to work" as not meeting CIVIL, and not necessarily as an individual attack against any specific editor. Better that it is out there rather than it not being mentioned at all, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that I've confirmed it's neither intended as uncivil nor as a personal attack, we can move on. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it proposed by other editors here that oppose this proposal that no other guidelines for notability should exist other than GNG? In such a proposal would all other notability guidelines across the board be demoted to Essay status or deleted? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's proposed by me, certainly. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps such a proposal should be activated, and link provided here to see what the greater community's consensus on such an idea is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning being? Ironholds (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been stated by multiple editors in opposition to this proposal that because GNG is sufficient, that this essay should not be elevated, and that likewise other essays regarding notability are unnecessary. Therefore, it would be logical to see what the community consensus is on such a proposal is.

If such a proposal has a wide amount of community support and is the overall consensus than my proposal to elevate MILMOS/N would be moot, as only GNG would stand as the principle guide which to judge notability across the board.

As it is not my proposal, and I do not support it; it is not in what I view as moving towards a direction which I believe would improve the guidelines regarding Notability within Wikipedia, then I will not initiate the proposal. Therefore, those who hold an opposite view should initiate such a proposal, to demote all other guidelines of notability other than GNG to essay status, should begin said proposal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Except such a proposal is likely to fail (many Wikipedians hate change) and, if it fails, would have little or no impact on your proposal since it would show only that a group of editors who have not contributed to this discussion have no opinion on this guideline, but care about others. Ironholds (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How would we as a community know it would fail, unless the proposal is attempted?

This proposal is as sufficient as any of the other present guidelines for biographical notability in other fields as have been mentioned above, including but not limited to WP:ATHLETE, as well as one I have forgotten to mention WP:MUSICBIO. Yet there are no calls for demotion of those guidelines under the same reasoning as those who oppose this proposal. If such opposition, based upon the opinion that GNG primarily is sufficient to cover all discussions regarding a subject's notability, then said opposition should make it known via a proposal to get a majority consensus. Otherwise, such an opinion may actually be a minority opinion, and thus not as valid in this discussion of whether this proposal should be elevated or remain an essay. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That argument makes sense only if you think that the standards for promoting and demoting guidelines are the same; it is a lot harder to demote a guideline than it is to create one in the first place. It also only makes sense if you think the guidelines are somehow equivalent in terms of community standing, and that consensus is formed of the entire community and not those who choose to turn up. Newsflash; it's the latter, and based on the fact that five of the people stating opposition to this think that it's a bad idea because it additionally complicates notability, as opposed to the two people in support other than yourself, I think that stating that my argument "may actually be a minority opinion" is...well, naive. Ironholds (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that there are others that support this proposal, including two who stated their support before the RfC. And since consensus is what matters, and that it is not a vote that determines consensus (although straw polls can assist in forming consensus), then we will continue to have this discussion. Furthermore, I hope that other users can be more civil in their tone, as I sense hints of enmity in the above reaction.

More over, only because it is difficult is no reason no to try. Was it not JFK who said that we do things "... not because they are easy, but because they are hard.". Furthermore, is it not said that it are those difficult tasks that are the ones most worth doing?

Thus in that light, this proposal was started. Not because it would be an easy endeavor, but because it is my belief, and I hope those who supported me starting it, that elevating the essay to a guideline would improve Wikipedia discussions on notability when it comes to Military Personnel and Organizations. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not because of the difficulty, it is because notability guidelines become entrenched over time and defended by different groups of people and as such any decision made would have little or no relation to this discussion. If you're citing JFK as an inspiration and quoting him as an argument, you might want to have a lie-down. Ironholds (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps then rather than taking all notability guidelines at one time, editors who oppose usage of those guidelines should take them on one at a time.

Why should I lie-down if I have chosen a difficult endeavor? Why is citing JFK and other saying as an inspiration stated in the retort above in a negative light?

The premise of the opposition stated in this thread is that GNG is sufficient alone. If this is the case, why does this hold to all other guidelines that also fall under GNG and NOTE but in being Guidelines themselves may carry equal weight in some discussions of notability. Why does such a stated opposition only relevant to this proposal? If one were consistent in the view point, then it must be relevant to all other proposals that effect GNG and NOTE, as well as those aforementioned other guidelines of notability that go beyond GNG and NOTE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ironhold. Especially in view of completely unremarkable general officers who have done little if anything being memorialised. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Unremarkable general officer" is a bit of an oxymoron, but I would again remind folks that, according to another SNG, anybody who plays ten minutes of football for a professional team and is otherwise totally unremarkable gets an article (and sadly most of them have articles which are totally useless but undeletable). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it that Generals are any less notable than the academics who are notable per the criteria set forth in guideline WP:PROF?

To become a general or flag officer, at least in the U.S., is a congressionally approved and appointed positions. This coincides with criteria #6 of PROF.

Although not generals are not seen as meeting the notability per highest national medal/award for valor, or multiple awarding of the second highest national medal/award for valor they are often awarded for their service "highly prestigious" "award or honor at a national or international level.", thus coincide with criteria #2. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Note: my attention was drawn to this RfC via IRC. I was not asked to !vote in any particular manner. I agree with Ironholds here. If the subject meets the GNG, then they clear the notability bar and there is no need for more exacting guidelines. If they don't meet GNG, then this proposal seems to be suggesting that your guideline trump our usual notability standard. Note also that the proliferation of esoteric Wikiproject notability guidelines, few of which are easily accessible (or findable) to someone who just looks up WP:NOTE, makes it extremely difficult for users both new and old to get a handle on what's notable and what's not, and I'm of the opinion that making notability requirements even LESS comprehensible is, shall we say, a bit counterproductive. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. To clarify my position a bit: I don't object in theory to the use of wikiproject-produced guides for what constitutes 'sufficient coverage' and 'reliable sources' for the particular domain of that wikiproject. Wikiprojects are often in a position to be able to make definite judgments about what constitutes a RS for a particular domain, when otherwise it would have to be discussed repeatedly. But these should be references, not guidelines. If a topic doesn't meet GNG, then it doesn't meet GNG and thus doesn't meet our notability standards - a wikiproject's say-so can't really change that, but often people attempt to make it do so. Wikiproject notability standards should work to narrow down past GNG, using the expertise of people who work in that particular wikiproject's domain, not overrule it. That is to say, one of my objections to wikiprojects attempting to govern notability is the way wikiproject notability guidelines tend to creep into use in ways that overrule our basic notability guidelines.

    The larger downside of Wikiproject notability rules to my mind, though, is that they tend to be relatively hidden. If it's not easily findable by Joe User, who may not even know your wikiproject exists, to consult when attempting to judge notability, then all it's doing is making life - and our usability - harder, and I think we should be aiming to improve usability, not make things more opaque. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps then the layout of WP:NOTE should be improved to provide clearer Wikilinks to other essays and guidelines in given fields for specific notability such was WP:MUSICBIO. There is a list of general notability for biographies, organizations, etc. on the right hand side; and within those essays that were elevated to guidelines are provided there. What can be done to improve it?

In the Narrow down sentiment regarding other guidelines when used together with GNG in the development of SOLDIER, due to ANYBIO it was being proposed that since the Purple Heart is a notable award, that biography articles woes subject was awarded it, would be notable under the award criteria set forth in ANYBIO. As editors who often edit military articles, we understand that per order of precedence, although the medal itself maybe notable, being awarded it may not be. Therefore, after the lengthy discussion it was stated that only first rate awards for valor, or multiple awardings of second rate awards for valor would be considered notable.

As for the general debate, that was admittedly more contentious. Not all agreed, but the majority (at that time) was in favor of its inclusion. One of the reasons (and it was not the only one if memory serves me) for it was that the length of service, and the actions which a General Officer are involved in, could be considered to fall under the widely recognized contribution criteria of ANYBIO, and often would pass the significant coverage criteria of GNG. At that time I argued that Senior Enlisted Advisors of a "substantial body of troops", but others did not believe that there would be significant coverage of those enlisted officials (currently or historically) and thus consensus lead to dropping it.

If there is consensus that the essay can be further improved, I am not opposed to improvement; if such improvement helps this endeavor to elevate it to the likes of MUSICBIO, PORNSTAR, ATHLETE, and others that would be even better. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't say the notability claims have to be verifiable with sources. So unsourced claims makes one notable? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Common sense is that everything in the article space in Wikipedia falls under WP:VER when it comes to content. This goes for the notability of article subjects as well. Because the present essay does not state such, doesn't mean that claim alone is sufficient that would be WP:OR.

Is it the belief of SunCreator that this is the case? If it is I can say it definitely is not; one can look at the dozens if not hundreds of uses of WP:SOLDIER in AfDs to show that VER is still in effect. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If need be a footnote can be added, making clear that a subject of an article must be verified by use of one or multiple reliable source(s) to meet the criteria set forth within SOLDIER.

I don't believe there would be objection to that, and will add one, unless objection is heard, by 26JUN or if another editor adds it before myself. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just drawing attention to the first line of MILPEOPLE: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." EyeSerene^talk 10:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the beginning statement of SOLDIER should cover the entirety of the essay (and hopefully future guideline), however I think SunCreator's concern is that if the beginning statement is taken as separate from the list of what the consensus was what would be considered notable, the beginning statement of the list does explicitly state compliance with WP:VER & WP:RS. If consensus be that a footnote, or direct statement be made stating that compliance with VER & RS is still required, then so be it.

That being said I think it would be common sense, unless one were to WikiLawyer, that the beginning statement applies through out the rest of WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - the essay is a bit too broadly defined as is. We should be focusing more on the general notability guideline, and less on "hey, he's a general, he must be notable." There are too many boring generals (and admirals, Captains, and Wing Commanders) who have never done anything significant. Regards, The Land (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it that an academic who is appointed or elected to a prestigious position per the guideline WP:PROF any different from a general or flag officer, who (at least in the United States) must be nominated to and approved by the Senate?

How is it that the works and efforts, and notability, of general or flag officers different from those who are notable per WP:MUSICBIO? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know and don't care. This is a discussion about admirals and generals, not professors and musicians. The Land (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion about general and flag officers, however if one is not willing to discuss the topic, we cannot have a conversation.

It is clear that community consensus among a wide range of editors in various fields that certain individuals within those fields are notable for being awarded certain medals, or for being recognized within that field for certain actions, or holding certain positions. The majority consensus among editors within the field of was that within the field of military history, that general and flag officers as well as certain recipients of certain high level medals for valorous acts where notable within this field. Therefore, this is keeping with the established consensus, that within a given field, those editors within said field can elevate based on meeting certain criteria who is notable within that field, and why.

For instance within the field of Baseball, there was a criteria that every player who has played in at least one game at a major league level (with different leagues considered major in different nations), is automatically notable, given that said player is verified to do so.

How is being promoted/elevated/appointed/confirmed/etc. to a general or flag officer rank, any different? What is the rational for opposition on that point? Just cause isn't really a sufficient answer. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ironholds. 'nuff said. -Atmoz (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As a supporter of the statements of Ironholds, would the supporters of the views of Ironholds propose that all Guidelines under WP:NOTE, such as but not limited to WP:BIO and WP:NB be demoted to essay status, as they expand upon, but not limit, that under WP:GNG? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Those in favour of promoting this essay carry the burden of demonstrating that those covered are inherently notable or, in just about all cases, will meet the GNG. No-one's even tried to meet that burden. The argument that there are many other SNGs is a red herring: the existence of those SNGs is not a reason to create more. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

First let me say thanks for not posting, yay nay per X Y or Z.

I don't believe that the existence of other SNGs is a red herring; it shows an established community consensus that there can be other considerations of notability for a subject of an article in addition to GNG given that VER and RS is applied. Moreover, see the use of those SNGs in the hundreds, if not thousands, of AfDs that have occurred where their usage has been instrumental in the editing community to form a consensus whether a subject article is notable or not. Every usage strengthens the community consensus that having the SNGs in concert with NOTE are useful tools when determining a subject's notability.

If one wants to show that each bullet of SOLDIER or MILUNIT, one need only look at the discussions that created the essay, but I am sure they can be reiterate here.

For the first and second bullets of SOLDIER there was a concern within this editing community that the award bullet in ANYBIO was to broad given the notability of even "minor" medals such as the Army Service Ribbon, which although notable in its own right, wasn't seen as sufficiently notable enough to warrant notability of the subject who was the recipient/awarded said item. Therefore, there was a consensus to limit only 1st and 2nd rate awards for valor. Individuals who receive said medals are well documented, as is their awarding process in reliable sources. For instance see Rafael Peralta, who although not awarded the MoH, the process which lead to the awarding of the NC was significant.

Flag and General officers as can be seen above and in the this discussion, as well as in the forming of the essay SOLDIER, is contentious. The consensus was that flag and general officers are notable based on their contributions to the field, and are often sufficiently notable through multiple reliable sources given their confirmation process and other activities which they are involved in, especially when commanding a "notable body of troops in combat". This is more so given if the subject has held the top=level military command position of a nation's armed forces, or department thereof.

When a subject played an important role in a significant military event, they are often mentioned in multiple reliable sources, and at times significantly so, as without their presence effected said event. Commanding a notable body of troops in combat can be seen as an expansion of this, as the leadership of the individual in said significant military event consensus had determined was significant in how the outcome of the event became. For instance the Flag officers in the Battle of Midway made key decisions that significantly impacted the outcome of the event from when to launch a patrol, to where to position the units under their command, to what a unit was given at a given time.

