Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orders of battle

Hi all, is there a style guide around or guidelines somewhere on how one should write an order of battle article? I ask as it has occurred to me that the ones I have so far created cannot really pass beyond start class as there appears to be no reasonable support materials for one – infoboxs etc – or much of a lead that can be wrote without just copying the info from the parent article. I know it is not of high concern, when compared to other stuff, but any advice?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's on the Academy wishlist... One good example is Battle of Albuera order of battle; you could do worse than to base yours on that. EyeSerenetalk 18:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the looks of those boxes, will make the OOB much easier to read. I believe i shall start incorporating that into the articles i have currently constructed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The credit for that goes to one of the first editors it was my pleasure to work with, Carre - now unfortunately all-but-retired. I agree, they make the information much easier to follow (in fact, it's my intent to write the Academy article based on that format when I get the time). EyeSerenetalk 18:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the Allied OOB on the Operation Epsom order of battle per the above discussion although I have yet to do the German side of it (because I can’t be bothered at the moment lol) so it gives a before and after look to the article.
I have made a few alterations to the table, such as replacing the complement column with equipment. Any comments?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
On a slightly tangential note, I'd suggest renaming it to something like Order of battle for Operation Epsom; the current version seems overly contorted. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, the move has now been made.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is another one Order of battle of the Waterloo Campaign and another that has a different view on the Hundred Days Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days --PBS (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing naval ones for sometime using these boxes, although slightly differently for battles and campaigns, see Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo and Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806 for examples.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Those look very nice!
We might want to consider adding some notes about these to the style guide, both in terms of naming the articles and in terms of how they should be structured. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What style are we looking to standardise then? Should my OOB be split up - a section for the Corps and a subsection for each division of the Corps - rather than one big list?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a rushed comment on my behalf but I think one big list in a table form is a bad idea. Existing articles of the same type using bulleted indents and/or sections show the structure of the command far better than tables. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Indented lists are also consistent with how OOBs are normally presented in books and the like. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I.e you both like the German end of the article in question over the newly added table. I do admit i personaly like the bullet points however am open to suggestions. Although the benefit of the tables is that additional information can be presented much more clear ala commanders and what unit was equipped with what - or with the other examples, the size of formations etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasons why the table format as used doesn't work.
  1. Its a long table (with the column header are at the very top of all the rows) and no navigational help once you've scrolled down into the middle of it.
  2. Some information crosses columns when it shouldn't - eg "Monty", Dempsey, Connor
  3. there are a lot of empty cells in the commander section, we could add the info but at risk of lack of ease of reading.
I think that a combination of tables and sectioning-indenting can work. But the tables can be used for formatting purposes (no border, no headers) As it stands the German oob for Epsom fails MoS on a having links in headers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
another thought, as no other units then those forming part of 2nd Army are given, the 21st Army Group; entry is superfluous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
On consideration perhaps Graeme is right and a combination would be best, though I too like Jacky's OOBs. It's obviously something we can experiment with :) EyeSerenetalk 09:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain

This is a courtesy note to let the project know that I've requested a review at ANI (thread here) of my admin actions in relation to content disputes on the above articles. Regardless of the outcome, more eyes would be very welcome on those articles. Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 09:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for König class battleship now open

The A-Class review for König class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Utility of outlines to wikiprojects

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 22:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Review now open For Darrell S. Cole

The Good article review for Darrell S. Cole is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Help fixing article status

Merritt A. Edson passed GA a week ago and the article still says its a B class article and Good article nominee. I looked at the talk page but everything seems to indicate Good Article. Could someone please take a look and see whats wrong. --Kumioko (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, where does it indicate that it is still B/GAN? Everything seems to appear correctly as GA ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thats weird, every time I looked at the article it hadn't updated and now it says its a good article. You got the touch thats all I can say. --Kumioko (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Could be a cache issue. Sometimes if you don't clean out your browser cache you can view old versions of articles without realising. At least that has been my experience. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
@ Kumioko: Lol! I think AustralianRupert's rational would probably be the most likely case. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Endeavour now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Endeavour is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 18:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for 24th Infantry Division (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 24th Infantry Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

List class?

I've noticed that other WikiProjects include list classes for their templates, but I haven't seen any MILHIST articles tagged as such. I bring this up since with the ACW task force (which I work with mostly) we have multiple lists, such as lists of state regiments. Would it be a good idea to add this class? Wild Wolf (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the decision was made a while ago (I can't remember the specific place) that lists follow the same rating scales as articles as the ultimate aim is still the same -- featured content. All of lists can still be measured against the B-Class criteria and A-Class criteria and then FL criteria so in my opinion list class is unneccessary. Woody (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Woody is correct. It's been brought up several times with the decision that adding a list class would remove incentive for people to work to make lists better, because the lists could not move up the assessment ladder until they reached FL. Perhaps a guideline could be added somewhere for this to avoid future confusion? – Joe N 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It's covered by WP:MHA#FAQ, #11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)

We will be working to improve this article for about a week, so please do come and help. You can get instant access to the channel with this. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It would be a great help if any offline-sourced info (books) could be added, if anyone has such a thing.  Chzz  ►  03:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Military person infobox and person infobox proposal

Copying from Template talk:Infobox Military Person#Pre-merger discussion, as that's a fairly low-visibility page: there is apparently a proposal to make all the parameters of {{Infobox Military Person}} available in {{Infobox Person}}, with the long-term goal of deprecating and redirecting the former to the latter.

Off the top of my head, I don't think this would be particularly damaging from a technical standpoint; we would lose the MilHist styling of the custom infobox, but that only really matters when we're using it in conjunction with campaignboxes or other narrow-style variants of {{military navigation}}. Does anyone know of any substantial uses of those together with a military person infobox? Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is good that this has been done (or is being done), although I'm cautious about the initiative. I remember when someone replaced about 100 instances of Infobox Israel municipality with Infobox settlement (or something), which was a major problem because it didn't include certain necessary fields for Israel, and did not look like WP Israel wanted it to, so we gained consensus to keep our own infobox. The same thing might happen here; the military person infobox might also be better in terms of flexibility for specific armies, if one wishes to create an Infobox US Army person (or something like that) that actually uses Infobox military person (similarly to how Cite book uses Citation). —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that's true, but we've pretty much deprecated the use of more specific infoboxes for years—there used to be a great many country-specific ones, but they've all been absorbed into the core infobox and redirected or deleted—so I don't think we'll have much of a practical problem with flexibility so long as the merger preserves all the fields in the core infobox itself. I would hope that it's just as easy to add extra fields to {{Infobox Person}} as it it to {{Infobox Military Person}} in the long term, in any case. Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't really mind the change (my only complaint was that the color scheme was nice to have), though I am somewhat concerned about the possibility of future upgrades. If we needed to make a change to Template:Infobox Military Person, it would be simple matter to gain consensus. However, I fear that generalizing it with such a high-use template would complicate that in the future; people who have no business whatsoever in writing about military history may choose to complicate matters. However, I acknowledge that may be a more cynical attitude than most Wikipedians hold, and considering how few changes are made to the infobox, not a deal-breaker by any means.
My other concern is that the code isn't quite 100% identical, and the change may cause some hiccups. For example, images are treated as a stand-alone in the military box, but are integrated in the basic box. That means there are thousands of cases where |image=[[File:image.jpg|200px|alt=alternate text]] will have to be changed to |image=image.jpg|image_size=200px|alt=alternate text. Can we rustle up a bot for this? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think its more complicated than that, here are a couple of things that I notice and or recommend:
  1. I looked at the coding for infobox military person and the alt text, size and caption are seperate fields within the infobox person so we would need to seperate them out.
  2. This may also impact haing dual images in the infobox such as with the Medal of Honor recipients.
  3. Also, the Military person infobox is frequently embedded in other templates such as Politicians so that might also be a factor here, unless they are planning on merging that template as well.
  4. Infobox astronaut only has a couple fields that won't be included between the 2 templates being merged so we might as well combine in infobox astronaut and change battles to battles/missions
  5. Infobox aviator only has a couple fields that won't be included between the 2 templates being merged so might as well combine in infobox aviator and change awards to awards/insignia.
  6. I think we should do a test run with a few articles to see what followout might be before doing a mass change.--Kumioko (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this. All the points you and Bahamut0013 raise will, of course, be taken into account, before any mass change is implemented. Could you give an example or two of your points 2 (dual images) and 3 (politicians) please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly, for the multiple image thing you can look at Smedley Butler 3 images and Michael Monsoor. Let me come back in a minute with the politician question. For the politician you can check out Theodore Roosevelt he has 3 (president, officeholder and military person).--Kumioko (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Charles F. Bolden, Jr. is another good example: the article uses Infobox Person as the Administrator of NASA, Infobox Military Person as a Marine, and Infobox Astronaut as a NASA astronaut. It would be nice to combine them all if possible. Let's hope he doesn't go into politics! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, both. The medal in Butler's infobox seems superfluous. The Roosevelt page is interesting, as the in infoboxes are merged - I'll have a look at how that happens. I can certainly see what you mean on Boden's page - but never mind politics, let's hope that he never has a hit single!. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe it is superfluous and in fact it has been standard practice for a Medal of Honor or Victiria Cross recipient to have the Medal image in the Infobox next to the Image of the person. This aside I have also seen cases for presidents and others to have the Presidential or other official seal in the infobox next to the image.--Kumioko (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, I wouldn't say it is standard practice at all to include medal images in the infobox, in fact a number of Military History Project editors see this as imagecruft. Those I know who create or upgrade VC articles, at least, do not include them and remove them if added by others. I don't know about the Medal of Honor recipient articles, although I'd have hoped the practice was not as widespread as you suggest. The only images in military person infobox that are generally accepted are flags for a) country of service and b) the service itself. FWIW, I personally could live without those as well, but can't speak for other project members. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Ok I had thought that it was being done for the VC recipents as well but it is still being done for the MOH recipients and although I can see both sides of the coin let me explain why. One reason is that it helps to identify them apart from other Military folks (otherwise you have to read into the article, look at a cat or search the infobox) and a couple of years ago we had a depate about someone marking a bunch of MOH recipients as delete due to non-notible because they where enlisted folks (PVT, PFC, etc). So by putting the Medal image in the infobox it helps to eliminate the problem (it still happens but not as often). Not all of the MOH recipients have the image in the infobox and there are quite a few that don't have any image at all. With that said I also do not like the images for ribbons, place of birth and all that, I don't even really like the allegiance and the branch but I can live with it. I can't say that i would mind if the decision was made to take them out of the infbox but I think in this case we did the right thing by putting it in there. --Kumioko (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In Commonwealth usage it's probably unnecessary since the recipients get the postnoms VC, since the US don't have an equivalent I can just about see the point for MOH recipients to really get the point over. David Underdown (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of differing opinions regarding the use of images in infoboxes (and, by extention, also in navboxes). As far as I know, MOS:ICON addresses the use of these in many regards, but not this specifically. As pure decoration, they are forbidden, though I don't agree that this is the case: the visual representation here accomplishes far more in a single glance than many many words of text. Not to say that it adds an undue emphasis, but when not used frivolously, it makes the point in question immeditately identfiable; the clarity point is supported by the guideline. Trust me, if you read as many bio articles on Wikipedia as I do, this is important.
My argument here extends to the use of flags in allegience and branch fields, as well as the use of the MOH or VC if merited (not as a placeholder though). Generally, I don't accept images of any other awards in the infobox, especially since I usually add a ribbon rack into the body anyway, making it redundant, not to mention denigrating the prestige of the MOH or VC as a top honor. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Need some help with a new article