As for material contributions and inventors of technology, see Shrapnel and Browning for exemplary examples how individuals who did not see direct combat in a way that was an important role in combat are still notable due to the impact they played in later events.

The last part can be seen as an extension of AUTHOR.

All of the above is still, as has been mentioned before, required to be verified in a (or multiple) reliable sources.

I cannot speak on behalf of MILUNIT as I was not involved in its creation, but looking at the discussion that lead to it, its creation followed the same type of reasoning. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is a rough guide and there is WP:NOTABILITY. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is a rough guide, how can it be improved?

It is clear that wide community consensus allows for certain fields determine what is notable within said field, whether it be PROF or ATHLETE or PORNSTAR or any other SNG that falls under BIO. Therefore, given that, how is it that notability criteria set forth my editors within this WikiProject be less relevant within this field then those established in other fields? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unneeded instruction creep, especially in light of the existence of GNG. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why GNG is sufficient, when there are so many SNGs that exist? This essay has been in existence for a considerable period of time, and has been used in similar manor as other SNGs such as PROF and ATHLETE, etc. Should all other SNGs under BIO be reduced to Essay status like SOLDIER, as there is an opinion that GNG/NOTE is sufficient on its own?

Or is it as it that there is a over riding community consensus that these SNGs are useful as guidelines to be taken with NOTE, GNG, & BIO when determining subject notability? I ask this because of the long existence and usage of other SNGs. If this is the case, and there has been a long consensus that WikiProjects, within their field of expertise, are able to expand upon or narrow was is notable within their field, then should not WP Military History be able to do the same? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The current status of MILMOS/N as an essay has not proven a problem. If it remains an essay, I expect it will continue to serve the same role in the future without having to be a hardline rule. I have no opinion about other projects in relation to the question of their guidelines. There is no requirement for all projects to act in parallel. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sense of discussion to date

Looking over the discussion so far, I get the sense that, while most people don't necessarily have any major problems with the content of WP:MILNG, there's little support for the idea of formally promoting the essays to guideline status. Is that consistent with how everyone else reads the conversation above?

At this point, I don't really expect to see the general sentiment changing much—at least not until the overall structure of subject-specific notability guidelines is cleared up. As such, I would suggest that we table this particular proposal for the time being. Thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the two main points of opposition are as follows:

• WP:GNG is sufficient; period. Rebuttal will be meet with referral to initial statement.
• Essay needs improvement, specifically that Flag and General officers criteria should be dropped.

That being said I am disappointed at the lack of support of this proposal given the frequency of the essays use, its wide spread acceptance based on its use.

A coordinator can close this if they see it sufficient to do so, and remove the notices elsewhere where required. That being said, as the originator of this proposal, I will not. I see a good reason for elevating this article, even if there are those who oppose that view. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would oppose the promotion too (for similar reasons to Ironholds) but didn't see much point in joining the avalanche above. However, I think it is important to point out that repeated calls of "other projects have their own notability policies!" is an otherstuff argument. Personally, I feel that several of those other notability rules are problematic for similar reasons - to the extent that each one actually differs from the GNG, their main effect is to distract from the GNG, and to create drama at AFDs - so claiming kinship with those other notability rules might not help your case. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I strongly oppose all SNGs that create "presumptive notability" lacking sources to satisfy GNG. Gigs (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Now the one thing I don't see when I read the essay is a presumptive notability. To take the people section "an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: list of things". To me that implies: "if they have done one of these things, you should be able to find the sources and thus meet the GNG". It doesn't say "if you don't find sources, they are still notable" which is what I assume presumptive notability means. To me, the essay is giving guidance as to whether to create an article, not to serve as a statement that could be used to defend an article at AfD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not how these guidelines are used. They are used as a way to avoid finding significant third party coverage at AfD. WP:N delegates presumptive notability to SNGs: "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." Gigs (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that is interesting, because our essay isn't written in the same way as the Academic one which says "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions...they are notable" (followed by 9 criteria). Unless we rewrote our essay into that sort of emphatic (dogmatic?) phrasing (which has not been suggested), it would not carry the same weight. I am certainly not for rewriting our guideline in that form. Perhaps a subtle alteration is required to the GNG like: A topic is also presumed may be notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I would welcome that sort of change to WP:N, but I don't think it goes far enough to combat the long standing practice of keeping articles at AfD that pass SNGs but fail GNG. Gigs (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming to this discussion late -- too much to do offline, not enough time -- but I have a question for those opposing making this proposal. While I dislike excessive rule-making as much as anyone on Wikipedia, if not more so, I'd like an explanation how making WP:MILMOS/N a guideline (or policy) will harm or conflict with WP:GNG. As I see it, the general notability guidelines are best used where there are no specific datum for judging notability; MILMOS/N is a specific datum of notability. Where the general guidelines & specific ones agree, there will be no problem; where they conflict, people will use something like MILMOS/N to argue notability in the end, because a significant number of people believe it justifies making an exception. Either it becomes a policy in one stroke, or piecemeal through countless WP:AfD cases. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is always specific data regarding notability, the existence or lack thereof of significant coverage in multiple third party sources. This idea that every bench warming baseball player or every full professor is presumptively notable has given us thousands of articles about absolute nobodies. We need to stop the trend by saying "enough is enough, no more SNGs". Gigs (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a mischaracterization of the essay that is being proposed to be elevated to Guideline status. There is no presumption of notability, in so much that the subject of the article needs to be verified by one or multiple reliable sources to meet the criteria set forth within it to be considered notable within the scope of the overall subject. For instance, just because person X claims to be a recipient of the Medal of Honor, doesn't meant that they are a recipient. In many ways, such as criteria one of SOLDIER the essay does a very good job at figuring out what is and is not a notable award per WP:ANYBIO, otherwise it could be argued that every verified recipient of the Army Service Ribbon is notable, as the ribbon itself is notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be contention about certain portions of this essayt, and general support about others? Should this essay be split, with the widely supported sections becoming a guideline, and contested portion remaining an essay? Or is the opposition against SNGs outside of WP:ANYBIO what is really the reason for the opposition to this proposal?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Unarchiving

This discussion was auto archived, however the discussion was not closed; therefore, I have unarchived it under WP:BOLD. If others disagree, they can re-archive this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed for new article on Cuban Liberation Army (1895-1899)

I'm trying to drum up some teamwork and collaboration to create an article on the Cuban Liberation Army. Despite the fact they won Cuban independence in the 1890s, they don't have their own article! Since this article is about a historic military force, any sources you WP:MILHIST editors could bring to the table would be great, and expertise regarding the Spanish-American War/Cuban Independence War would be invaluable for this article. If you, or anyone you know would be interested, reply here, or here on WikiProject Cuba where I'm bringing people together to work on drafting it on my userspace User:NickDupree/Cuban_Liberation_Army. I hope some of ya'll can help out. :) I have utmost respect for WikiProject Military History, ALL WikiProjects should be as active and excellent as you! You guys carry the torch, and set the standard to live up to for all history-related WikiProjects. –NickDupree (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No interest? Nobody? NickDupree (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel neglected, most users seem to be very busy at the moment and might be interested in other things. I would give at least a week before getting worried about lack of "bite". I can't think of any specific editors in that particular area off the top of my head but you could try our members list and if any editors list this area as one of their interests. Woody (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I talked to User:Dominic with the WP:NARA project and he walked me through the National Archives project, and today my request went through for "Assessments, letters and notes generated by the offices of the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of War directly pertaining to the Cuban Liberation Army between the years 1895 and 1898 in the lead up to the U.S. phase of the conflict...especially information on the strength and capabilities of the Cuban insurrection forces (Cuban Liberation Army), reports of engagements between the Cuban Liberation Army and the Spanish colonial army, etc." Soon we should have significant material to aid in our efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Cuban independence struggle and the Spanish-American War. NickDupree (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Category changes

I've seen a lot of changes overnight to categories of articles on my watchlist, all done by User:Dbachmann . No harm seems to have been done but no rationale is given. Is there some sort of categorisation task force initiative going on? Monstrelet (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't think there is anything specific or organised going on. Some users just tend to be involved in that area of things, I would suggest you leave a note on their talkpage and ask them their rationale. Always best to do that first, regards, Woody (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there is a problem. The editor seems sensible enough. But the edits seem to suggest some categories are being deleted or renamed, hence my query about if there was a project on. Monstrelet (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that there isn't a problem but if you ask them then they might explain what they are doing and then you could understand why (and help out if they need some help.) I can't see an open project here and can't see anything at WP:CFD but one of the cats I saw Dbachmann working on seemed rife for a bit of cleaning up and cleaning out. Woody (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Palmerston Forts Society website

Anyone who edits articles on Victorian era coastal defences should be familiar with the Palmerston Forts Society website, but unfortunately (as anyone clicking on that link will realise), it isn't there any more. Instead, all the pages, datasheets, images and historical documents have moved to the new Victorian Forts and Artillery website with little more than a colour change. The Palmerston Forts Society still exists, but I notice all their branding has been removed from the web pages and the datasheets, so I suspect there may have been a bit of a split in the society.

Unfortunately it'll leave us with a lot of dead links on fortification articles, as their datasheets in particular are well used references for a lot of articles. I don't know if there's a bot that can handle moving these refs from one domain to another? Otherwise, all interested editors might want to keep an eye out on affected articles.

The PFS website was widely regarded as a reliable source as far as I could see (seems fair; PFS have been consultants to developers in the past - see page 4 here for example). An initial look suggests nothing regarding content has changed, so hopefully the reliability won't... Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this just the 63 articles covered by Category:Palmerston Forts or are there others? EyeSerene^talk 07:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that the category is up to date, mainly just those (although there are more fort datasheets on the website). There are others though - for example Palmerston Forts, Isle of Wight. There might also be a few artillery articles affected as well. Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There are 142 uses of the Palmerstonforts.org website on Wikipedia. If they follow the same naming pattern then I'm sure that a bot could be found (or created) to tweak them. Woody (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Woody. Annoyingly, it appears to be all of the datasheets (Fortname/pdf) that don't connect anymore, but all the other web addresses just need a change to victorianforts.co.uk at the start of the address. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt now open

The featured article candidacy for Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Canoe River train crash now open

The featured article candidacy for Canoe River train crash is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

references check

Can somebody help with Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Paul_Hoste_(1652-1700) and check if the references are correct? mabdul 19:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask WP:SHIPS as well given that there are a few naval refs there. They would most likely have access to those sources. Woody (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had done this. If somebody want to help, feel free and be bold ;) mabdul 22:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Elmelindo Rodrigues Smith

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elmelindo Rodrigues Smith#Asian American. Discussion regarding ethnicity and whether certain sources are reliable. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Hood (51) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Hood (51) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Hawker Siddeley Harrier now open

The featured article candidacy for Hawker Siddeley Harrier is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism Anglo-Zulu War

Can some editors take a look at Anglo-Zulu War and compare it to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/jan2009/anglo-zulu-war.html/ It appears the article is almost entirely taken from David Blair's article word for word except for some minor recent changes. Does this constitute plagiarism Wikipedia:Plagiarism? I've been doing some editing to it recently, but when I followed the link on the talk page to what was thought to be some cut and paste and compared the 2 articles side by side I was dismayed to find them nearly identical. Thanks.Tttom1 (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 on that link. Can you please fix? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

is this what you mean?http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/jan2009/anglo-zulu-war.htmlSlatersteven (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just needed to remove the slash at the end and it works.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering if it the other way around, this is our article 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Zulu_War&diff=7166840&oldid=7166720 2 years before the David Blair articles copyright.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Link: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/jan2009/anglo-zulu-war.html Tttom1 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki 2004 is much different than Blair's and wiki current version.

2004 Wiki lede: "The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between Britain and the Zulus, and signalled the end of the Zulus as an independent nation. It had complex beginnings, some bad decisions, bloody battles that caused the British to engage earlier than they intended, but played out a common story of British colonialism."

2011 Wiki lede: "The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom. From complex beginnings, the war is notable for several particularly bloody battles, as well as for being a landmark in the timeline of colonialism in the region. The war ended the Zulu nation's independence."

2006 David Blair:"The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British Empire and the Zulu Empire. From complex beginnings, the war is notable for several particularly bloody battles, as well as for being a landmark in the timeline of colonialism in the region. The war ended the Zulu nation's independence."

Word for word. As are almost all other sections.Tttom1 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like our current lead text was added in this set of revisions between 6-8 February 2007 by an IP. As the Blair article is copyright 2006, I would say there it is most likely to be a copyvio on our end. I would suggest dropping a note to User:Moonriddengirl, who's one of the top copyvio experts on WP and who would probably know best how to scrub the history, given the rather significant number of edits between the initial violation and today. Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I contacted her, the copying is pervasive thru the article and not just the lede. It appears as though several editors were engaged on it.Tttom1 (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is some evidence that the website may be copying the wiki article. Each has a prara. ending with a citation needed in brackets.Tttom1 (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Our 2004 article “In 1861 Umtonga, a brother of Cetshwayo, fled to the Utrecht district, and Cetshwayo assembled an army on that frontier. According to evidence brought forward later by the Boers, Cetshwayo offered the farmers a strip of land along the border if they would surrender his brother. This they did on the condition that Umtonga's life was spared, and in 1861 Mpande signed a deed making over the land to the Boers. The southern boundary of the strip added to Utrecht ran from Rorke's Drift on the Buffalo to a point on the Pongola River.”