I've recently had the pleasure of riding in the Sentimental Journey B-17 flying fortress which is operated by the AZ wing of the Commemorative Air Force. I've also discovered that they have restored and now have a flight-worthy B-25 Mitchell which I've emailed to them and they have replied back with lots of facts and information about it. I'd like to create a new article about this aircraft called the "Made in the Shade" similar to the Sentimental Journey article, however the only reference that I have to it is this email as well as an external link to their website. Is there something that I can do to reference this email? I'd prefer to keep my real name (and other contact information) out of prying eyes, so some of the email I'd not like to have published. So, what are my options here? I also plan to document the details of this aircraft in this article here B-25 Mitchell survivors. Suggestions? Ideas? ThanksZul32 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On the "Area 51" article we have a letter uploaded as a 'proof of denial' thng, with the name and address blacked out. IronShip, who has been pushing hard to fix errors in the battleship Texas article, recently uploaded documents to wikisource so as to provide citation for his information. I would suggest looking into these two methodes as a starting point. You could also ask the group if they have any info on handouts and the like to reduce the relience on your emails and such. These are suggestions, of course, but they may be of some use. 129.108.70.218 (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If an email is the only source then the aircraft isn't going to meet the criteria set down for articles at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Multiple published sources are needed to establish notability and verify that the details are accurate. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
How is the aircraft notable? They made rather a lot of B-25s during WWII, so unless this one took part in the Doolittle raid or the Berlin Airlift or something like that I'm not sure it necessarily warrants its own Wiki article... Commander Zulu (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Penda of Mercia

I have nominated Penda of Mercia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Napoleonic wars and / or medal enthusiasts

I recently met a new user Andygm, who uploaded a couple of family photos showing an unusual collection of nap. wars medals and a photo of a veteran, which are now displayed on the 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot page. Andygm also started an article on his great-great-great grandfather, which is currently userfied at User:Andygm/John Jack. Currently relying on family papers and primary sources, with a few family history-type journal articles, it doesn't meet WP's notability policies, yet my instinct is that it could well do so, if someone could lay their hands on the right source. John Jack was photographed - a rare occurence for a peninsular war veteran private soldier - and was the holder of the MGSM with twelve clasps, the Waterloo Medal AND ALSO an officer-awarded medal for bravery in the Ciudad Rodrigo Forlorn Hope. Amdygm recalls reading in a medal book that this is a unique collection, but unfortunately cannot find the reference again. I'm mentioning this here in case anyone has or might know of a good reference. Any help or ideas appreciated: it's be great if we could make something of this. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Milhist GANs

Help is needed from willing reviewers at WP:GAN#WAR; the backlog in that section has reached 49. Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Viking Axe

I'm about to do some work on the Viking Axe article (if only to add some much needed references). I note, however, that the content (accurately) refers throughout to the Danish axe. Properly speaking, Viking axe covers more than the Danish axe and the Danish axe more than Viking axe (as the article states). I would suggest the article should be renamed Danish Axe or, if this is somehow a faux pas in Scandinavian circles, Broad Axe (which I believe was the Viking term). I have raised the naming issue on the talk page but is there somewhere else I need to flag this?

I also note that the article has already got a "C" class rating from another task force but a stub from military history. While I think MH doesn't use "C" class, maybe it warrants "start"? I'd like to suggest a regrade but don't know how. I'll do it after my attempt to add a few references. Guidance appreciated. Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a start class article, so I updated the class assessment an filled in the B-class code so you can see whats still missing. I would suggest a peer review for guidance, as that will allow editors to suggest ways to improve the article. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've begun the edit. Long slog on the refs. tomorrow. I'll also add some comments on the talk page, requesting further input where my knowledge is weaker/non-existent. Monstrelet (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I have doubts that Viking axe has any defined shape because the Vikings used lots of different axes. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've finished fiddling. I'm not altogether satisfied - I'll put comments on the article talk page. On the overall naming issue, I agree with Wandalstouring. An article on Viking Axes (plural) would be better but it would not be this article - I would see it looking something like [1]. Viking Axes and their Derivatives could incorporate this article under Broad Axe or Danish axe with a larger range of material on origins and early development, especially if we kept the redirect for those looking for the early medieval Danish axe but aimed at the appropriate sub-section. Another possibility might be a merger with Battleaxe, but this article would need a great deal of work from its present state, including work on axes outside of the Viking axe fold, such as single hand axes and Persian weapons.Monstrelet (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think of the broad axe as a lumbering tool, not a weapon. They do seem to have a lot in common with the viking axe, though. htom (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Broad axe is the Viking name for the weapon but clearly, there could be confusion if that name were chosen. Monstrelet (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any Victoria Cross experts out there?

Hello, on a patrol of the new articles list I came across Raja Saadat Khan. Apparently it is an article about an Indian Victoria Cross recipient. I am not usually suspicious but something about it doesn't ring true. Of couse, I could be wrong and if I am I sincerely apologise. I have a number of concerns.

Firstly, a google search of the name got nothing that seemed to relate to the subject. Secondly, the name does not currently appear on the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army. Secondly, there are no details in the article to help verify the claim, e.g. when, where and what, etc. There are the usual general book references but no actual formal citations to help with verification. Finally, there is an external link to Khudadad Khan, an Indian WWI VC recipient that is confirmed, and the year of birth and death (as per the categories) that have been added to the Raja Saadat Khan entry are exactly the same as Khudadad Khan, leading me to suspect that they might in fact be the same individual.

I guess, therefore, what I am asking in a rather verbose way is if there is anyone out there with a comprehensive source that can confirm or deny that this person (Raja Saadat Khan) existed? If they didn't then I feel the article should be deleted. If they did exist and the claim is correct, can sources please be added and can the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army also be updated?

I have placed my concerns on the article's talk page also. Again, if I have lept to an erroneous conclusion, I apologise to all concerned. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I know a fair amount about it, he also went by the name of Khudadad Khan so at the very least these 2 articles should be merged but I admit that neither article has very good references. I wll see if I can track down a ref with his name on it.--Kumioko (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Try the following..... For WWII awards, you can look in the Recommendations for Honours and Awards http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/wo373.asp?WT.hp=Recommendations%20for%20Honours%20and%20Awards you'll at least be able to see the page that tells you unit, theatre of war and Gazette date, which can help track down the official announcment (beware though that supplements to the London Gazette are recorded under the date of the original issue to which it was a supplement on the Gazette website, so if the Gazette date is say 15 April 1942, you really need to search from say 10-16 April on the Gazette website (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/search). Unfortunately, not all recommendations from this era were preserved. If you've found them, then I'll be able to look at the actual recommendations next week and fill out some more of the detail. For the First World War VCs, you can try the Victoria Cross Registers, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/victoriacross.asp again unless you want to pay, you won't be able to see the full details, unfortunately no details of the wider recommendations are online for this period.
Thanks to User David Underdown who enlightened me as to these sources. Farawayman (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I checked Max Arthur and the only Khan who received the VC was Khudadad Khan so the page should be redirected there if not deleted as I can't find any independent references for the name. The gazette for Khan is here: "No. 28999". The London Gazette (invalid |supp= (help)). 7 December 1914.. (Arthur has a list of all the Gazettes). Regards, Woody (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually Arthur has one more: Shahamad Khan, (I had to search through the indexes due to the Indian naming convention). The user Pk5abi (talk · contribs) has made two of these articles: Yar Mohammad Khan, Raja Saadat Khan and neither of those are in Arthur's book. If they received the VC, they would be in there. As such I have removed them from Muslim Rajputs and Punjabi Rajput as recipients. Incidentally Khudadad Khan is listed there so I doubt it is an alternative name issue. I am inclined to AFD them as hoaxes. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have downloaded the VC Registers from the UK National Archives and as Woody says, the only two recipients by the name of Khan are Khudadad Khan and and Shahamad Khan. The register also says that there were 18 Indian Army VC recipients from the First World War and the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army currently has these 18. As such, I am more than a little concerned that the two articles (Yar Mohammad Khan and Raja Saadat Khan) are erroneous at best, or hoaxes at worse. Having said all of that, I guess it is possible that the National Archives are missing these two, but without any proper citations (other than the throw-away links to the usual general references) there is no way to check. I've search the London Gazette for these names and found nothing.

If they are alternative names they should be merged, but there needs to be some verifiable evidence that these names really are alternative names. I have left a message on the creator's talk page outlining these concerns and asking for verifiable references, but so far all they have done is remove the unreferenced tag I placed on the article and outlined what the Victoria Cross is (which is not what is required in my opinion as the issue is verifying the recipient, not what the VC is itself). Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Saadat Khan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yar Mohammad Khan. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS König now open

The A-Class review for SMS König is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of Joyce Kilmer

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns and as a result have de-listed the article. When these issues have been addressed, it may be re-nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with the delisting and the assessment at Talk:Joyce Kilmer/GA1, you may ask for a community reassessment at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Louis H. Carpenter now open

The A-Class review for Louis H. Carpenter is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 20:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for 45th Infantry Division (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 45th Infantry Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of William March

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:William March/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles L. McCawley

I recently created several articles relating to the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and one Charles L. McCawley was recommended for deletion due to a lack of notibility. I request that anyone with an interest please make a comment so that the notability can be determined. --Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested Article

I would like to request an article on Lt. Gen. John A. Bradley, Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C., and Commander, Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Cross Image

File:Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.jpg

I apologise if anyone thinks I should have posted this at the Victoria Cross Talk Page, but I've put it here as I think its more relevant to the numerous military personnel pages that use the image, rather than the VC page itself. After working on Robert Henry Cain and seeing various talks here about VCs, I can't help but wonder about the main image used on the pages of many VC recipients. Only 3 people have been awarded the VC with a bar, but this image is regularly shown on numerous pages where the recipient was only awarded it once, and it occurs to me that this could be considered slightly misleading. Although the text in each article clarifies the actual award it means that the image and the text don't really correspond. I notice there doesn't seem to be an image equivalent of this picture with the bar removed either. Does anyone think it might be more accurate to use an image of the cross itself (minus the bar) on recipient's pages to actually reflect what they've been awarded - or am I just being a bit picky!? Ranger Steve (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I touched on this issue when a user tried to add the image either side of the main picture in Charles Upham, and the other VC and Bar recipients, but never really got round to doing anything about it, I've no real experience of image editing. David Underdown (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a fairly straightforward job - would you prefer the cross and bar as two separate images, or cross+bar and cross alone? EyeSerenetalk 11:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a separate image with just the Victoria Cross should do it. There is no need for a separate Bar image as it will always be used in conjunction with the medal. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, I've done both anyway (it took no extra time) :P EyeSerenetalk 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks EyeSerene. Note I have disabled most of the images as they were making the page awkward to look at. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Or.... try this one (left) from commons File:Turner VC f&b.JPG Farawayman (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Woody. Actually, I think the left half of Farawayman's suggestion may be better. Although it's more tarnished, the image is larger and much crisper. I might have a play around with some filters and see if I can clean it up. EyeSerenetalk 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Feel free! The more the merrier, even if it does give us a selection headache! ;) Is it possible to have a transparent background of the Turner VC? Regards, Woody (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Got sidetracked... I'll see what I can do ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I had seen the Turner image earlier, my only complaint with it would be that it's a little bit matt - It doesn't really look Bronze. But if it can be cleaned up.... As another idea, it might be nice to have a correct VC and Bar image (with the bar on the ribbon rather than below the cross) for the benefit of the 3 VC and Bar reciepient's pages. If such an image could be sourced. I could quite easily photoshop the above images to achieve that, but I'd understand if anyone didn't think that an appropriate way to do it. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with creating derivative works under the GFDL, so feel free. I've had a go at messing about with the Turner image; apologies to Woody for messing up the page again, but I think it came out rather well. I've recoloured it, cleaned up and straightened the ribbon (actually replaced the lower portion with some from the top), and made the background transparent. It's not perfect because the original wasn't square, but it should look OK at smallish resolutions ;) EyeSerenetalk 17:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that image looks good (and it isn't messing up the page now that the thread is a bit larger). RangerSteve, making derivative works is fine but I wouldn't go making an image of a VC and Bar by combining the two. In my opinion we need an actual image of one of the three VCs and Bar otherwise we leave ourselves open to a form of OR or doctoring. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and you wouldn't happen to feel like cleaning up the reverse image of Turner's VC Eyeserene would you? ;) If you don't, don't worry about it! Regards, Woody (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought Woody, cheers. EyeSerene, looks brilliant, nice one. Thanks everyone for all your quick feedback! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I wouldn't regard making a composite of the two images as OR - it would involve less manipulation than the cleanup I did on the second VC, and would be no different really to making an image from scratch - but I can see why others might. It's an interesting point, actually, and might be worth following up. Anyhoo, I'll be happy to have a go at the back of the VC too. EyeSerenetalk 20:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, creating an image of a VC & Bar by manipulating other images is no more inappropriate or OR than drawing or painting one, which would be perfectly acceptable. We are hoping to show what a VC & Bar looks like, not claiming to have a photo of a real one. If that is made clear on the image description, then it's entirely ethical. On the subject of a real cross & bar, there aren't that many available for us to photograph; existing webphotos seem to be under copyright. Last time I was at the Waiouru museum, they were all missing. :( (Although the empty display cases were extremely moving.) That said, I'm not sure they can be photographed even when on display. Gwinva (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I said sort of OR because I couldn't think of a better phrase, and I still can't! ;) I would see it as doctoring or historical revisionism or something which I can't quite articualte at the moment. There are only three of these VCs in existence and yes, it would be extremely hard to locate a true image, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't wait for it. We do have File:VCNoelGodfreyChavasseMedals.jpg but it is very poor quality, so poor I can't actually work out whether it is his actual medal rack. All of that said, as long as the caption itself stated this is a composite image then I would be placated somewhat. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(reindenting) It occurs to me that we could neatly side-step the authenticity/composite problem by using a plain SVG illustration of the medal-and-ribbon[-and-bar], which by its nature shows an abstract version rather than a specific one. Does anyone feel up to making one? Shimgray | talk | 17:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
That occurred to me too :) I think it's doable, though not straightforward. We'd need better images than the ones we've got to work off, but there are plenty on the interwebs for reference. Maybe I'll have go tomorrow. EyeSerenetalk 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
First, thanks everyone for all your responses and getting so involved so quickly while I've managed to do so little! On the subject of photoshopping, I'd been thinking about the morality of editing someone's VC to imply it had ever had a bar added to it. But I agree the point about demonstrating what a VC and Bar looks like is fair too. An SVG illustration would work to avoid all this, although I'd have to admit... it seems like a bit of a shame to illustrate something so important with a graphic rather than a real image of one.... Ranger Steve (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

When is an article too long?