Blairs 2006 article. “In 1862, Umtonga, a brother of Cetshwayo, son of Zulu king Mpande, fled to the Utrecht district, and Cetshwayo assembled an army on that frontier. According to evidence later brought forward by the Boers, Cetshwayo offered the farmers a strip of land along the border if they would surrender his brother. The Boers complied on the condition that Umtonga's life was spared, and in 1861 Mpande signed a deed transferring this land to the Boers. The south boundary of the land added to Utrecht ran from Rorke's Drift on the Buff to a point on the Pongola River.”

With some text additions this is virtually identical. This seems to be the case with much of the Blair article, it a verbatum copy of ours but with textual additions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I contacted User:Moonriddengirl User talk:Moonriddengirl who, with another editor, looked into it, so far it looks like the Blair article is copied from ours and ours has large sections from 1911 Encyc. Britannica, unattributed, which is in the public domain- so no copyright violation, but explains a lot about the antiquated overview of the war.Tttom1 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work following up on this. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

South American task force expanded to cover Central America

Per this discussion the scope of the South American task force has now been expanded to cover Central America including Mexico. The new task force can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Central and South American military history task force. I've left a redirect at the old title but task force members may wish to update their watchlists accordingly. If I haven't mucked anything up the category pages etc should populate themselves over the next few hours.

The current task force userbox image is of South America (basically I just moved the old ubx to the new title), so members may wish to suggest something more appropriate that reflects the new scope. Best, EyeSerene^talk 17:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

U.S. ribbon question

I'm currently working on bringing James Jabara up to GA and I found a page that lists all of his ribbons. I've been able to identify all of them except for one. Does anyone know what the red and blue one is on the second to last row on the far left? Once I get that one, I'll be able to add the listing for his awards section. I'm hoping this is an easy one to answer and I just overlooked it while searching for the others. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

T-34

I have nominated T-34 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ironholds (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Campaign of the Mallians

I desire for this article to undergo intense review. If this is supposed to be posted somewhere else, then please let me know, I'm new to this. However, I've been working on this article for some time and its going to be wrapped up in the next two hours and its going to be good. I hope some of you will find the time to review it and give me your opinions on it so that I can really fix it up, as I've been working on it for some time.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made significant revisions to the article.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's looking good. I won't claim to be an expert, but if you'd like any advice on how to use open source tools to improve the maps, I'll happily share what I know on the subject.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Components of medieval armour

So, I have been informed that I should ask for permission to add your banner to this article. Should I add {{WPMILHIST|Medieval=yes}} to it? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes please Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't really need our permission to add the project banner to an article you think is suitable. If you're not sure by all means ask, but if you were to get it wrong the worst that would happen is someone else will remove the banner. EyeSerene^talk 08:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

While this case is straightforward (I don't know why it hasn't been done before - I've used this article and didn't notice it wasn't tagged)do we need somewhere to point to the fact that we guidelines as to what comes under the project banner? I get the impression that some editors think provided an article reaches general notability, you can put on any project tag that you fancy.Monstrelet (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a Milhist-specific issue. I've tagged articles that would seem, frex, to fall under WPShips (being nautical related), only to have the tags removed. Or am I misreading your intent? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be, I'm not sure. Your example might suggest that WPShips operate a more tightly controlled system than us. Or are you saying they discard tags not by known editors? If the latter, I'm not advocating that - in fact I'd be very much against it. I'd like any editor who thinks an article comes under MILHIST to be encouraged to check our guidelines on project scope and, if it fits, to add the tag. If it is isn't clear whether an article fits, to be refered here to ask the project community. I have been known to remove project tags where it doesn't fit and contest others where it is a point of debate. Personally, I ere on the inclusive side. I do find it odd though that we can have quite fierce debates here on notability but few care about whether the project tag is added to articles notable for other reasons (e.g. tagging a sports star because they did military service). Or am I missing something in the arcane rules of Wikipedia?Monstrelet (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It appeared to be a "non-coverage" issue. Which, I should confess, may've been because I didn't read the project guidelines carefully...

I also tend to be pretty inclusive, tho just serving in the military wouldn't get it, IMO. I've never actually seen a debate on inclusion under a project, which suggests most tagging isn't contentious, or the guidelines are pretty broad. (Truth to tell, I'm not sure it matters. "Responsibility" is pretty flexible on WP at the best of times. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kensington Regiment (Princess Louise's)

I have been trying to improve our coverage of the British Expeditionary Force (World War II) in the confused period between the Dunkirk evacuation and the Fall of France in June 1940. Today I have been improving (hopefully!) the order of battle for Arkforce and providing internal links for the various units attached. When I came to 1st Battalion, Princess Louise's Kensington Regiment, I found that a page of that name had been deleted in 2008. There IS a page for Kensington Regiment (Princess Louise's) but it redirects to Middlesex Regiment which contains no hint as to why this might be, nor any mention of the Kensington Regiment. Can anyone help please? Alansplodge (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• There's a short regimental history here that might help.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah-ha. Check 38 (City of Sheffield) Signal Regiment. I've boldly repointed the redirect to that page. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Hchc and Buckshot. I've inserted a brief para at Middlesex Regiment under whose umbrella they were from 1937 to 1947, with an internal link to the Sheffield Signals page above. They already have a brief mention on the London Regiment page as "13th (County of London) Battalion, The London Regiment (Kensington)" which is their 1908-1914 title. Alansplodge (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Operation Kita now open

The featured article candidacy for Operation Kita is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Article self-assessment?

I've been asked a question about editors assessing their own articles in the Stub- to B-Class range. There's nothing in any of our instructions to say not - my gut feeling is that for Stub- through C-Class it's not an issue as long as the article author can take a detached view. For B-Class I think there's probably a benefit in having an independent view, but I'd be interested to hear what others think (or be pointed in the right direction if I've missed something!) EyeSerene^talk 10:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that it's OK to self-assess up to C class, and this is actually considered good practice as it saves other people from having to do it for you. WP:MH/B? is correct in saying that it's only 'by convention' that editors don't self assess their work as B class. This guidance could be more prominent, but I'm not sure if it's a bit enough issue to worry about. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I had missed something :) I think I'll amend the assessment FAQ to reflect that - I'm not concerned about editors misusing the system, more that editors are able to easily confirm that they aren't breaking any rules by assessing their own work. EyeSerene^talk 10:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Added item 5 here; improvements welcome :) EyeSerene^talk 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as well. On a side note, it occurs to me that since we have adopted C-class, shouldn't we update the contest scoring system to reflect this? Perhaps give it a point value of 3 (so Start -> C would be +2, and C -> B would be +3). Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense. I believe we discussed this a while back during one of the previous proposals (a year ago or more, I think), but I can't exactly remember what points structure was agreed to. I think what you've listed would work, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just tried an archive search and couldn't find the original points scheme suggestion. I agree with the above though. EyeSerene^talk 17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I certainly fits what I thought was the structure. One point though - does a user class as C or is it an automated function of doing a B class list? Also, on the points thing, I distinctly remember a scheme being discussed in the C class debate in strategy before it came onto the main board, if that helps the search Monstrelet (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I wasn't in favour of adopting C-Class, I figured it would get up anyway and I think it was me who raised the contest points question in the first place... ;-) To get down to brass tacks, is this what people had in mind? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2011

Points awarded

	Ending class
Beginning class		Start	C	B	GA	A	FA
	None/Stub	+1	+3	+6	+11	+21	+26
	Start		+2	+5	+10	+20	+25
	C			+3	+8	+18	+23
	B				+5	+15	+20
	GA					+10	+15
	A						+5

Looks fine to me, though you'd need a C-class row for "Starting class" as well. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, threw it in now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group and NATO exercises articles

User:Marcd30319 has created numerous carrier strike group and NATO exercise articles, for example, Operation Deep Water or Operation Grand Slam (NATO), which although good additions to the encyclopedia, appear to contain repeated background information more suited to other articles. For example, each NATO exercise article contains (usually) the same two quotes about early US Cold War strategy and a listing of the NATO command structure. Each Carrier Strike Group article, for example, Carrier Strike Group One, contains a listing of ships and administrative hierarchies which duplicate material at the main Carrier Strike Group article. The repeated inclusion of duplicated information drives the CSG article size up, which has resulted in unnecessary group history subarticles. I have repeatedly tried to rationalise these articles, and raise these and other issues with Marcd30319, with little success; he appears, in my view, to suffer from a strong case of WP:OWN. What do other editors think? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The carrier strike group articles seem OK (the specific article seems to provide greater detail on organisation than the over-arching article, which is what would be expected). I agree that the background on US cold war strategy and NATO organisation in the articles on the exercises is unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with Nick-D. I'd add that the articles are very US Navy acronym heavy ("CARSTRKGRU 1"s, "TYCOM"s, "ADCON"s and "OPCON"s etc.) and could usefully be further translated into civilian English in places though. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just been looking over the Op Grand Slam article again for any useful wl, and couldn't find a link to the French sub Mille. In fact I couldn't find the Millie in any off-wiki search - just me? Reading one source, I did find Op Grand Slam referred to as Exercise Grand Slam which strikes me as a more likely name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Having read some of the sources quoted in the articles, I've been bold and moved Grand Slam to Exercise Grand Slam and Mainbrace to Exercise Mainbrace. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Millie is definitely mentioned in the 'All Hands' source. It looks like an 'All Hands' misquote, but what the actual title of the submarine was, I can't tell. Any French submarine experts here ? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem loading page ?

Hi folks I don't know if anyone else is getting this. But on the main page from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Task forces (general topics) onwards only the first two or three tables depending on size are on view. I have tried changing my text size to the smallest possible and its still the same. So I suspect it may be a problem with the layout.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably killed something while moving the A-class reviews there... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it looks like they are all located in scrolling bars now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. yes its now working must have just been a glitch. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sea Talon

Is there anything about a sonar system using Terfenol-D? I only found something about a Sea Talon from Locked-Martin, but this from 2005 [2]. This material is nice and I wanted to have a picture for the Terbium article of device using Terfenol. Thanks.--Stone (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (J) now open

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (J) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bari Raid, 2 December 1943

Do we have an article on the Luftwaffe attack on Bari, Italy on 2 December 1943? At least 17 ships were sunk, with a death toll numbered in the thousands, partly due to the detonation of a cargo of mustard gas bombs being stored on board one of the ships. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, --FJS15 (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just what I was looking for. Not sure that the title is intuitive though. Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article (Air Raid on Bari) is also over-capitalised Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - moved to Air raid on Bari. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Introducing List-Class

A discussion about introducing List-Class has begun at the strategy department; input from anyone with an interest in this topic would be appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

German military terms

I have added a number of terms to Glossary of German military terms. When reading the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (J) etc. I came across various translations which don't seem right. I hope my additions to the glossary will help to improve these lists, as I am worried that the A-class criteria, A4 in particular, may not been met otherwise. I would also appreciate more input to the glossary, so it can serve as a reference for how to translate German military terms in the English-language wikipedia. --FJS15 (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to the terms you feel uncomfortable with right now. I gladly have a look and verify the terms I have used. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As I don't have the German in front of me I have to guess what is the original in some cases, but here you are:

Chief of the x. is probably a Kompaniechef or company commander

Original German wording: Chef der X

Deputy leader looks like a executive officer or second-in-command

Original German wording: stellvertretender Führer

Group leader is a squad leader

Original German wording: Gruppenführer

Like I said.

Leader of the x. is probably a Kompanieführer or subsitute company commander

Original German wording: Führer der X

Ordinance officer I guess it's an Ordonanzoffizier which would be an aide-de-camp

hm okay

Radio troop leader from Funktruppführer? Then it would be a radio team/section leader

Company troop leader is likely to mean a Kompanietruppführer or company HQ section leader. I have seen it translated as "Company squad leader"

let's discuss this doesn't match the feedback from my Bundeswehr source

Well, check de:Kompanietrupp

There is more, but I have to run. --FJS15 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Gruppenführer is also an SS rank that works out to major general. I can't tell the context from these comments, but it's best to be sure.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not about the SS rank. The context is always Gruppenführer in the X MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Like I said, couldn't tell from the discussion above.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Found another one: Obersteuermann is not a helmsman, but a warrant officer similar to a navigator. --FJS15 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That is partially correct. Obersteuermann is a rank of the Steuermannslaufbahn III of 31 March 1938. Howerever, Karl Jäckel received the KC holding the rank of Obersteuermann but his role on U-907 was Steuermann (helmsman). If you look at the table you see that correctly reflected. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A helmsman would be a Rudergänger, usually a ER, while in the German Navy a Steuermann is responsible for navigation, keeping the log etc. On a U-boat he also served as Third Watch Officer (IIIWO)[3].--FJS15 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate your work on the translations, both of you. Per style guides, whenever there's a common English word or phrase that nails the sense of the German word or phrase, the English is preferable, although nothing is lost by adding the German in a footnote, or for the most important terms, in italics and parentheses after the English. When the common English words and phrases don't match up, then it gets harder. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Central and South American task force renamed to Latin American task force

Per further discussions here the former "South American military history task force", which was recently renamed to the "Central and South American military history task force", has now been re-renamed to the Latin American military history task force.