At the 2008 South Ossetia war talk page, we've had endless discussions about how to shorten the article. But is the article really that long? I don't see a "toolong" tag at Gaza War, although that article is bigger. Neither does there seem to be concern about the length on the Gaza War talk page.

Personally, I don't think it's possible to considerably shorten 2008 South Ossetia war - it seems that a relatively long article is required to represent all aspects of the war approriately. Besides, it seems that a big part of the size comes from the huge number of refs and citation templates, not from main text itself.

Could you give some opinions on this? Is the article really too long and how much energy should we spend on trying to shorten it? Offliner (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to shave off some page size without cutting the actual content, especially for articles which were written "on the go" whilst events were unfolding, it's a good idea to begin re-referencing - go through and try to see how many news-story references can be changed to use something else. Quite often, we quote five different stories for five diferen points, when they're all covered in each of those stories - so, in theory, we only need to cite one.
(The most remarkable example of reference bloat I've seen was Sinn Fein, where I was able to cut almost 10% of the page size just by reformatting them...) Shimgray | talk | 09:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've left a note on the Ossetia page with some areas that might be shortenable. Shimgray | talk | 10:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Convoy GP55 now open

The featured article candidacy for Convoy GP55 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) 10:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Haygood

Hello military historians. I am researching counterinsurgency and came across your article on Paul Haygood. I have heard of Haygood only in passing previously, and I found that the article lacked much substantive information on his actual theories. Could someone please expand the article so that it talks more about his ideas? Thanks. --Hippo Fan 675 (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for James Newland now open

The featured article candidacy for James Newland 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! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for John Lerew now open

The featured article candidacy for John Lerew 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) 19:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Pleshet now open

The A-Class review for Operation Pleshet is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Grand Port now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Grand Port is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Background of the Winter War now open

The peer review for Background of the Winter War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of the Somme: order of battle now open

The peer review for Battle of the Somme: order of battle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Idi Amin

I am posting this here as the project banner appears on the article talk page. I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Idi Amin/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the minor issues, GA kept, world is safe. Woody (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Trench warfare

This is a former Featured Article and appeared on the main page in 2004, but with considerable hesitation I have removed the B-Class rating and dropped it to Start Class: the article is nowhere near meeting current standards for references and inline citations. Probably because of the absence of reliable sources, I also think the content is often naive and simplistic, and needs a thorough review. Others' views are welcome. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Smedley Butler now open

The peer review for Smedley Butler is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange debate at 7.62x54mmR

There's currently a debate on the talk page (and minor edit war on the article itself) over whether the "R" in the cartridge's title stands for "Rimmed" or "Russian". Personally, I think it's patently obvious it means "Rimmed", in line with other metric designations of rimmed cartridges (7.7x57R for .303 British, 7.62x51R for .30-30 Winchester, and so forth), but if someone with more knowledge of cartridge nomenclature and history can provide a learned opinion it would be very helpful, I think. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle off Texel now open

The A-Class review for Battle off Texel is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-59) now open

The A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-59) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC for König class battleship now open

The FA review for König class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Derfflinger class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Derfflinger class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Military infobox for paramilitaries

Hello Military historians. I wonder if anyone would be interested in offering a considered opinion on the use of Template:Infobox Military Person for paramilitaries. Discussion is here. Thanks. Rockpocket 07:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope - nonsense or not?

Could other editors please have a look at this new article? While it boasts a fancy title and looks impressive, it appears to be a discussion centred around claims that the US military is developing technology that can be used to effectively render things invisible. Other red flags for me are that the article's citations either don't appear to support the claims which are being made or are from obscure journals and that it is written in unencyclopedic prose (it reads like an essay). Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well this was the original goal of the phildelphia experiment, so it make sense the US would still be looking into it. That said, this could be a hoax. I would recommend and afd and see what happens from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It is an essay, and an orphaned one at that. Anything salvageable should probably go to Cloaking device. Woody (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is research that is going on in the lab, creating a negative refractive index. It has been in the lab since around 2006. Actual negative refractive index was achieved around the year 2000, but this was similar to just checking out the material. This technology is decades away from real world applications. I based the article on peer reviewed journals. This is nothing that is going to happen tommorrow. I would say, maybe the 2040's, 2050's or 2060's. Who knows? Military is not the only projected possible use. There are other civilian uses as well, some of which is mentioned later in the article. Today's stealth technology is very effective, and I admire it very much, from the research I did on it. So, far I haven't found a way to put that in the article. Any suggestions? This is a work in progress. The only thing I ask, is that anything added be based on science research, or science breakthroughs. By the way, as you saw, the article was tagged as an orphan so I needed and created links to it from the stealth sector. I thought you guys in the stealth field would enjoy the article. I wasn't intending to offend anyone and I apologize if I did. Let's work together. (From the original author) - Ti-30X (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Additional note: Of course anything related to current stealth technology, is already proven, so anything about that can be added - just supply references, like a book, magazine article, or newspaper article. And, feel free to remove the wiki links that I added to the stealth aircraft articles. I did add them in good faith, but you guys did the research for these articles and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. One more thing - I meant to say the core of the article is based on peer reviewed scientific journals. For stealth topics, I went to books, articles, and what I considered to be worthy websites that had information about air craft, such as Global security and Airforce - technology.com. Thanks Ti-30X (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at the article and read Ti-30X's statements, I would avoid a rush to AfD/merging. Hold on until someone with the scientific knowledge to know argues against it. References appear fine. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the article's topic is a legitimate research area. The article certainly needs further editing work, and the "Limitations of current stealth technology" section looks totally out of place. It might be wise for Ti-30X to place an under-construction template on it. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, fair enough Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Armed Forces of Liberia now open

The A-Class review for Armed Forces of Liberia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Arms industry up for Peer Review

The article Arms industry is up for peer review in the main Wikipedia peer review page, any input anyone could provide there would be of great assistance. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 10:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ellis Wackett now open

The A-Class review for Ellis Wackett is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Review request

If anyone has time, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo/archive1 needs a review. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ACR for No. 3 Commando

The A-class review for No. 3 Commando is now open. Any comments, feedback and or assistance would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Project Armed Forces History would have been an inadequate title?

The American usage of "military" is applicable here; in other words, the project concerns itself with any armed forces rather than only with land armies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.100.223 (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Being purist about it military refers only to the Officer Corps of the land component ;)
Given that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are USian is it any surprise that the majority of the administranium is dominated by USian terminology and that some of us spend a portion of our time undoing americanisation of spelling in articles that have been written in other forms of English?
ALR (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And American editors never spend any time undoing similar edits by UK-ish editors in article written in American English? Please realize that Jim Wales is an American, and WP is American-based - just be grateful he even allows regional forms of English. Would a UK-ish-owned and -operated site be as gracious?! :) Probably not! - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh. ;-)
(Although the name of the project can't fully describe our scope in any case; "armed forces", for example, would arguably leave off warfare conducted by non-national armies, and so forth. Short of coming up with an absurdly long name, there isn't a full solution; I think it's best to treat the name itself as merely a mnemonic identifier, and rely on the explicit description of our scope for anything more substantive.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Noted :D King Jimbo is so unpredictable one can never be entirely sure of when he's going to arbitrarily change the rules anyway. And given that the rules are made by self selecting cliques of policy wonks I'm kind of surprised there is any consistency at all. There's not a lot of rationality or alignment in some of them.
That said I do think that the USian dominance of style is diluting the information value of quite a lot of article, clearly I mainly see it in MilHist but it applies elsewhere. Lots of article revolve around how the US do things or end up comparing the subject of the article to a loosely related US outfit.
ALR (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That's why the U.S. goes informally by the name "American Empire" :) In a real since, the US-bais here creates an environment in which the Last Empire of the New World exercises near totalitarian control of the language aspect of Wikipedia. To be fair, this is not fair, since our English speaking cousins around the world use variations of the language, but I think that since so many contributors are from the States we yanks just write it off as "one of those things, ya know?" and move on about our business. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that even in those situations where "military" on its own has the more specific meaning, the complete phrase "military history" is often used, at least in general practice, as a generic all-encompassing term. Shimgray | talk | 21:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability issue/Merge at Emu War

The article is about an Emu cull in 1932 that wasn't as successful as hoped (a number of soldiers armed with machine-guns killed around 300 Emus in a fortnight, out of several thousand that were causing problems in Western Australia at the time) and the story appears to simply have been picked up on by a local newspaper on a slow news day. I don't think the incident is notable enough to justify a dedicated article (especially not one with only one "official" source), and have proposed the article be merged into Emu, but there is an editor who believes this is part of some sort of "Australian apologist revisionist" campaign to... try and correct the fact this wasn't a "War" or "Conflict", or otherwise pretend the Australian Government didn't try and cull Emus in the 1932 and not do a very good job of it, or something. Anyway, if some other uninvolved editors could drop by and provide some input, it would be greatly appreciated. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Army Gold Medal images

Discovering that our coverage of campaign medals somehow missed the gold medal and cross awarded to general and field officers during (mainly) the Peninsular War, I recently created Army Gold Medal (the name used for the series in Gordon's British Battles and Medals). I did it quickly, so it's only start-class at the moment, but it would be good to expand it. I've found images of them on google books, 1891 publication, so out of copyright, but I don't know how to create an image from them. Can anyone help (or tell me how to do it)? Gold Cross and Gold medal. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

print-screen and then crop the image accordingly, I would think - depends on how easy that is with your system! I'll try and do it this weekend. Shimgray | talk | 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
...and done. Shimgray | talk | 14:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Gwinva (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a multi-project manned working group to focus on Black Projects

I recently completed a sweep of the pages tagged with the black project template that fall within the scope of the military history project. In my report to milhist on the pages, their content, and the questionable material and sourcing in some articles I received a reply from the a contributor at WP:SPACE suggesting the milhist formally incorporate a working group to oversee these black project to better ensure that they stay free of original research and unreliable sources and ensure that the pages conform to the best of their ability with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The more I think about this suggestion, the more I am of the mind that it would be a good idea not only for WP:MILHIST, but for WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:AIR. The vast majority of the black projects covered break down into one of four distinct categories - space based recon satellites, advanced recon and fighter/bomber aircraft, military R&D programs, and signal/electronic intelligence programs - and each of our projects is best suited to cover one aspect of these black projects.

Working groups at milhist are considered to be a step below our task forces, so if your project members agree to participate we will not have to create a bunch of new pages for the working group, we can attach this working group to either the military technology and engineering task force or the Intelligence task force and use the existing task force as a base of operations.

For this reason and for the potential for better improvement and monitoring of our black project articles I am interested to know if there are any members of this project who would be interested in joining such a working group. As the working group must exist within the milhist project I would ask that all interest parties place their replies on the main milhist talk page, noting the project you are from (if you are coming from a project other than milhist). Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments/suggestions, at this point this is very much in the planning stage, and any feedback/input would be welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What articles are we talking about? How many? Certainly, this group would include Black project where you, me and Nick-D have been active keeping down the conspiracy fans. How about Black budget and Open secret? Previously classified projects? Currently classified but speculated? Some of these articles (Military disc shaped aircraft) are also under the auspices of WikiProject Paranormal. I notice that you haven't invited those folks to take part. ^_^
At the moment I'm are talking about all articles located in Category:Black projects, although I am certainly open to expanding the discussion if others feel it necessary. As I noted in the original message, this is very much in a planning stage - so much so that I am not even sure such a working group will materialize out of all this - but since this is an identified area of weak coverage and weaker oversight I volunteered to start the discussion to see if we can get some momentum here to do something with the pages in question. As to WP:PARANORMAL, I will drop them a message as well, though I am not sure to what extent their members will be interested in black project genre. As they say though, every little bit helps :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm very active in WP:AIR, and also participate in MILHIST from time to time. I agree these articles are an area that needs work. However, I don't get involved with the paranormal-related articles, and so those specific articles would be beyond my area of interest. I'll keep an eye on this, and see where it goes. - BilCat (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
No biggie. That's why this is a multiproject proposal. If we are going to make this work we are going to need a wide variety of expertise here, not just people from Project A or Project B. In fact, its entirely possible that we may end up with another project or two on board by the time were done. In a very real sense, what I proposing with this is a NATO like working group: its going to depend on several project for mutual support to preserve, protect, and defend the black project articles from OR, Fringe theories, unreliable sources, etc. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

←Here is the link to Tom's report which started this train of thought: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_22#Report_to_the_Project_on_our_Black_Project_pages.2C_there_current_standing.2C_and_issues_that_need_to_be_addressed. Plus, Tom I'm in, 90% of the articles in that category were already on my watchlist. -MBK004 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Glad to hear it. Now if we can get some folks from the other projects on board we'll have ourselves a working group :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm active at WP:SPACE, WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:ROCKETRY. As the user who originally proposed this, I would be interested in it. --GW… 07:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm active at WP:AIR, and I've got pretty good access to a lot of research databases. I'm up for contributing some, or at least being a researcher. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bong Son

I discovered the recently-created article Battle of Bong Son which was uncategorised. I've placed it into Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War. I thought someone here might be able to identify any other categories that should be added. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've just added a few more cats. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices FAC review

We over at Wikivoices have decided to dedicate an entire episode to the topic of "how to review an FAC". Jarry1250 has kindly volunteered to be our guinea pig, along with History of the United Kingdom during World War I. If any MilHist experts could join our podcast, we would be most grateful. Please sign up here and thanks in advance! Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Hindenburg now open

The A-Class review for SMS Hindenburg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 11:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Siege of Kimberley now open

The A-Class review for Siege of Kimberley is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 12:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMAS Sydney (1934) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMAS Sydney (1934) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Source self-censorship/incompetent translation at Operation Bribie

This article says

On the side the Viet Cong had written in blood: "DU ME UC DAI LOI", loosely translated as "Aussies Get Stuffed"

and is referenced. Well the source is wrong, as the slogan is obscene, and I suspect that if it wasn't a mistake due to translating skill, if was a deliberate mistake to avoid a [rather strong] obscenity for perhaps Political correctness reasons. Should it just be changed to its real meaning? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Smederevo Fortress

Smederevo Fortress has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battleship now open

The peer review for Battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Dmy on articles about the United States armed forces

I was informed that the US military uses the Date Month Year formatting. However, as these articles are on American subjects, the more common American date formatting (Month Date, Year) should be used. My change to United States Navy of {{dmy}} to {{mdy}} was reverted, and I found that this was used across all articles on the US armed forces and this major change should be discussed at the WikiProject rather than a singular talk page.

The military date formatting should not be used as it is generally in opposition to the date formatting of the nation for which it is the military for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Strong national ties to a topic: "In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field." Maralia (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That may be, but that is a circular argument in this case. Are you suggesting that it not change because WP:DATE currently says that it is the way I am suggesting it change from?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest US articles usually make use of both of these methods (not in the same article of course), it just depends on whose doing the writing. As a rule we typically allow people writing on us articles to work with whatever method works best for them, like the "she/it" debate for ship articles here. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Henry Wells (general) now open

The peer review for Henry Wells (general) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability of individual battalions