As before the current task force userbox image may be unsuitable, so members may wish to suggest something more appropriate. EyeSerene^talk 15:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I already considered that, but did not find maps of both soth and central america, without being maps of the whole american continent (which would include north america, which is beyond the scope). I can't think either in the image of some military leader, not even Bolivar or San Martín (national heroes of many countries) may be representative enough Cambalachero (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we've made it difficult for ourselves by widening the scope, though it made sense to do so :) I can't think of any obvious, relevant image that immediately jumps out as being suitable. Ed has replaced the former image with Minas Geraes, which is better, but if it's necessary we could probably modify something like File:Latin America (orthographic projection).svg. EyeSerene^talk 08:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Shaw

Hello, I'm just over from WP:Cricket. While compiling a list of notable Buckinghamshire cricketers, I came across a Robert Shaw. Where there is some military notability with the individual, I usually have a go at that as well, provided it is easy to source. However, his first-class cricket is very minor when compared to his career in the Royal Navy, where he served with distinction in WWI and WWII, reaching the rank of captain. I was wondering whether anyone here could create the bulk of the article on his naval career, then I'll add a small part about his cricket once that is done. Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

HMS Endymion (1865)

I've expanded the HMS Endymion (1865) article. There are two book sources, which were marked as references and are now marked as further reading. A couple of facts need citing. If anyone has those books, would they please use them to expand the article further. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I was able to cite both of the facts with the Conways volume (though it only had "October 1860" as the laying down date), so it should be fine, citations-wise. The entry is rather sparse, service history-wise, so there's nothing to add, really. I somewhat question the listings of courts-martial for sailors from the ship - unless they were particularly notable I don't think they really deserve mention. Noting every sailor who was convicted of drunkenness smacks of WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. Regardless, excellent work expanding the article! Parsecboy (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets see, complement of 450, times 17 years service produced six courts-martial. These would seem to be pretty rare events. I've left names off as none of those CMd were wiki-notable. The Times would seem to be an excellent source for Royal Navy ships in service from 1785 to at least WWI. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The CMs work out at 1 per 1,275 man-years service. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

USMC listed at FAR.

I have nominated United States Marine Corps for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

New article of intrest to MILHIST

Hi just found this new article If Day, that may be of interest to World War II and Canadian Military History members.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian warship reports of proceedings being placed online

The Australian War Memorial has recently begun uploading digitalised copies of Royal Australian Navy warships reports of procedings on its website here. These provide a day by day account of the ships activities, and so will be of use in writing articles on them. So far most of the records relate to ships whose name started with 'A' and which was active during World War II, but the records of some famous ships further down the alphabet have also been uploaded. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

A couple of times in the past 18 months I have appealed either here or at similar Military Bio related talk pages for help clearing the backlog of unreferenced biographies of living people, or UBLPs as we like to call them. Well, I'm back to say thank you, well done and congratulations. Both Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Unreferenced BLPs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military biography/Unreferenced BLPs hit zero the other day! If you want to help clear out the remaining 944 uBLPs from other topics/projects, then WP:URBLPR is the best place to help out. Thanks again. The-Pope (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

USNI Proceedings

Does anyone have access to the United States Naval Institute Proceedings journal? I'm looking specificly for the article "Soviet sub penetrates Sydney Harbor!" in Vol 124 Issue 4 (April 1998). -- saberwyn 05:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - please send me an email :) I remember visiting this sub when it was in Sydney. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Nyon Conference now open

The peer review for Nyon Conference is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Batfish (SS-310) now open

The peer review for USS Batfish (SS-310) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Oklahoma (BB-37) now open

The peer review for USS Oklahoma (BB-37) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Richard Nixon now open

The peer review for Richard Nixon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Chester A. Arthur now open

The peer review for Chester A. Arthur is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradford & District War Graves Visit Association

Could anyone shed any light on the activities of this association or when it existed? Thanks NtheP (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Balmer now open

The A-Class review for John Balmer is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Would somebody be willing to look at the following articles?

• Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)
• Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)
• Expedition of Usama bin Zayd

There is an edit war going on there and if anyone could take a look and weigh in I would love them forever. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that 'solving' this would require a knowledge of hadith, which I don't have. However, there are many problems with unreliable sources in the first articles (I think your first two are the same?), and there is copy/pasted text from sources in at least the third article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think adhering to Wikipedia policies requires a knowledge of hadith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite what I meant. In order to solve the dispute itself, I believe someone is going to have to research the claims made by the articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at: WP:ANI#Proposed topic ban from History of Islam for User:Misconceptions2 and User:Al-Andalusi Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A new template needs reviewing and editing

Hi all! I've recently assembled a new Template:American Revolutionary War to occupy the topics space at Portal:American Revolutionary War. I've based the template on the long-used Template:American Civil War, so I'd like some outside eyes to help populate and polish the work so far. Any help would be appreciated. BusterD (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The color of the header and footer seems a bit too bold; the blue text in the footer, in particular, is somewhat difficult to read on that background. Personally, I'd suggest using the default blue styling from {{military navigation}} rather than setting a custom color scheme. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree about colors; I was looking at the portal topics page as a guide, but it doesn't work well. I've removed my color choices from the template, but am not sure how to integrate the military navigation base template with the collapsible groups style. How does the content look?BusterD (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty good start. Its content is skewed towards the American-British conflict, though. There is no mention of Spain as a participant at all, or of the Great Siege of Gibraltar, probably the most important non-North American action of the entire war. The coverage of France should also be separated -- a listing of key civilian personnel (e.g. King Louis, Beaumarchais, Vergennes, other French diplomats) should be added, and the list of military leaders could also be expanded. (If you want to work on the structure of this, I can add content.) Magic♪piano 13:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be all too glad if you wanted to jump right in. I'm not any kind of expert, but I noticed there wasn't a general topic list, nor a general navbox. I just pulled content out of existing navboxes and the main articles, then went backward and went through cats cross checking. I'm not at all confident my structure is sound, since I based the template on another very different conflict. BusterD (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the ACW version hard to read, but I'm not a fan of the grey bg, & that pale purple (or whatever shade it is ;p ) is a bit bright for my taste. (I tried an f1 & liked it, actually.) Easy to read against it, tho. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In process of contributing 20-100 modern images of historical USN and USMM ships

I took about 200 pictures from the SS Jeremiah O'Brien cruising past the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet from about 150 feet away yesterday, I've vetted them down to about 20 relevant to that article and the articles of the ships laid up there.

About 80 are mostly relevant to the article on the SS Jeremiah O'Brien and/or the USS Iowa.

None of the ones are blurry/fuzzy/etc, but not all will probably actually find their way into an article. I leave that determination to the community, though I'll toss a few in a few articles to get the ball rolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Green_Mountain_State_%28T-ACS-9%29

I'm uploading the 20ish right now - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Earthpig

I'm not sure how many of the 80 of the O'brien and Iowa I should contribute to the commons, but we'll see.

Of these 100 or so total pictures, I'm going to need help integrating them into relevant articles, where appropriate. Please Be Bold in integrating and using these. Earthpig (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Some, I uploaded and can be seen on my commons contributions page linked above. Others (59 of them) are here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1832211/ss%20o%27brien/index.html - All of historic US naval ships. Earthpig (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (O) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (O); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Battle Mountain needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Battle Mountain; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Q) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Q); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Thurisind now open

The featured article candidacy for Thurisind is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Content review: how to check refs for consistency

• Even an editor with more than ten FAs can forget to check the refs for consistency. I'm not saying this to shame that editor, but to underscore how easy this is to miss.
• Need to start checking refs for consistency. Here's how:
  • First, copy the notes section to text file. Getting the list (including carats but NOT including the number for each note) is a bit tricky. Place the cursor before the first letter of the name on the first ref, but after the carat just before that name. If you get the numbers for each ref, that's a problem because they are extremely tricky to remove using editing tools, because each number is unique.
  • Now CTRL-H "Replace All" to rm the carats ^. CTRL-A, CTRL-X, paste to Word document. Replace semicolons with carriage returns ("paragraph mark" on the relevant dialog box), because some articles have multiple refs per line (Coulson, p.69; Bradbury, p.191.)... CTRL-A, Table--sort--ascending. Eyeball to look for long list of named refs (abcedfghijk, with spaces between each letter). Find the longest-looking bunch of abc's after a named ref, CTRL-F to double-check if it really is the longest. If it is, then use that string as the text in a CTRL-H. Walk down the text, removing the rightmost empty space and alphabetic character one by one (two by two, actually) and CTRL-H'ing the remaining string until you have removed the abcd strings all the way down to "a space b space". Be careful not to remove the beginning of a title such as "A Better Place"; make sure to keep the space after the "b". OK, now CTRL-A and Table--sort--ascending again. You now have a list that has all the notes sorted alphabetically. Ignore the ones that start with quotation marks (at least for now). Eyeball and compare this list to the actual references section. Be sure to compare names AND dates, and watch out for multiple authors and "See also" etc.
  • Be sure to look for References that are not in the Notes and cited sources that are in the Notes but not the References. The latter omission is probably the greater sin (it is unacceptable in every imaginable peer-reviewed journal), but both errors are considered unacceptable by a large number of publications. [The American Sociological Association's Style Guide states, "All references cited in the text must be listed in the reference section, and vice versa.". It's the "vice versa" bit that's relevant here.]
• Good luck  – Ling.Nut 01:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

RFA Wave Chief (A265)

Can I please have confirmation that all info currently in this article is extracted from Colledge. I intend to expand the article but don't have that source myself. Page numbers would be useful. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mass NARA image upload

Hey guys, NARA is in the process of uploading something like 123,000 images to Commons. Right now the bot is on US Navy ships and Cherokee census cards, and if you'd like to see them as they come up (about one ship every five minutes), see [4]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing

I have a question regarding categorizing. By definition of the law governing the Iron Cross of 1939 a Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipient must also be a recipient of all preceding lower grades of the Iron Cross. Therefore categorizing a KC recipient as both KC recipient and Iron Cross recipient is redundant. Do we do both or just the higher grade? This question may also apply to other categories which supersedes a lower category. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for 1st Provisional Marine Brigade now open

The featured article candidacy for 1st Provisional Marine Brigade is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:USMC War Memorial Night.jpg

Just a headsup that File:USMC War Memorial Night.jpg has been nominated for deletion. --Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Memorials and the Battle of Lima Site 85

I am unfortunately engaged in an edit war with Canpark on the Battle of Lima Site 85 page, particularly in relation to the section US personnel missing in action at Lima Site 85. Given that this battle marked the largest ground loss of USAF personnel in the Vietnam War, many of whom remain MIA, I do not think it is unreasonable to name those missing and provide details of the extensive investigation into what happened to them. Jim Sweeney the GA assessor has suggested that this detail may breach WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but I believe that relates to entire articles and not simply a section of an article as is the case here. Canpark has also repeatedly deleted a sentence relating to a memorial erected to the USAF crewmen killed at LS85, but I would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to include details of battle memorials on the relevant battle page. I would appreciate the thoughts of other editors on these issues. Mztourist (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence mentioned above is A memorial to these and other Combat SkySpot airmen is co-located on Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, with the memorial to Operation Arc Light airmen - I believe Canpark deletes the content as it off focus and has little or nothing to do with the battle itself. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing off focus about it, the page has photos of the memorials and the type of radar that was at LS85, pretty on focus I would say! Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd have a complaint about a link to the site, but the list of MIAs is a tough one. There isn't a similar list, for example, on the MACV-SOG page (even though it certainly might merit one using the same theory, as SOG's MIA rate was very high). I understand the desire to have such a list, but I'm not sure that it's appropriate given the way other articles covering such activities are set up.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of lists of dead and missing from shipwreck articles before now. Unless it's particularly necessary to name one of the missing, I wouldn't have included them. The names seem to be over-referenced (at two per name), one ref would do for the whole sentence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Referencing is also a problem. Mztourist had previously used what appeared to be a non-academic personal account of a trip to Laos and two dead links, but dead links are hardly reliable sources, and is clearly insistent on over-referencing using pages from the Virtual Wall. I replaced the dead links with a printed source, but he seemed to be adamant to remove the efforts which I have made to improve the article's quality. I can't help but feel that what Mztourist is doing equate to vandalism. If he wants to guard his tiny patch of territory that is no problem, but at least use references properly.Canpark (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't include any "personal accounts" as Canpark suggests, that was another author, however in undoing Canpark's persistent efforts to delete the whole section it was reinstated several times. In relation to dead links, they certainly weren't dead when I put them in, they may have become so with the lapse of time or been cut up when deleted or reinstated. I have pointed out to Canpark that one of his references Chauhan is persistently incorrect and yet he continues to rely on it.Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I used the best sources which I have at my disposal, and I use them with good faith according to this rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality. I do not write these articles according to your historical view. You are not in a position to judge if Sharad Chauhan is correct or not, because it and other sources were written by people who were not present at the battle, so who could say which account is correct? I will leave that final decision to the reviewer.Canpark (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not my historical view Canpark, I have shown that Chauhan is wrong on numerous, sometimes basic items, from other official US sources.Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on track, shall we? I was disappointed not to see the most recent scholarship on LS 85 used in the article, but since it's not on Googlebooks I suppose that might be too much to ask. Sarcasm aside, the original question was about the MIA stuff. I still don't think it's appropriate for the article based on other precedents. But if you're using controversial historical POV it's best to preference it with some sort of comment along those lines so that any reviewer can understand that there is a controversy about some source materials.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont think it is entirely relevent to put a list of mias on the page, i dont know of a single battle page that has them listed on it. I dont believe there is a single featured article that lists them, think of how unwieldy it would be to give entire lists of dead and wounded on a single battle page. XavierGreen (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is also a severe POV issue by listing only US troops names, there were over 40 hmong and thais that are not listed nor are the vietnamese casualties.XavierGreen (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree on this point. The memorial makes the live of non-American personnel seem worthless, even though many of them died to defend the American installation.Canpark (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of a section on MIAS is relevant as it is an important element of the battle and will be of interest for readers specifically interested in MIA issues. Just because no information is available about the 40+ Hmongs or the 1 NVA killed doesn't mean that we should then just delete the entire section on US MIAs as being POV. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that LS85 is somehow special in this regard. The issue of MIAs is just as important with MACV-SOG (if not arguably more so based on the nature of their operations), yet there's no listing of their MIAs on that page. Maybe setting up a page that lists all US MIAs from Vietnam might be a possibility (I didn't turn one up with a quick search, but I stress that it was a QUICK search). I understand the desire to recognize these personnel, but at the same time it doesn't seem to fit with the precedent set by other Vietnam articles.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim that the MIAs make LS85 special compared to any other battle with a lot of MIAs. Why don't you write about MACV-SOG's MIAs? it would be fascinating. The problem with MIA pages on the web is that they are often dominated by subscribers to Rambo II live POW theories, so where there is an MIA issue I think it is part of the story of the battle worth telling as per my comments below. Mztourist (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the list of MIA names from the article under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. A paragraph (maybe two at most) describing the situation as a whole, integrated into the Aftermath section, would be the best way to go, I think. I would support mentioning the memorial listing the MIAs as part of this paragraph. I have not looked at any other part of the article, and have no other views on this issue. -- saberwyn 09:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I find the recovery of remains of the Vietnam era MIAs inherently very interesting and we all contribute based on our personal interests. I am not trying to turn the LS85 page or any other page into memorials to the MIAs themselves, rather the attempts to find out what happened to the MIAs and recover their remains, which usualy involves the former belligerents working together is part of an ongoing story about the particular battle that deserves to be told Mztourist (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Saberwyn's suggestion is very sensible and in line with how we've treated similar issues in the past. If there are independently notable individuals who are among the missing it might be worth mentioning their names, but as others have said we certainly don't list everyone. This is one of the few situations where I think external links can be really useful in a WP article, in linking to content that doesn't really belong on site. Ultimately we must base content decisions on what's encyclopedic rather than on what "deserves to be told", however worthy that story is. EyeSerene^talk 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

forensic investigation is encyclopaedic Mztourist (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an answer here would be to create an article dealing with MIAs from Vietnam in general (a list, perhaps, linked back to specific battles). I understand your interest in the MIAs from LS85, Mztourist, but they really pale in number when compared to the list generated by MACV-SOG (and that article has no list). I wouldn't mind working on a separate article/list about Vietnam MIAs, but we should try to remain somewhat consistent with existing articles (which do not include such lists on the whole).Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe saberwyn's suggestion is the most appropriate, similar to Jim Sweeney's idea on the GA Review. I agree the name of the deceased should be removed, and the info on the recovery of U.S. MIA be integrated with the Aftermath section.Canpark (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness, such an article already exists: Vietnam War POW/MIA issue Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the general article exists (and believe I mentioned that earlier), but when looking at it I didn't see a list of MIAs of the sort that was being discussed in the LS85 article. Hence my comment specifically mentioning a list linked to battles.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I implemented saberwyn's suggestion by incorporating two paragraphs from the U.S. MIA section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lima_Site_85&oldid=442018401, but once again Mztourist reinstated the section. So I would highly appreciate a final consensus, as well as a resolution to the issue.Canpark (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

HAving compared both versions, I would say that having it as part of the aftermath is proportional (though I would move it further down within that section); a separate section seems disproportionate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It seem to me there is a consensus, but Mztourist clearly disagrees.Canpark (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Portal on Intelligence

Hi there. A user approached #wikipedia-en-help with an idea for a portal on Intelligence. I'm going to help him run with it, and I'd like some advice.

First of all, what to call it. It's going to be larger than the scope of Portal:Espionoge (which is up for deletion, and has barely anything worth merging into this portal). It would cover intelligence agencies, secret police forces (Stasi et. al.), personnel, operations, trade tools and techniques, pretty much the whole shebang. I was thinking of Portal:Intelligence, but the name is ambiguous.

Also, if you have any ideas for content, or are willing to help get it set up, please comment here, or leave me a message at my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It seem's like WP:Intelligence is pretty much dead as well. Even though it looks better organised than the WP:Espionage does. At least I could say that I tried to get WP:Espionage up and running. I'll continue my re-write of "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" which is on my subpage under "Biographies". Then add it to the actual Wikipedia page when I'm satisfied. Adamdaley (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Alister Murdoch now open

The featured article candidacy for Alister Murdoch is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) about hyphens in article titles

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes that may be of interest. Shem (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Collaboration

Hello! Just to mention an exciting collaboration project with the National Maritime Museum in London which we're now going ahead with. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is excellent news; congratulations and thanks to everyone who's helped set up the collaboration! Is there anything that we ought to be helping with in infrastructure terms (e.g. tagging and assessment, automated categorization, etc.)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes please! Because it's the first project of this kind, I don't really know exactly how it is going to work and what kind of infrastructure and cooordination will be needed. I'm slowly starting to get my head around it. But since the MILHIST project is very good at projects, your help would be very welcome. The Land (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please let us know what you need. It might also be worth pinging the editors at WP:OMT if you haven't already. EyeSerene^talk 08:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, please let us know what you'd like to see. To get you started, I have two suggestions you might want to consider:

1. We could set up the GLAM/NMM effort as a special project (cf. WP:OMT) within MILHIST; this would involve adding a tag for affected articles within {{WPMILHIST}}, which could then be used to generate a full panoply of special project features (assessment statistics and logs, open task lists, article alerts, popularity indices, etc.).

   I'm not sure, however, whether this is the best approach; the available infrastructure is extensive, but some of it might not be useful in the context of what you're doing. In your view, is the project going to be limited to uploading material from the NMM, or is the intent to continue beyond the original uploads and work on the affected articles further?

2. As a more limited alternative to the first approach, we could add a tag to {{WPMILHIST}} (giving you access to assessment statistics and such, which could then be used—or not—at your own discretion) without turning the NMM collaboration into a full special project or setting up any of the other infrastructure.

   I think this approach would be more sensible if the intent is merely to track the articles as material is uploaded; it's probably not ideal if you are intending to work on them in the longer term.

Do either of those sound like something you'd be interested in? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tonnage question

If a ship is described as "x" tons old measurement, and "y" tons new measurement in an 1880s source, would that equate to BOM and GRT? Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been answered at WT:SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Two questions

Poking around today in the military tactics category ( a suitable case for a structural rethink, if there is a category task force out there), I found myself with two questions

• Do we have an article on Battle tactics of the American Civil War? I'd expected to find it, given there is a very active group of editors that work on the ACW, but couldn't. If we don't, it would be a valuable addition to our stock.
• I discovered that the term Battle Tactics redirects to a computer game. As I understand the redirect rules, the redirect should go to the main topic Military tactics, on which appears a redirect For the computer game .... I really don't know enough about potentially conflicted redirects like this. Could someone more skilled have a look? Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Per your second point, I've changed the redirect in line with your suggestion (the appropriate guideline is at WP:R#PLA). EyeSerene^talk 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to start a stub or at least redlink Battle tactics in the American Civil War in various articles; I'm sure someone around here now or in the future will take up the mantle. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

New stub: Al-Nidaa Brigade (5th column pro-Qadaffi unit near Benghazi)

Fresh news, but given that, in the long run, it'd be of value to have articles on the various named-units of this war, I made a stub for this "brigade". I've noticed there are quite a few "brigades" named after various figures on both sides; has there been any talk of having a series of articles on these various units, and maybe a Category:Units and formations of the 2011 Libyan civil war? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned with the project's take on the Libyan Civil War. It is generating lots of small, news report based articles. Surely, this is just the thing that the recentism policy is supposed to guard against? This is not to say we shouldn't have something on units of the conflict but, given the amount of information we currently have and issues about its reliability in an encyclopaedic sense, ought we not have just base articles e.g. Rebel Units of the Libyan civil war, Battles of the Libyan civil war until more in depth analytical information is available?Monstrelet (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well at the moment it fails the notability guide "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and the word alleged makes it even less likely to stand up against a Prod let alone full blown AfD. Base articles, as suggested above, are the place to incorporate this sort of information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Monstrelet, that's a fair criticism. Wikipedia's coverage of most ongoing wars is similar - there's lots of articles about minor battles and terrorist bombings which were created only because they were in the news for a day or two and which have (in my view) no lasting notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Richard Nixon now open

The featured article candidacy for Richard Nixon is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Ap Bac now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Ap Bac is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

More input for Northrop YF-23 A-Class review

The A-class review for Northrop YF-23 has been open since early July and should close soon. If you have further comments on it, please post them. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There's been six reviewers. Thanks for input! -Fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...and closed as successful. Congratulations! EyeSerene^talk 19:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Move of 69th Infantry Regiment

In a recent change, which does not appear to follow MOS, the article 69th Infantry Regiment (United States) was moved to 69th Infantry Regiment (New York); see diff here. Is this correct? This also appears to be the case with the 71st Infantry Regiment, with two separate articles:

• 71st Infantry Regiment (United States)
• 71st Infantry Regiment (New York)

Can a subject matter expert look into this please? If I am incorrect I apologize in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This issue is confused by the existence of the CW Volunteer 69th New York Infantry and the later 69th Infantry formed for service in World War I (and continuing on in the New York National Guard). There is a trend in National Guard units to link lineage to state Volunteer units (such as Montana's 163rd being linked to the 1st Montana Infantry that served during the Spanish-American War and the Philippines). This looks to me to be a well-intentioned but clumsy attempt to show that the 69th Infantry Regiment does exist without understanding the official lineage link or method.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

its fairly common knoldge that these two units were able to loby congress for there old numbers. therby creating doubles. In Sawicki's book "Infantry Regiments of the United States" it clearly shows two different lineages. furthermore the Federal 69th has its own coat of Arms. its all perty straight forward. Brian in denver (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got Sawicki's book on cavalry lineage, but not the infantry version. You see some pretty odd linkages in the cav lineage to be sure.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

its kinda like two different objects cant occupy the same space at the same time. during WWI 69th NY, was 165th, while 71st NY was 54th Pioneers. on the other hand, if you tried hard you could link the 75th Infantry with the rangers because its a little more linier. but the army shows two different lineages and im not sure what eggzactly the 75th Consisted of during WWII.Brian in denver (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The 75th gets fuzzy because the Army did something of a hatchet job with the Ranger lineage...linking it to Merrill's Marauders for one. The original 75th was spun up for World War I if memory serves but never went overseas. I'd have to check Stanton's WW2 OB book for information from that conflict.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont know, maybe it would help if thay were deleted off the Federal list, Infantry Branch (United States), the whole point of renumbering the national guard units in 1917 was to avoid this exact confusion. but we all know how "special" New Yorkers are. Brian in denver (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian in denver, are the doubled regiments on your to-do list for some sort of referenced explanation, even just a short one? Might head off a massive amount of confusion/editwarring later on.. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (X–Z) now open

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (X–Z) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II now open

The A-Class review for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Military History WikiProject Contest incorporates C-Class

Following MilHist's recent adoption of C-Class, the Monthly Contest points system has been updated to include the new assessment level. With this month's round only just under way, I encourage all editors to enter their work and get into the spirit of friendly competition, with the opportunity to earn the WikiChevrons for first place or The Writer's Barnstar for second, and improve the quality of MilHist articles into the bargain. Any questions, feel free to ask here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Background of the Spanish Civil War ACR

Is something wrong? It's not listing on the "Open tasks" list (I apologise if that's a human thing). Just wondering, because the more eyes the better I always think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone has to add it to Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. I've added it. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right, thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Attaboy:User:Takabeg

To change the flow here of users feeling underappreciated, I'd like to single out a really deserving member of the community, User:Takabeg. Takabeg has pioneered an amazingly undercovered area, Ottoman military history, and filled in some of the details on the First World War Mesopotamia battles etc from the side we would not usually see: the Turks. He's also been a pretty level headed player in the trenches of the Turkic/Armenian/Azeri editwarring that goes on continually. I would like to publicly recognise him and commend his efforts to project members. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Leroy Petry awards

On a related note what is the opinion of this community regarding the image showing Leroy Petry wearing the Joint Service Achievement Medal, but lack of it in his official profile. Please comment in the appropriate section of the talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that unless the veracity of Petry's uniform is in question that picture would qulify as a primary source for the purpose of identifying awards and ribbons he has earned. The time frame for the award of the JSAM and his official bio's write up may not have allowed for it's award to be entered in time. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how we have two competing reliable source references, one showing he is wearing it, one stating he was not awarded it; I say for now leave it out per WP:BURDEN, unless there is consensus to add it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that both reliable sources are perishable and that one that shows an updated status should take precendece, unless you're asserting that the award was misworn or that it was revoked prior to the bio in question being published. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It maybe improperly worn, but we don't have any reliable sources, other than the images to support whether the subject is entitled to wear it or not.

Does a third editor know where we can verify that Leroy Petry is entitled to wear the JSAM? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If there's no demonstrable reason to speculate he miswore it I don't see the grounds to dispute the source. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The reason for the dispute is the lack of its inclusion in the official biography. Sure the subject wears it, but anyone can wear anything, unless there is documentation to verify that the subject is entitled to wear it then there are competing sources, one being the official bio, and the other being an image.

Therefore, this is why I posted the discussion here, to get additional opinions from other editors within this subject who maybe able to add additional opinions, bringing us to a consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The bio you're linking to isn't exactly an official bio, but rather a snapshot. The official bio would have a different format and list awards and such differently. My take is that the photo takes precedence, since it's more recent and the ribbon rack would have been built from his official personnel records.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, yes.