There was a discussion a short while ago on the British military history sub-project about the notability of Territorial Army units, and the battalion articles for the British Parachute Regiment were mentioned - 1 2 3 and 4 PARA. At the same time, I noticed a discussion going on at the talkpage of the currently blocked user User:CORNELIUSSEON about the creation of articles for an American armoured regiment, and its battalions. My question is thus: are battalions themselves notable on a basic level? I realize it all boils down to Reliable Sources for each battalion, but a unit could have Reliable Sources without being inherently notable, and so some kind of consensus would be nice. Skinny87 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly British battalions are more likely to be notable than US, since a US regiment tends to fight as such, whereas a British (infantry) regiment is more a of a concept and an adminstrative thing. There might be times when separating out articles on individual battlaions within a regiment makes sense as the most straightforward way of keeping a regimental article at a reasonable size, trying to trace the history of individaul battalions of a British regiment through the World Wars can get pretty complicated when you fairly commonly had double-figures of battalions associated with a single regiment (I think I've read that the Northumberland Fusiliers "held the record", fielding 52 battalions in total during WWI). However, the frequent mergers, reorgansiations and renamings also provide good break points. David Underdown (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that independent battalions are notable in their own right and that would include US and British units that are nominally assigned to a regiment although that regiment has no actual combat function. Battalions that are assigned to regiments that are combat units, like the US Army until after the end of the Korean War, or German units during both World Wars, aren't notable unless they were detached from their parent for an extended period of time. So the First Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment isn't notable during WWI, WWII, or Korea, but is during Vietnam, the First Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom after the US Army broke up its regiments. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that the British battalion isnt notable; the regiment is. For example if one wants to find out what a battalion did in a particular war one goes and gets the relevent regiment history that is split between the battalions. I would personally think the articles should follow suit bar in exceptional circumstances such as the Royal Tank Regiment's battalions i.e. the 1RTR, 2RTR etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
When a regiment has over a dozen battalions in both World Wars (as many British regiments did), there quite likely won't be much detail on individual battalions in a regimental article. Provided someone has the references and the details, individual battalion articles ought to be notable inclusions, IMO. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 19:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You should really see how thick some of those books are and in the case of the Scots and Coldstream Guards ones - split between each battalion and the latter included an entire roll of honour.
I would suggest that on the whole an article should be about the regiment and the details of what each battalion got up to summerised as much as possible i.e. Scots Guards Second World War: 1st Battalion fought in XYZ and did notable ABC. 2nd Battalion fought XYZ and did notable ABC etc
As i said exceptional circumstances, prehaps the ones with huge numbers of battalions could have sub articles but i dont think that should be the rule of thumb for all.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'm seeing a large range of responses, but can we agree on some basic guideline - are all battalions notable for their own articles? Or just independent ones? or those in a regiment that's existed in both world wars? Pinning this down seems to be quite a high priority for the project. Skinny87 (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would state that no, not all battalions are notable and deserve their own article - the regimental article should cover it as much as possible. Maybe under certain circumstances the battalion should have their own article i.e. the battalions of the Royal Tank Regiment.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The rule of thumb I've used for the UK is: infantry battalions no, cavalry/armoured "battalions" yes. Shimgray | talk | 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have an entire (commercially published) book on the history of my grandfather's battalion in WW1. You can still buy it on Amazon. Doesn't that make it notable? Cyclopaedic (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Like I say, rule of thumb ;-). A good example here is the King's Regiment (Liverpool) - we have a main article on the whole regiment, which deals with the individual battalions as they occur. However, the more historically notable individual battalions,the ones with individual identities - the Liverpool Irish (8th), Liverpool Rifles (6th), and Liverpool Scottish (10th) all have sizable articles, and there's a short stub for the four Liverpool Pals battalions which'll probably deal with them as a set. There's also an overall list of battalions, giving context and showing which ones have pages and which don't.
So, there, we've an article on the main regiment, and split out articles for the (mostly Territorial) battalions with significant historical sources and a definite individual identity. The rest, we've not tried to create articles for, because they didn't have as much of an independent existence from a historical perspective. Shimgray | talk | 23:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This states that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." As such, notability of military units needs to be considered on a case by case basis depending on the availability of reliable sources and the depth of coverage they provide. This will differ from unit to unit. For instance, E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) is notable because it was the subject of at least two books and a TV series. Other companies in this regiment aren't notable in isolation as they haven't received such coverage. Similarly, combat battalions in the Australian military can be assumed to be notable because almost all of them have been the subject of least one professionally published book as well as considerable coverage in the Australian official history series, which are typically written at battalion or company level; the same probably doesn't apply to all battalions in the British Army, much less the Red Army or Chinese People's Liberation Army - though some probably have had books written about them and are notable. The lack of coverage of this in the project's style guide seems to me to be a bit of an oversight given that this topic is often raised - would it be helpful to draft some words around this issue, or is WP:ORG sufficient? Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the milhist MoS

A proposed amendment to our project Manual of Style to help tighten our stance on black projects and other classified articles has been introduced. Its purpose is to improve the quality of the articles of this nature within our by explicitly requiring that they conform with existing the policies and guidelines on wikipedia. The proposed ammendment reads as follows:

Articles that report on "black projects" and other classified topics are required to fully conform to Wikipedia's policies governing verifiability, original research, and fringe theories. All information presented in such articles must be appropriately cited to reliable sources [as outlined above]. The inadequacy of public sources may not be used to justify the inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article or to relax normal standards of sourcing and citation.

We are currently seeking feedback to establish consensus for the formal adoption of this amendment into the MoS. Any comments or suggestions on the amendment would therefore be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent and much-needed addition. Skinny87 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Although its not an area I do much work in, I agree with this proposed amendment, otherwise we run the risk of breaching our own policies on OR. Also some of the more "out there" articles negatively impact upon the project's standing. That's my opinion anyway. Good work, Tom. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank Kirill too, he modified my original suggestion to the this version which states the points with fewer words and greater clarity. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bayern class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Bayern class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Louis H. Carpenter

The article Louis H. Carpenter has passed GA status and an A-Class review suggests some copy-editting work. My American has been influenced by British English and two other languages. Any help is appreciated to get this article up to A/FA class status. Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-opening a notable former members discussion

This was raised by Jim Sweeney recently in the archive about whether a single obituary denotes sufficient notability to be included in one of the interminable lists of Former members that so many military unit related articles are cursed with. Not much discussion at the time wither in the archive or on the article talk page.

My personal view is that if they're not notable enough to have a unique article then they're not notable enough to be listed, but then I loathe these lists anyway. The conclusion by Jim at the time was that the listings in the SBS, and later Royal Marines articles could be slimmed down, but that is now disputed. I agree with Jim on this.

Views?

ALR (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "no entry without an article" is a good approach, to be honest - or, at least, no entry without a redlink and a reasonable expectation of an article. The set of people who don't fit our standards of notability and yet are significant enough to be mentioned by name in an article for no other reason than having been a member of a group is pretty low. Shimgray | talk | 14:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of the Links or Members are doubtful see Royal Marines#Notable former and serving Royal Marines. We have links to dead external sites for Ben Gaffney: Go Commando Atlantic Rowing Race competitor and Orlando Rogers: Go Commando Atlantic Rowing Race competitor and a link to an obituary for Paul McGough: Battle of Qala-i-Jangi veteran --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer that all such lists be excluded as they're basically trivia - if someone played a significant role with a military unit this should be incorporated in the article's text, and if not they shouldn't be mentioned. They're particularly annoying in articles about conscript units when the military service of many of the people they include wasn't a particularly important part of the person's life and they weren't important to the unit (eg, many people who went on to greater things served in the mass armies of the first half of the 20th century in low-level positions which had nothing to do with what made them famous). Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Nick-D on this one. If their fame is not relevant to the unit/ship/organisation, mention it in the person's article but not the unit's. If they do something relevant to the unit, name and link them in the prose. However, if consensus is that such sections are relevant, then "multiple, reliable, independant, and published" sources should be provided for each entry, either in the form of an article, or in the form of enough references and sourceable content to justify an article. -- saberwyn 09:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I'd agree with Nick and Saberwyn here - such lists are a pain and unnecessary if the names really add to the article, since in that case they justify being incorporated in the main body of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I am also thinking along the same lines as Nick. If a person is truly notable for their service with a unit then they should be integrated into the text. The same has been said for "famous supporters" sections for football clubs for a long time (another one of my interests). If their support is notable in terms of their own biography then include it in their own articles. As it is I don't see why these trivia lists should be included in the unit articles. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nick's comments on this subject. Such lists clutter up certain articles and really add nothing to them. One example that I've seen is Artists' Rifles, where the list of "notable" members is longer than the actual readable content. I'd support something in MILMOS that said that lists of notable members should be avoided or not added at all, if someone was keen to start a move in that direction. Of course, the wording would need to be of a higher standard than my throw-away line. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The weight of opinion appears to be to cull these lists completely. Personally I'm happy with that idea, although I can see some friction in a few articles.
Anyway, the two articles that prompted this iteration have both been dealt with.
ALR (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I realise that lists are frowned upon in these sorts of articles, but there are some uses in having links like these to other articles. Part of the joy of Wikipedia is learning something new as you scroll down and finding yourself following links to pages you wouldn't normally see. Rather than culling these lists completely couldn't they be tagged first, to at least give editors some time to work on incorporating notable people into the article (and I do mean those with articles, not just anyone). The first line of Trivia sections: What this guideline is not is a fair defence for that. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
One can always give a "See also" link or similar to the relevant category for personnel of the unit. David Underdown (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
An unknown IP address user keeps readding the notable members section to Special Boat Service article. I left a comment on their talk, but they have reverted the section again. not wanting to get into an Edit war or violate the 3RR I am at a loss how to proced.Any thoughts ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just stepping in here for a minute, this is surely what categories were designed for? so yes remove and turn into cats --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I check these articles regularly to ensure that they are already categorised correctly so no work is needed apart to remove the articles in question. Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Good-Topic review for Derfflinger class battlecruiser now open

The Good-Topic review for Derfflinger class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest wikiproject?

Ask a silly question...?