Looking at the image, and the official bio, SFC Petry is said to be awarded three AAMs, but in the image, he is wearing one JSAM, and an AAM with a bronze oak leaf cluster. There is an error, obviously. The question is is it SFC Petry's or the Army's? That is not ours to question, it is ours to find reliable sources to verify content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My error. In the bio it states three Good Conduct Medals, not three Army Achievement Medals. It does not include the JSAM. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that he's shown wearing the JSAM when he was awarded the MoHhere, I'd say that his ribbon rack is correct.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That image as a RS appears to be far clearer then the one previously linked from the Pakistan Times. Two images, now show him wearing the JSAM.

Do these images outweight that of the profile on the army.mil website? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the award image does, because you can be pretty sure that his chain of command went over that uniform pretty closely before he went on stage. Something that high-profile would be carefully managed.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I had similar conversation over at WP:Aviation regarding the reliability of images as sources for information (aircraft in certain livery at certain locations) the opinion was an image is not an RS. Might be considered a primary source, needing a secondary source to interpret it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have the same reservation about the linked profile, as it's not the same thing as an official service bio or personnel report. Might be something worth asking Army PA about...Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A common misconception on reliable sources is that primary sources cannot, by themselves, be reliable sources. As the the official picture displays a clearly identifiable JSAM the picture counts as a primary source. The only reason this would need an additional, secondary, source would be if the primary source in question required expert interpretation to understand its content, which this does not. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have a Point of Contact with someone within the Center of Military History? Can they or Department of Army not verify the medals he is entitled to wear? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

They SHOULD be able to do so, provided that privacy limitations allow them to do so (I would think that they would, but one never knows when dealing with the big green bureaucracy).Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to cast aspersions, but is there a prospect he's wearing it in error? Or was in error at the time of the photo? It's not unheard of... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have emailed an inquire to carl_usamhi@conus.army.mil which is listed as a PoC with the U.S. Army Heritage & Education Center.

My email reads as follows:

To Whom it May Concern:
I am an editor on Wikipedia, and have been involved in editing the Leroy Petry article. Recently, there has been a dispute regarding the medals awarded to SFC Petry. In an image at the Medal of Honor awarding ceremony, SFC Petry was wearing a Joint Service Achievement Medal. However, on the profile at Army.mil there is no indication that SFC Petry was awarded the Joint Service Achievement Medal. Can you please clarify that the wearing of the medal is correct, or an oversight?
Thank you in advance.

As I had stated above, Trek, unfortunately, there maybe an error. That is what I am trying to confirm. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good initiative TREK, thanks. All military records (except medical) are public information so if an editor were really interested they could make a records request from the national archives as well but the turn around on that can be a few weeks. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No thanks needed whatever. That seemed the simplest explanation. If you want to thank someone, thank William of Ockham. Or Spock. ;p Great Bird of the Galaxy ^{can you get that, Majel?} 06:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure if they would entertain such a request but you might want to ask at Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Requests and see if you can get the Archive folks to verify the awards. Still not sure if it would help or if it would amount to Original Research but I personally view the Military personel records as a published work of the US government. --Kumioko (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A Linda Cohick with the United States Military History Institute has contacted me, and has asked for additional information for the inquiry. I will forward the information when she replies. Who can I forward the email to to keep as a record so it can be reviewed by other editors, when it comes? Is it WP:OTRS? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had to send my home address, and it appears that the reply will be via snail mail. If this is the case, I can scan the letter and post it somewhere to be verified? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment stats

Just a quick note that "Latin American military history task force assessment statistics" is not showing on the assessment page. Does it exist/need fixing/is it SEP? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we never updated our standard template when the location of the statistics subpages changed, and the redirects aren't in place for the newer task forces. It should be fixed now, at any rate. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Spanish Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds recipients now open

The A-Class review for List of Spanish Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds recipients is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject?

I have proposed a new WikiProject that I'd like to call "Victorian military campaigns." DCI2026 21:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal in question is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Victorian military campaigns. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to set up all the infrastructure of an entirely new WikiProject, I think; we'd be happy to host something along the lines of what you're proposing within MILHIST. My suggestion would be to start by creating a group within the military history incubator to collect articles and gather interest; once there's enough participation, we can easily turn the group into a task force or special project in its own right. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Joe Foss

Time for folks to take a look at this article, being significantly improved as of 4 August 2011, but still a looming dispute over whether Foss can be described as the American "ace-of-aces." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

Celtic warfare

I've recently plucked Celtic warfare from the assessment lists. Although extensive, it only merits a start. It is littered with expansion tags and, although it is extensively referenced, the referencing is incomplete. For someone with the interest, this would make a good project and for those involved in the contest, a quick C or even B if you have the refs. Here's hoping someone will pick it up. Monstrelet (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Close order formation

I've expanded Close order formation from a stub. While the article has a structure that takes it to end of the 19th. century, my expertise really runs out at the Renaissance. Ideally, an editor with knowledege of 18th & 19th. century tactics is needed to complete the story arc. If anyone can help out with this, you will help complete a useful history of tactics article. Many thanks. Monstrelet (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nyon Conference

Is this article, which is ostensibly an anti-piracy convention, but forms part of Non-Intervention in the Spanish Civil War, inside project scope? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kaiserin now open

The A-Class review for SMS Kaiserin is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC for SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913) now open

The FAC for SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ACR for HMS New Zealand

The A-class Review for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer an opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What is and isn't an amphibious assault ship?

Interesting discussion here which has become bogged down and over-personalized. Could some knowledgeable and diplomatic editors weigh in there? Thanks, --John (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Feeling neglected

I am just realizing that although I have been acknowledged for my 6 A-class articles, my audio and video file contributions at WP:FS have not been recognized. Over 25% of all FS at WP:MILHIST/SHOW are a result of my efforts. I feel that I should be considered for WikiChevrons, WikiChevrons with Oak leaves and the Other award for original and rare audio files for the following contributions:

1. File:Drum - Cadence A.ogg
2. File:Drum - Cadence B.ogg
3. File:Drums - Four Flams.ogg
4. File:Anchors Aweigh 1929 recording.ogg
5. File:Attention.ogg
6. File:Colonel Bogey March.ogg
7. File:Hands Across the Sea.ogg
8. File:The Fairest of the Fair.ogg
9. File:Radetzky March.ogg
10. File:Four ruffles and flourishes, hail to the chief (long version).ogg
11. File:FDR's 1941 State of the Union (Four Freedoms speech) Edit 1.ogg*
12. File:JFK Establishment of the Peace Corps edit.ogg*
13. File:Manhattan Beach.ogg
14. File:King Cotton.ogg
15. File:The Gallant Seventh.ogg
16. File:State of the Union Address (January 27, 2010) Barack Obama (WhiteHouse.gov-reedit).ogv
17. File:Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) - Barack Obama (WhiteHouse.gov).ogv
18. File:Farewell of Slavianka (stereo).ogg
19. File:The Corps.ogg

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have added WP:FPs at show:

1. File:Ernest Hemingway in Milan 1918 retouched 3.jpg
2. File:EdwardTeller1958 fewer smudges.jpg--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Other unrecognized contributions to the project include the featured article Fountain of Time and probably about a dozen DYKs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Join the club of the neglected people who do alot and their very best to help improve Wikipedia and do not get the acknowledged as much as other people. I understand how you must feel. Adamdaley (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger Me too, LOL. Just look at the top right hand of my talk page, or my master plan. Anyway, it's humourous that you actually addressed it. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DYKs get you nothing here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While Tony's appeal is rather too forward for my tastes—I've always thought that such awards are meaningful only when offered spontaneously, not when explicitly requested and expected—it is quite obviously born of a genuine concern; and, as his contributions to the project are not in doubt, I've awarded him the WikiChevrons. Others may choose to offer alternative recognition; I'm a bit lost as far as the proper selection of awards for media work is concerned.

Turning, now, to the more general frustration I see voiced here: we are, as a project, somewhat proverbially stingy when it comes to formal recognition. This is not altogether a bad thing—our awards would hold little value in anyone's eyes if there was no real significance to receiving them—but it has led to a feeling of under-appreciation on the part of the many dedicated and diligent contributors who have yet to receive such recognition. This is not, of course, a problem limited to this project in particular; indeed, the Wikimedia Foundation is looking to address similar concerns across the breadth of the entire Wikimedia project family. But I think that perhaps we can at least do something about it here.

I'd like to suggest that we, as a project, make a greater effort to recognize the many editors who contribute to our goals. This can be done, in part, through individual efforts; I'd encourage everyone here to keep an eye for good contributions to military history articles—whether in your watchlists, when patrolling recent changes, or anywhere else—and offer a token of recognition, or perhaps even merely a few words of thanks and praise, to the editors making them.

However, I also wonder if it might not be possible to approach the problem in a more systematic fashion. Could we, for example, get a bot to create a list of substantive edits to military history articles over the past week, or month, and then go through the resulting list of names? This would, in addition to providing recognition and motivation, offer us an excellent opportunity to contact and potentially recruit new editors who might otherwise be completely unnoticed, and who might in turn be unaware that the project even exists. Would this be a worthwhile endeavor? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that such awards are only meaningful when offered spontaneously, but I also agree that the project collectively is quite stingy. Your idea, Krill, is certainly something we should pursue if we can narrow down the parameters enough that sifting through it wouldn't be an unmanageable task. More simply, we could adapt the one- and two-stripe reviewer awards to be a kind of inferior version of the Chevrons—thus retaining the Chevrons' prestige, but giving an "official" award that could be handed out for lesser achievements—and encourage their use. Or perhaps we could have nominations for an "editor of the month" or something light-hearted like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re. "editor of the month", perhaps rather than noms we should be encouraging more people to enter the monthly article-writing contest -- patronage has dropped off lately so it can often be wide open for picking up the Chevrons or the Writer's Barnstar. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept my "meaningless" recognition.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

When will the August contest start? I couldn't see any tables. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's already up, there's already one entry listed. Parsecboy (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For newbies, here's the link to the page, with the guidelines and August entry table. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Got a question – does the submitted work have to be worked on during the month, or can it be from a month ago. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The general rule is whenever the article was assessed, but during the month in question is best. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for additional belated "meaningless" thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just come by here for relaxation; as this is my escape from the technical world I tend to work in. Just hope that I've been able to add an article or two someone finds interesting over these past 5 years I tend to like a low profile anyway. Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Belfast (C35) - ready for A Class Review?

Hello all. I was referred here after initially posting at WP:SHIPS. I'd like to ask editors here what they think of HMS Belfast (C35); whether they think it might be ready for A-Class Review, and if not, what might be improved before nomination. Points made over at WP:SHIPS include the need for a wider bibliography, a greater amount of detail regarding the Battle of North Cape, and greater precision with units of measurement. Thanks a lot. IxK85 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question - yes it is definitely ready for A-class review. People will have comments, they always do, but I think it has a good chance of passing, particularly given that you will probably have very good access to source material to sort out any queries that are raised. :-) The Land (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the encouragement; I'll nominate it and see what happens. IxK85 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Belfast (C35) IxK85 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Italics in ship class titles

I had a surf through X class aircraft carrier articles, and I so that the article names are not italicsed where I think they should so. This is very inconsistent since submarine class articles, such as Ohio class submarine and Vanguard class submarine, are all italised. I think the best way to improve the Project is through the standardisation of articles ie. which words should be italised and so on. Any comments? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. You will get some ignorant people wanting to italicize on (frex) Flower class corvette when it shouldn't be, however... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all rather pointless because of Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes this discussion where the usual suspects from WP:MOS are steamrollering the discussion to make every class article use endashes.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

How is a discussion about dashes relevant to italic usage? (Hohum ^@) 01:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD notice

The 2011 NATO helicopter crash has been nominated for deletion Mjroots (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Czechoslovak Air Force

I've been bold and created the Czechoslovak Air Force article. It needs a lot of expansion, especially in organization and aircraft/equipment, which don't exist! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Input needed regarding "Book-Class" and related non-article classes

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Tracking non-article assessment classes could use some more input to help determine which non-article classes we should be tracking; suggestions from anyone with an interest in such things would be very welcome! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

World War II in photos

There is an excellent series of photo essays being published by The Atlantic newspaper. Seven out of a planned 20 have been posted so far. Highly recommended! Farawayman (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I looked through the PH one last night... great photo essay, grisly photos. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman Military History

Very briefly,... and to says that i would likes to see the chances to starts to unifies the efforts to may be (in time),... creates a division inside the project,... related with the Roman Military History,...
...those because i has saw many independent articles (and not tagged too),...
also would likes to ask about the chances of bring here several of the related articles,... in another languages,... that still doesn't exists here,... making the project-division even more complete,...
with my regards,... and thanking for the consideration,... --Cpant23 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We do have a task force, Classical warfare, that covers the entire Roman period. Was that what you were looking for, or are you looking for a dedicated Roman milhist group? As for your last question, we'd love it if you could do that. The more information, the better. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

yes i know,... i was thinking in something about the Roman Military History,... inside the task force (as a separated group may be),...
those may be bringing to life again the Portal:Military of ancient Rome (apparently not active for years),... as a start,...
...being also available to helps in those too,... in all that i can do,...
with my regards,...--Cpant23 (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

B Class

Its been some time since there was a drive to improve the B Class articles, or add the check list to articles waiting for assessment. However I think its generally accepted, that there is a shortage of reviewers, not just at Milhist but on Wikipedia generally. On the open tasks page under Articles that need specific improvements there are 359 articles that only need work on supporting materials (images, info boxs etc). Another 162 only need work on the article structure and 12 need work on grammar. These 500 articles may be easily fixed and could form the basis for a small drive, with the normal Milhist awards. Or for a bigger project there are still 26,500 articles that need the B Class check list completed. I for one would be willing to take part. Any thoughts or other suggestions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I have go every so often at looking at "single issue" articles (here and WP:Aviation) so you can count me in. Though in practice I find it's more of a case of reviewing the checklist - eg finding that an article actually does have a structure ("tick" checklist B3) but the referencing is poor (untick B1) - before starting on improvements. So I tend to have a go at low hanging fruit like structure and supporting materials first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll echo that. I tried this once for interest, using the English and structure criteria ones. I did thirteen, of which only one was deficient only in the parameter indicated. Nearly all had B1 and B2 issues. However, fixing some of these now would generate C class results, which offers some reward (psychological or contest points). However, am happy to have another go. BTW, I know I've asked this before without response - is there any easy way we can get B class lists into unassessed articles or does it have to be done manually? If the checklist went in automatically, it may lead to more reviewers filling them in. Monstrelet (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lockheed Have Blue now open

The A-Class review for Lockheed Have Blue is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Bir Hakeim

The ephemeron German user jerryscuba has rewritten the article in wide parts. He adopted the description to his personal POV in a not neutral way. In the German wikipedia he started his personal crusade, but was stopped after three weeks. Please, have look on the article and try to repair it. --Feliks (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Battle off Diamond Shoals

As discussed above, I popped down to the single criterion lists to see how the land lies and found myself at this article. In theory an article only lacking attention to grammar, it no longer has a page of its own but is redirected to another article. That article, despite being about a warship, is not MILHIST tagged. Should the original talk page have been moved at the time of the redirect? If someone wants a look, the grammar on the new article is OK - there are one or two spelling and punctuation mistakes - but it doesn't meet B1 - there are citation gaps and the presentation of the refs needs looking at. Sorry for the long commentary but it needs a more knowledgeable editor on WWII ships and someone who knows how to handle the issues of the redirect to sort out.Monstrelet (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

My habit in such cases is to redirect the offending talk page with an edit summary that the article had been turned into a redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just redirected the talk page. I should have done this when I redirected the article - oops! Thanks for noticing this. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reassessed as start, which was its original status but, given the narrow subject matter would be easy to improve by anyone interested.Monstrelet (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

An idea

So, I have been thinking of this for awhile now but I recently thought it might be good to bring it up here. For the project, we have a military structure template for forts with a few buildings and other things. This is a great template, but if we are talking about installations that cover areas the size of some small states and other extreme areas, wouldn't it be better to have a "Military Installation" template to help bridge this gap? I know that a user has recently gone around to Air National Guard base articles and has been replacing the airport one with the structure ones, but it doesn't really make sense to have a structures template for something which might include a few hangers, multiple support facilities, a ramp (and possibly an airport), and other things. Personally, I feel a need to either reform the present template or maybe even create a supplemental one, but I would like to hear what others think before I go any further. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is actually something that was proposed before, if I recall correctly, but never got off the ground because we couldn't come up with a good list of parameters for an installation infobox.

My personal inclination would be to convert the existing structure infobox to an installation one, and then move back to using the normal building infoboxes for individual buildings (with, perhaps, an expanded infobox developed purely for true fortifications). I expect that we'd also want to merge the test site infobox in with the installation infobox at that point. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Infobox military area"? Just needs to cover what it's for, size, who controls it, period of use. Would be good for smaller bombing ranges, STANTA, up to CFB Suffield (which currently has an airport inforbox) and Woomera Test Range. My instinct is that "structure" implies a single building rather than a base. Going back to the use of airport infoboxes for military airbases - is there a happy medium? RAF Coltishall has two infoboxes -one for the station entity and one for the runways - as does RAF Coningsby. RAF Brize Norton has just an airport one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am all for using the airport infobox, but even then if the base is covering a tiny portion of the airport and is not in control, then it is a tad silly to have it there, but even sillier to include the structure box. Does anyone have a good idea of what they want in the template? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review for HMS Belfast (C35) now open

Hello all. Having had some encouraging feedback recently, I have nominated HMS Belfast for A-Class Review. (Not having nominated an article for A-Class review before, I trust that posting a notice like this is part of the normal procedure - apologies if not!) IxK85 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated T-34 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

High Mobility Artillery Rocket System

Didn't see this listed here so thought I'd mention it. There's a proposed rename/move of High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (to HIMARS) discussion here GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

War on Terror

Twice an editor has removed the Netherlands from the combatant list in the War on Terror article.

No reason has been articulated in the talk page or in the edit summary.

I have begun a new discussion regarding the reversions here. All interested editors are welcome to join. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Musical titles

2011 U.S. special forces helicopter shootdown has been moved 5 times since its creation on August 6, not even 4 days ago. While there is a move discussion at Talk:2011 U.S. special forces helicopter shootdown#New title, there is no clear concensus for a move at this point. Could an admin please move-protect the page? Thanks. (Note that I was going to mention this when it was moved earler today (my time), but I had hoped the moves would stop. Oh well!)- BilCat (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kirov class battlecruiser

A proposal has been made to move the page Russian Kirov class heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser back to Kirov class battlecruiser. All interested members are invited to sound off on the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The chronic misunderstanding of the 75th Ranger Regiment in relation to JSOC

There's a chronic problem at both the 75th Ranger Regiment and Joint Special Operations Command articles. Unfortunately, due to a combination of enthusiastic amateur attention prompted by popular culture references and some media attention not exercising due diligence in the weeds of DoD bureaucracy, there has arisen a common misconception that the 75th is part of the Joint Special Operations Command. A simple look at the extensive references, including official US military organizational papers, demonstrates otherwise. The current IP is so insistent that he's mistaken the absence of mention of being part of JSOC in the sources I've supplied to indicate that it's still possible because it's not expressly rejected. It's become absurd.

While portions of the 75th are assigned to JSOC led Task Forces they are not and have never been under the administrative control of JSOC nor do they, as a matter of policy or practice, deploy as a unit under JSOC's purview. I've reached the limit of my patience in trying to explain this to, the usually anonymous, editors and would very much appreciate if some other editors here with a familiarity with the subject would help address this. I know when my level of frustration has reached the point where I can be rude and I've reached it. Also note that the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment has also had these problems in the past. The most recent revert is here. Thanks in advance to anyone who gives this a look and tried to correct the issues. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The only misunderstanding is from you. Your BELIEF that the two cannot be associated because of some org charts which dont refute the claims doesnt make you correct and others wrong. You've already been provided with: an Army FM that shows JSOC as having Command and Control over the 75th when deployed, a published and award winning journalist who was embedded with JSOC forces, and Jeremy Scahill. JSOC's organization is not exactly open source, so for you to claim to know better than someone who was embedded with those forces is absolutely absurd. What does the status of someone's contributions have anything to do with the edits? Like the screen name Tompointtwo isn't anonymous? 75.111.97.117 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

May I remind the IP editor of WP:CIVL. There is no need to have the retort be personally directed at another editor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So, its ok for Tompointtwo to go to my page and refer to me as "intentionally obtuse" since I provide reliable sources that differ with his opinion? The other option he has for explanation is referring to me as an "idiot" if not intentionally obtuse. However, after reading wiki's policy on civility I fail to understand how I've encroached on this policy. Simply put, tompoint is not being objective and trying to stack editors against my edits while misconstruing the intent of my edits and providing completely irrelevant sources. 75.111.97.117 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not; but that doesn't mean that any editor should not follow CIVIL and WP:AGF as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Having command and control of a unit when it's deployed is NOT the same thing as that unit being part of (or organic to) a specific command. Technically, such a unit would be described as being "attached to" a specific higher command or unit, not part of that unit. Per Joint Publication 3-05, any SOF in the continental US (unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense) are part of USSOCOM, meaning that the 75th would fall under USSOCOM.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness, if you review my edits and discussion on the JSOC page I've never argued that the 75th or 160th is part of JSOC's T/O: simply that when deployed, neither of the two units have deployed outside of JSOC command and control since JSOC was created. "Part of" is ambiguous and doesn't exactly mean "organic to" depending on the user's definition. Out of curiousity (as per JP 3-05), wouldnt that mean that 1st-SFOD/ACE/Delta Force and DEVGRU/Seal Team 6 are part of USSOCOM when in the continental US? 75.111.97.117 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph I'm citing from JP 3-05 (Chapter III, para. 2.a) uses the wording "Unless otherwise directed by SecDef, all SOF based in the continental United States are assigned to USSOCOM". The units you're mentioning could easily be exempted from that command relationship under that provision. I'd expect that they often are, based in no small part on their classified status, but at other times they may not be. The wording in JP 3-05 is intended to give command authorities fairly wide discretion there. The reg goes on to make it clear that SEALs (the standard teams, not DEVGRU) are part of USSOCOM.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could easily be exempted, but not proven to be right? 75.111.97.117 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have access to SecDef documents, sure. Also, both Delta and DEVGRU are classed as anti-terrorist elements and thus can come under different control. Also, it can't be proven that they ARE always controlled by USSOCOM. The JP simply lays out the standard assignment protocol and then allows for exceptions to that protocol.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for John Treloar (museum administrator) now open

The featured article candidacy for John Treloar (museum administrator) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Brazilian battleship São Paulo now open

The featured article candidacy for Brazilian battleship São Paulo is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Relief of General Douglas MacArthur now open

The peer review for Relief of General Douglas MacArthur is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for source verification

Interested editors are invited to see a discussion that I have started on the Japanese occupation of the Philippines talk page, regarding a recent edition by an IP editor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Two quick things

First and foremost, I wanted to point out the word 'Add' on the A-Class criteria no longer links to the right page (I'm sorry, I don't have time to fix this myself). Secondly, the A class review for 'Background of the Spanish Civil War' could do with, preferably, more contributors. (About 2 weeks left, so far no comments – so I'd welcome any thoughts.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Embedding maps in campaignboxes

Mojoworker and I have been working on a set of potential upgrades to the base campaignbox template to add an option allowing a map of the campaign to be embedded within the template.

A simple list of battles doesn't always give a clear picture of a campaign; a campaign can consist of battles that are widely distributed over a large geographic area (e.g. Morgan's Raid or the Vicksburg Campaign of the American Civil War). It could be useful, at least in certain circumstances, to have the campaign map available within the campaignbox— especially for campaigns that have no actual campaign article for the title of the campaignbox to link to. This would allow the reader to obtain additional information from the campaignbox itself, as well as helping the reader—who may be unfamiliar with the battles in the campaign—to navigate to the desired article more intuitively than by clicking on each of the battles in the list itself.

The embedded map feature is available for testing through {{campaign/sandbox}}, and uses a pair of parameters (map_image and map_caption) that enable an optional map section. The feature can be seen in use on {{Campaignbox Morgan's Raid in Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio}}, which has included a campaign map since 2008 and has been updated to use the new prototype mechanism.

We would appreciate feedback on a couple of questions:

1. Is the embedded map feature a useful one in general? Is it something that would be worth using on some (not all) campaignboxes, or making available to campaignbox designers?
2. Is the current layout of the prototype a good one? Should anything about the placement of the map be changed? Do we need any additional parameters?
3. The map can currently be expanded and collapsed independently from the campaignbox; should the campaignbox state parameter ("state=expanded") force the map to expand as well, or should the two remain separate?

Responses to these questions would be appreciated, as would any other comments! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of taking a well-defined, simple concept--an unadorned list of article links--and complicating it by adding other information. If we want to show a map that the article authors have not chosen to present, should we also include options to show the commanders, the dates, the casualties, etc.? What about those campaigns that have multiple campaign maps (the Gettysburg Campaign or the Overland Campaign, or even the Vicksburg Campaign, which you cite as an example, for instance)--do you want options to embed multiple maps?

Knowing how the second law of thermodynamics usually affects decisions of this type in Wikipedia, I presume this new level of complication will end up being added. If so, all I would ask is that you lean toward the article authors in determining whether to display this map or not. I really don't want to see robots wandering around, removing campaign maps from existing articles out of concern that images may be duplicated. In other words, set the parameters so that the article author, not the template author, gets to turn this feature on in any particular article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Only one map is anticipated — and to be fair, the Vicksburg Campaign does have two campaign maps, but then it also has two corresponding campaignboxes. Also, no plans for inclusion of the commanders, dates, casualties, etc. — simply an optional map of the campaign and I stress that it is optional, but I understand your request for an "include_map" parameter — and I think that's worth considering. There currently are a number of existing battle articles that are including maps of the campaign of which the battle is a part and the inclusion of such a map can help with the reader's understanding of the context of the battle. However, they are being used inconsistently — some battle articles in the campaign include such a map while other articles in the very same campaign do not. Are the individual articles always really the appropriate place for them? Consistency and ease of maintenance are some of the very reasons such templates exist. Mojoworker (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see this being potentially valuable for small and/or simple campaigns perhaps, but attempting to summarise major campaigns in a tiny map might be problematic. Often there's not enough space on large maps in the article body to show the necessary information at a readable resolution without a reader having to click through to the image file itself (and then expand that). That said, I like the idea of trying to find a way of visually placing "Battle of..." type articles into their wider context. Perhaps a customisable image would be possible? (by which I mean the same image for every battle in a campaign, but with the location of that particular battle highlighted) EyeSerene^talk 12:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Nyon Conference now open

The A-Class review for Nyon Conference is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Spearhead Land Element

Folks, expert input requested in the move discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

USS Kentucky FAR

I have nominated USS Kentucky (BB-66) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(Almost) never before seen photographs of the construction of the USS Iowa

Yesterday we had a bunch of Wikipedians out at the National Archives doing scanning of various photographs in the archives. We happened to end up with boxes full of construction photographs of World War II battleships. We scanned about a dozen photographs of the USS Iowa (BB-61) in various stages of construction. So far as I'm aware these photographs have not been digitized before, and have probably only been seen by a handful of people. They've just been sitting on the Archives shelves all these years.