While this is a bit of an idle, & perhaps frivolous, question, I wondered if something like this shouldn't technically fall under this project, also, being a weapon (however mythical). It strikes me members here are liable to have an interest in historic & mythic weapons, also. No? (For the record, I'm not aiming to increase the scope, or anyone's workload.... 8o ;D) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. In the past, we've explicitly avoided primarily mythological topics; but we've also moved to include things like literary coverage of warfare, and even topics like the Trojan War seem to be included now. We should probably come to a general decision on whether such topics are considered in-scope; the same reasoning would presumably apply to a wide number of other articles (e.g. war deities, etc.), which seem to be inconsistently tagged at the moment. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Arrow (missile) now open

The A-Class review for Arrow (missile) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for History of the United Kingdom during World War I now open

The featured article candidacy for History of the United Kingdom during World War I is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Derfflinger class battlecruiser now open

The featured article candidacy for Derfflinger class battlecruiser is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

FYI, the article Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher is under a rename discussion to pick the best article name for Admiral Jackie Fisher. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

((War)) template

What is the correct usage of the template {{War}}? I am revising the Trench warfare article which has it, but I can't find any guidance on when it is used and why - it seems pointless to me, and I can't find other examples of its use. If it's required, can I add an image above or below? Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that template has gotten much bigger and more intrusive since the last time I've worked with it. It should probably be reformatted to use {{military navigation}} instead of the current ad-hoc format. I'm not sure whether it'd be better as a narrow-style header template or a wide-style footer template, though. Kirill [talk] [pf] 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I just delete it? I don't know why it's there. It doesn't seem to me to add anything. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it's useful to have a navigation template linking among the core "types/eras/etc. of warfare" topics. It would, as I've said above, look better in a more compact layout, though. For example:
Granted, some of these links should probably be removed regardless—the lists, in particular, don't need to be linked so much—but I think the overall idea is helpful to a reader trying to get an overview.
An alternative would be to split the template into several separate ones (e.g. eras, tactics, etc.) that would provide more focused navigation. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're assuming too much knowledge! I would have no idea how to do any of these things. I just need to know what to do in Trench warfare, where I don't think the template is helpful. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think we should just replace the contents of {{war}} with the new layout code (above), and then move the template to the bottom of each article that it's used on. The real question is whether anyone agrees with me. ;-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

39th Military Police Company

I'm not sure we writing articles about units of this size? If it's routine practice I don't want to nominate this for deletion. I see the Category:Companies of the United States Army National Guard and I am not sure how such articles can be defended outside of special factors for a particular company which might have won exceptional awards; this does not seem to be generally true for the articles in that category. It's sort of like individual academic departments--we write these articles only in exceptional cases, not routinely--the ones that can't show extraordinary international significance have always been deleted at AfD. DGG ( talk )

I think for company-sized units they should only have their own articles if the company by itself is notable (e.g. Easy Company, 506 PIR) or if they are capable of independent action (which is documented in significant sources). For example, Australian commando squadrons/companies are dealt with at that level because they were largely independent formations that were attached at divisional level, carrying out tasks assigned directly from divisional commanders, and that is the level at which they are discussed in the official histories and numerous published sources about them. That's my take anyway. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably not notable, so I'd suggest AfD. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It's just been proposed for deletion - would somebody like to endorse it? Also, views appreciated: is a unit like the 109th Quartermaster Company notable? Buckshot06(prof) 05:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The 109th Quartermaster Company seems to have an entry on Globalsecurity.org. I'm not sure if that makes it notable or not, but it would seem to indicate the possibility that it is (I don't know what criteria they use for inclusion). Having said that, in looking at the Globalsecurity page, the wikipedia entry looks very much like a copy and paste job, so it is possibly a copyright violation. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, pretty clear copyvio. I'll deal with it. Buckshot06(prof) 08:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just whacked a number of User:Bstockus's articles, all of which are copied from globalsecurity.org. But I've also found an apparently original 283rd Engineer Detachment (Terrain Analysis), a very small (10-12 man) unit with a very specialised mission. Is it notable? Buckshot06(prof) 09:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I just speedy deleted the article per CSD A7. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Now we've deleted the 39th, we have the 105th Military Police Company (United States), 153rd Military Police Company (United States), and the 220th and 442nd MP Companies as well. Are they individually notable or should they be deleted? Buckshot06(prof) 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

New template

I wanted to let everyone know that I created a new template for the Military Hall of Valor website. The template is in the style of the Find a grave template and allows the individual entry to be linked in a standardized (and eas) fashion. The new template can be found at {{Hallofvalor}}. I do not claim to be a template expert so if someone has the time they may want to check it out to make sure I did it correctly. --Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I hope you don't mind, but I edited your post slightly to link to the template directly (please accept my apologies and rv if you object). I've also added the template to Category:WikiProject Military history templates :) EyeSerenetalk 17:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No thats fine with me thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Collins class submarine now open

The peer review for Collins class submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wendell Fertig

I have been working on the Wendell Fertig page and have more work to do (see its discussion page) before I am completed with it. However, its discussion page lists it as a military "stub." I think the work I have done so far is enough to remove this designation. Can I remove the statement or does someone else have to do that? Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job - I've reassessed the article as Start-Class. It's not that far off B-Class actually; it mainly lacks referencing in some areas and supporting materials (see the B-Class FAQ for more information). Thank you for your excellent work, and for future reference you can request a reassessment (in the Stub- B-Class range) by listing articles here. All the best with its further development! EyeSerenetalk 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question on notable units

This is another question over notability in this case battalions of the Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom). We have 1 PARA, 2 PARA, 3 PARA and 4 PARA. They were just a list of bullet points which I have tried to change into prose, but I then considered if they should be redirects to the Parachute Regiment article ?

These are the only reasons for notability I can think of so what does the project think keep as their own articles or redirect to the Parachute Regimnet. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment they are a bit bare, but I think their history is important - especially 2nd Battalion in Operation Biting, Africa (especailly at Oudna, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article) and Arnhem. I'd have said that battalion at least is notable enough. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've almost finished an article on 1st Para Brigade in North Africa which examines Oudna in detail, and it's in my sandbox. I'm just too apathetic to finish the last few sections :( Skinny87 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It's here is anyone's interested. I've just got to finish the Ground Combat and Aftermath sections, though who know's when that'll be; it's taken me about a year to get this far! Skinny87 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think all four of the battalions are notable enough to deserve their own articles; I'd just be sure to add a "See Also" back to the regiment's article if one wasn't there already. Very nice article on 1st Para Brigade; I'd offer to help out except I don't have any sources on hand covering the NA campaign. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Sturmvogel. There are definitely grey areas with the notability of military units, but I think generally the Teeth Arm and many Support Arm units - especially ones with a long tradition - will have been covered sufficiently in reliable secondary sources to establish stand-alone notability. Most of the problems seem to lie with recently-raised units or Service Arm units. EyeSerenetalk 18:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if battalions of the British parachute regiment weren't individually notable. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I Corps (India)

(Repost from Indian military history task force) Does this formation trace its lineage from I Corps (British India)? If so, I'd like to merge the older corps' page into the newer formation. Can anyone give me an answer? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 09:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look and can't find anything, though admittedly my information is limited. As a general observation though, wouldn't it be unusual for a corps to have a lineage? Battalions and regiments certainly, and possibly even divisions in some cases, but since a corps (in this sense) is basically just an administrative unit formed when there's a need to bring a few divisions together under the one umbrella, I don't think the concept of lineage applies in quite the way you're asking. EyeSerenetalk 10:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The US Army would disagree with you, at least since WW I when corps became permanent or semi-permanent units. The Brits may be different as I can't find any history or lineage for any unit above division in size in Joslen's Orders of Battle. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair point, I was indeed thinking of it from the British Army perspective. I made the (perhaps unjustified) assumption that, since the Indian Army borrowed much of its structure and philosophy from the Brits post independence, similar organisational habits might apply. All the same, a corps is essentially a high-level administrative headquarters, and divisions can be rotated through as needed. It might be, for example, that a corps called I Corps has existed at various points in time, but whether that would constitute a lineage (in the sense that the current incarnation of the corps identifies with previous ones) I don't know. EyeSerenetalk 09:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Are private conflicts within the scope?

I'm wondering specifically about Erie Gauge War, but also other conflicts like the "Royal Gorge Railroad War" (presently covered at Royal Gorge#Early history and European settlement) that may not have involved the public at all. These were essentially wars fought between railroad companies, doing whatever was necessary, including violence, to hold the ground until tracks were laid or to keep them from being laid. --NE2 10:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would depend on the nature of the conflict. Clearly some will be - for example the East India Company activities definately count. From the look of the article I wouldn't class the Erie Gauge War as within the scope as there doesn't seem to be much organised military activity.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
How about the Royal Gorge War? Reading [2], it seems to have had more military activity than, for example, the Toledo War, but it was unorganized private "armies". --NE2 13:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say so, based on that description - it seems like there was some serious, planned fighting going on. – Joe N 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) now open

The featured article candidacy for Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) 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) 13:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fort Ninigret

I live close to the ruins of a fort in Charlestown, RI. It appears that a case can be made that Fort Ninigret may be the oldest fort in the new world. This is based on finding a breech loading cannon nearby in 1922. Breech loading cannon were very early and some say they were obsolete by 1540. The last link in the article supports what I say. here are more links. Also in the Dighton link is a picture of the found cannon. Any commints?