Anyway, I'm coming here because we need help with the photographs. They're all in ~50 MiB TIFF files direct from the scanner. The level of detail is amazing, but they can't be used in articles in this form. We need someone with some basic experience to convert them over to JPGs, do some auto-leveling or whatever to equalize the light levels and coax some details out of the shadows, etc. And of course we need some help incorporating them into articles as appropriate.

Anyway, the photographs have been uploaded to Commons. Look for the really huge TIFF files in that category. Please help out with conversion of the photographs, and enjoy these views of the USS Iowa! --Cyde Weys 03:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Has someone already converted these? I can't see any images that match your description. EyeSerene^talk 16:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they haven't been converted already. If you go to the image description pages they show as being in that category, but they aren't on the category page itself. Maybe this is some bug related to the failed thumbnail generation for the files? Regardless, here's a list of direct links to the files. Now you can't miss 'em!

1. commons:Image:19-LC BS49191.tif
2. commons:Image:19-LC BS49197.tif
3. commons:Image:19-LC BS49194.tif
4. commons:Image:19-LC BS49182.tif
5. commons:Image:19-LC BS49188.tif
6. commons:Image:19-LC BS49193.tif
7. commons:Image:19-LC BS49189.tif
8. commons:Image:19-LC BS49186.tif
9. commons:Image:19-LC BS49181.tif
10. commons:Image:19-LCunnumbered.tif

Some conversion, so that they can be viewed in a web browser without having to download the mammoth raw TIFFs, would be very nice indeed! --Cyde Weys 23:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cyde Weys - If you need someone simply to download all these photos, do a little adjusting of levels, curves, etc then save them as JPEGs I have plenty of Photoshop/Lightroom experience, and the time, I'd be very glad to. You'd need to instruct me where to reupload them, or email them, afterwards, however, and if you want them resizing/cropping or not as they appear to have huge dimensions. I'd also recommend PNG over JPEG, personally, due to the lossness result, whereas JPEGs are lossy compression and might lose some of that fine detail you mentioned. I don't know if Wiki has a preference which you should use, but I'm good either way, so your call. I'll start downloading them now - won't take long, whilst awaiting your reply here or on my talk if you prefer. Thanks. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be awesome. The simplest way to do it would just to re-upload them back to Commons with the exact same filename except a .jpg extension instead of .tif. Also, copy over the image description page for each one (which contains data like where the image came from, that it's PD-US Gov, etc.). I'll come through afterwards and adjust things so that the TIFs link to the JPGs and vice versa. And I think JPG is a better format to use for PNG than this because the file size is going to be much smaller. PNG is typically used more for schematics or files that contain a lot of single colors, not photographs. Rest assured, if someone wants the full quality versions, the TIFs will always be available, so the converted images really just need to be most suitable for inclusion in articles, and I believe that JPGs win on that front. Once again, thank you! --Cyde Weys 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as for cropping, it's probably a good idea to crop out any white frames (they contain the reference numbers, but those will be preserved in the TIFF copies). As for resizing, 2500 px along the larger dimension is probably a good size. It'll be good enough for people to still see a lot of detail in the JPGs, but not so huge that the file size is unwieldy. --Cyde Weys 12:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. JPG it is. I have been cropping to the physical edge where the scanner top shows, but if you prefer the whole white border trimming I can do that instead. Will get back to you as soon as they're done and uploaded, unless I have any more questions. Might let you do all the description adding - last time I added a pic to Commons it was a right arse on.. don't know what went wrong though.. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 14:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All done. If you need me to adjust them any better, or have any other photos need converting, please let me know.

1. 19-LC_BS49181.jpg
2. 19-LC_BS49182.jpg
3. 19-LC_BS49186.jpg
4. 19-LC_BS49188.jpg
5. 19-LC_BS49189.jpg
6. 19-LC_BS49191.jpg
7. 19-LC_BS49193.jpg
8. 19-LC_BS49194.jpg
9. 19-LC_BS49197.jpg
10. 19-LCunnumbered.jpg

Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 16:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to move those pictures to better titles (the description on the images) so that they have a bit more description for when someone wants to search for them without doing the categories. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, though might be useful to co-ordinate with Cyde.. I just converted and re-uploaded them per his instructions above, I have no idea if he's using them in an article or not. I don't do Ship history, just glad to have some photos to work on for a short task. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 05:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the renaming is fine, it's just that the original names were the National Archives reference numbers, and that information is now no longer contained anywhere on the image description pages save for the page history. I'm trying to figure out which template to use to list the NARA ref #s and I'll add that back in. Anyway, the JPGs look good, and should be suitable for articles now. --Cyde Weys 22:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good to know! Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces

I recently added (well, re-added) an entry at Alfred Turner (a disambiguation page). Specifically, a Sir Alfred Edward Turner (1842-1918), British Major-General, Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces (1900-1904), made KCB in 1902. I noticed that several other people held this role of Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces, and was wondering if anyone here could shed some light on what this role was, or do a short stub on it? This is partly because it would be better to have a blue-link at the disambiguation page to his role. Also, I'm considering an article on this Major-General (he was involved with the Irish issues in the 1880s and 1890s, and was stationed over there) and was wondering if he would meet the MILHIST notability criteria? Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On notability, he's a general, so it appears so as a rule (or should I say guideline? ;p ). If he was also involved in the Irish issues, I'd say definitely, seeing how conentious that was. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure all ranks of British general staff are automatically notable. There were an awful lot of Brigadier-Generals during the First World War, and I doubt all of those are automatically notable. Or is it Lieutenant-Generals, I forget! I should re-read Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. And on doing so, I'm reminded that I take such guidelines with a pinch of salt, as sometimes someone who passes the general notability guidelines doesn't pass a project-specific guideline, in which case I defer to the general guideline. The more specific guidelines are more to help identify exceptions to the general guidelines, rather than the other way round. I'll check back for more replies later, as I'd still like to know more about this 'Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces' business, if anyone here knows about that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The I-G of Auxilliary Forces was a fairly short lived post. With the rapid growth in non regular forces in the UK in the later part of the 19th century e.g. the Yeomanry, the Volunteers as well as the Militia there was a need for a senior officer to oversee them and this post was created. Then it all changed in 1907/8 with the creation of the Territorial Force. There's a brief history here. NtheP (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

IDK if you noticed the discussion here, Carcharoth, but the issue of brigadiers being automatically notable has come up before (& on the issue of General notability, actually ;p ), since they're comparatively junior in Brit service. I should also have said (had I thought of it... :( ), being head of the branch would seem to do it. The head of an SFG might only be a colonel, but when he's in the role of a general... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nthep, for the link. That does help a lot in understanding what this role was. And thanks for all the replies here, much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Who's Who, Turner seems to have done a sizable amount of quasi-political work; he was Private Secretary to the Viceroy of Ireland and held various police commissioner posts in Ireland in the 1880s-90s. His military service seems to have been entirely on the staff. He also wrote a couple of history books, and was a director of (among others) the North Borneo Chartered Company. Shimgray | talk | 21:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall recieve... Alfred Edward Turner. I've not gone into any detail on his political work (Irish politics of the period make my head spin a bit) but there's certainly the framework for expansion there, and his memoirs are online. Regarding the inspectorate, it's notable he left it in 1904; the same year, a commission enquiring into the auxiliary forces reported they were completely unfit for service ... Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Input requested regarding article title

I just closed a move discussion at Talk:Tzachas#Requested move, and then an editor objected to the move. Before doing anything further with the page, I'd like to see input from some more editors, so we can be certain that we're getting the correct title. If anyone here can register an opinion there, it would be helpful. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Indian National Army now open

The peer review for Indian National Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about Wikimedia Foundation grants

For anyone not watching the strategy department talk page, a new discussion about seeking grants from the Wikimedia Foundation has started there. Anyone with an interest in this topic is invited to share their thoughts and suggestions. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Capt. Jeremy Henwood, USMCR

Although I know that there is WP:NN, I am wondering if other MILHIST members believe that Capt. Henwood would be considered notable per WP:ANYBIO. He has over 400 in depth news articles, but would WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Operations that never happened

Do we have a policy for operations that did not happen? We have Operation Sea Lion which is quite large but I am thinking more about those that will in all probability never get above Stub Class. I believe an encyclopaedia should at least mention them no matter what size article, but is there any policy or has this been discussed before. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's no policy, but there ought to be a page to collect the stubs, if nothing else. A lot may never have got much past the notional stage, so there may never be enough to justify individual pages for them; they still deserve some measure of coverage IMO. IDK if it should also include ones that were dramatically recast, such as RUTTER, which became JUBILEE; that might want a daughter page, presuming it's not adequately covered under the final op's page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no policy on this, though WP:N is obviously the relevant policy on whether they should have an article or not. Planed operations that never took place can be notable (Operation Sealion and Operation Olympic are good examples of this) as can be operations which were proposed but rejected before serious planning began (eg Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia). Personally, I'd err on the side of creating articles on this kind of thing if the sources meet WP:N, though as Trekphiler suggests creating an umbrella type article to group stub-type content together would also work well for related cancelled operations. I hope that you're talking about Proposed Allied airborne operations of World War II or similar! Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what originally caught my attention, in June and July 1944 there was:

• Operation Reinforcement a parachute drop to the west of St Sauveur-le-Vicomte to support the American 82nd Airborne Division.
• Operation Wild Oats a drop onto Carpiquet airfield.
• Operation Beneficiary supporting the American XX Corps to capture St Malo.
• Operation Lucky Strike seizing the bridges crossing the River Seine at Rouen.
• Operation Sword Hilt cutting off the port of Brest and destroying the Morlaix viaduct.
• Operation Hands Up supporting the American Third Army by seizing Vannes airfield.

In August:

• Operation Transfigure involved the 1st and 101st Airborne Divisions, with the 52nd Infantry Division and 1st Polish Parachute Brigade landing at Rambouillet St Arnoult to close the gap between Orleans and Paris.
• Operation Axehead using the same force to seize bridges over the River Seine in support of 21st Army Group.
• Operation Boxer again using the same forces to seize Boulogne and attack V1 rocket sites.
• Operation Linnet, with the same units were to seize crossings over the Escaut, cutting off the retreating German armies.
• Operation Infatuate in early September involved I Airborne Corps, landing in the Scheldt estuary to threaten Antwerp. Obviously I have references for all these.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how generally applicable it would be, but another way to cover them is to mention them in passing in parent articles (for example, see Operation Epsom#Background for Operation Dreadnought). If necessary a redirect can be set up to point to the appropriate section. EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also Operation Perch#Operation Wild Oats :) EyeSerene^talk 11:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Morlaix viaduct was on the Réseau Breton system. A passage about the proposed operation could be accommodated in the relevant section of the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

♠I'd definitely like to see Proposed Allied airborne operations of World War II. :D

♠Yeah, a lot of these can be mentioned on "parent" pages, but it seems to me most of the cancelled ops are only tangentially related to actual ones, beyond those (like RUTTER/JUBILEE) which had the same objectives. That being true, they're going to get challenged as being OT. Which leaves a compendium page...

♠The other option which occured to me (& not a good one, IMO) is mention of the op(s) on the pages of the formations assigned, selected, or otherwise intended. This, however, scatters the information all over the place & IMO will tend to lead to calls for, yes, a single page for all of it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say if the subject's not notable, don't include it. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Some time ago I moved Operation Thunderclap to Thunderclap plan with the introduction "In August 1944 plans were drawn for an operation code named Thunderclap but it was shelved and never implemented." -- PBS (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added Category:Cancelled military operations of World War II to the main Category:Cancelled military operations category, and was surprised how many there were (including those also in Category:Cancelled invasions) Hugo999 (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that is a useful designation because what does cancelled mean? There is a big difference between a paper plan (a good military organisation will have many sketched out hypothetical scenarios that can be used as a bases for a more detailed plan if ever needed) and an one where resources are committed and the operation is cancelled at the last minute. -- PBS (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

re Category:Cancelled military operations, cancelled does not necessarily mean at the last minute, just that like “Sea Lion” or “Downfall” they were adopted at some time then cancelled. The Cancelled categories seem to go back to 2010, looking at the history of Category:Cancelled invasions. They were renamed fron Planned to Canceled then to Cancelled with 2x L. There is still a plan category eg see Plan 1919 for Fuller’s tank strike into Germany and the various American Rainbow Five plans; including Red/Crimson for an invasion of Canada! Hugo999 (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

July Milhist newsletter out

Your military history newsletter – Issue LXV, July 2011 Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Featured and A-class content: the month in review Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers discusses RfA To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. To receive the newsletter on your talk page, become a project member or sign up here.

The bot seems to have missed me out. :( Anybody have any idea why? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Cbrown has done his bot run yet. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realised the bot hadn't edited since it delivered the July newsletter! That'll teach me to post the first thing that comes into my mind at 2am! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Does lack of sleep fall into WP:EUI territory? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the prospect of bad judgements, mistakes, testiness, & general troublesomeness that can arise (all of which I can testify to from unfortunate personal experience :( :( ), yes. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that the newsletter will be going out soon-ish; Cbrown is having issues with the computer he runs his bot on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)