Below are drawings of portuguese forts in the persian gulf. http://www.colonialvoyage.com/persfortmadalibedia.html

history of cannon nothing on open breech http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/source/is3/is3a.htm

portuguese fort of solor with breech loading guns http://www.colonialvoyage.com/solor.html

Dighton rock chapter 10 pictures of found cannon. & muesum cannon http://www.dightonrock.com/pilgrim_chapter_10.htm

museum picture of breech loading cannon http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Early_breech_loaders.jpg Arydberg (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened a discussion about "result" parameters

Here is another discussion on the subject of the value of description in result parameters while utilizing the Infobox Military Conflict template. I see some previous discussion archived in the coordinators space, but I'm hoping I can draw some eyes to help the project arrive at an economical and neutral solution to this recurring problem. I'm especially interested in having this discussion outside of any weighing of merits on individual cases; individual discussions are ongoing which drew my eyes to this frequently seen gumption-vacuum. BusterD (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Help needed at Kokang incident

A user is inserting unverified/unreliable casualty counts into the infobox at Kokang incident, as well as listing commanders/parties involved without a source for them—his rationale is that unverified casualty counts are better than none at all. I would appreciate input from someone who is familiar with WP guidelines for writing about unfolding conflicts, since I am not. Most of the discussion has been at User talk:Reenem#Kokang incident and User talk:Rjanag#Kokang incident. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident now open

The peer review for 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability of non-combat subunits

As per the discussion at 39th Military Police Company above, I've nominated 722nd Ordnance Company (United States) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States). All interested please give their views. Regards to all Buckshot06(prof) 01:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Backlog of requests for assessment

There is currently a substantial backlog of requests for assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. All editors are cordially invited to assess any of these articles against the B-class criteria. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Image description help requested

I've just added about 90 images to Commons:Category:Fort Lewis Military Museum. I think some of these may be of interest, especially a large collection of Nazi German insignia and badges. Anyway, I'm by no means expert in the relevant areas; if someone from this project wants to look through and see if they can improve descriptions and categories, it would be very welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 17:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR of Invasion of Poland (1939)

I have nominated Invasion of Poland (1939) for Featured article review due to a number of, hopefully, resolvable issues that exist in the article. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Second Boer War - Eyewitness Accounts

I'm turning to this project in what is something of an 'hour of need', to coin a phrase. My partner is researching the psychological and mental effects of trauma on members of the British Army during the Crimean War and the Second Anglo-Boer War and is now looking for eye-witness accounts from members of the British Army, as well as correspondents and other civilians. If anyone knows of any such accounts - maybe online projects, or in older books, perhaps memoirs - would you please post here? We already have the National Army Museum's book on the Boer War, which has a number of accounts, but any more books or websites would be extremely helpful. Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try the Imperial War Museum reading room. Their archives contain huge numbers of private papers and they're very helpful with academic research too.  Roger Davies talk 10:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
National archives website has lots of pages you can search. Also, London gazette should have some despatches. I will have a little look around. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This Gazette search shows some matches. Woody (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The war with Johnny Boer Australians in the Boer War by Max Chamberlain and Robin Droogleever looks to be be the best starting point for the experiences of Australians (who fought alongside British units) in the war according to the Australian War Memorial's reading list on the war. If that's too hard to find (I just checked, and the IWM doesn't seem to have a copy), the semi-official history Australia's Boer War : the war in South Africa, 1899-1902 by Craig Wilcox covers some of this ground (and is in the IWM's collection). Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Derfflinger now open

The A-Class review for SMS Derfflinger is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Teardrop now open

The peer review for Operation Teardrop is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator elections

The eighth coordinator elections, for the October-March term, start next weekend. The appropriate pages will go up on Friday 4 September, here. The dates are:

  • Nomination period: 00:01 Sat 5 September to 23:59 Fri 11 September
  • Voting period: 00:01 Sat 12 September to 23:59 Sat 26 September

Each candidate garnering twenty or more endorsements will be appointed, to a maximum of fifteen.

The election is self-nomination, so if you are interested in running, don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect and an opportunity to see what people put in their nomination statements.

If you think someone will make a good candidate, do encourage them to stand with messages on their talk pages.

Good luck,  Roger Davies talk 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made a correction above: the Saturday on which the nomination period begins is not the 7th but rather Saturday 5 September. Maralia (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Maralia.
Incidentally, I've just posted the pages here. Voting though doesn't start 12 September.  Roger Davies talk 04:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Books by US military museums

Thes books would qualify as PD would they not? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi YellowMonkey. Yes I believe so, but to be honest I'm not an expert on copyright. But it seems that usually articles, photos etc produced by US government employees are considered to be in the public domain. Can anyone better qualified confirm or deny this? — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they're PD as is anything produced by the US Government. But just be sure to assign the license to the appropriate agency. I had one photo yanked because I attributed it to the National Archives rather than the War Dept. by the Nazis over on WikiCommons. Can you tell I'm still rather pissed? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Brazil's version of DANFS...

...is finally coming online. https://biblioteca.dphdm.mar.mil.br/internet/navios/cons.asp It does not appear to be complete—as of this writing it has only six ships beyond the letter "D"—but a look at it confirms that it will be a treasure trove for anyone who has ever wanted to write on Brazilian ships. Text can be translated with Google Translate, and any photographs found here can be used under a Commons Template:Attribution-NavyofBrazil. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent news, Ed. Hope you don't mind, but I fixed the link to the Commons template. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't mind at all. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have this book:

Naval warfare, 1815-1914 by Lawrence Sondhaus? It's available on Google books, but in all four editions online, pg 219 isn't viewable (though of course you can see pages 218 and 220...) Can anyone lend me a hand? Parsecboy (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried and it jumped from p. 218 to 225. The limited previews seem to be different than the full text books in that certain pages simply aren't available whereas on the other ones there's a limit on the number of viewable pages. I ran into that when I was reading an old copy of Warship to see what I could use and Google refused to give me any more pages when I was only about half-way through. Bastards! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for North Carolina class battleship now open

The A-Class review for North Carolina class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone up for an article on Dinassaut?

I noticed that we're lacking on article on these French riverine units of the French-Indochina War. It'll be a while until I can get around to compiling info on the subject; anyone else got a strong interest in the subject and want to tackle an article? It's a relatively notable subject, so far as completely article-less topics go. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about the notability of a minor naval skirmish in May

I've been thinking about creating an article covering a minor skirmish which took place between two Royal Australian Navy ships and some pirate vessels off Yemen in May this year, but would like to seek other editors' views on its notability before doing so. During the incident two Australian frigates, which happened to be in the area while en-route to Europe, chased off some pirate skiffs which were harassing a tanker and a cargo ship. No shots were exchanged (though the pirates did fire on the ships) and the pirates don't seem to have been captured. The main references covering this are a two-page article published by the Navy's historical and analytical section (which is easily the best source), six Australian news stories and a few international stories (such as this one) from the day of the attack and this Department of Defence media release. I think that this is an interesting and unusual (for the RAN) incident, but does the level of level of coverage meet the requirements for it to not violate WP:NOT#NEWS? Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem a bit news-y for a standalone article, though I think you could probably defend it successfully. Would something in the articles about the ships be appropriate instead? (assuming we have such articles, of course) EyeSerenetalk 13:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's borderline, Nick, and it may be better served in the ship articles. However, I would think that it passes WP:N with six news stories and the defense sources if you really want to write an article up. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a 'Recent history of the RAN' article in or under preparation? That'd be the place for it, as part of a series WW II, 1950s-1960s, 1960-70s etc. Buckshot06(prof) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably the best place for it to go (if it's not going to be its own article) would be in History of the Royal Australian Navy. And of course in the individual ship articles (if they exist). Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the place. I assumed it had been a bit more expanded and developed and broken down into decade articles or something. Buckshot06(prof) 21:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, thank you all for those comments. I'll find a suitable article(s) for this incident rather than start a new one. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I would question significance rather than anything else. Disrupting piracy is something that the RAN has been involved in for a long time, and sometimes that just involves getting in the way. The RAN have included countering piracy in their operations around Mallacca, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman as a matter of routine. This particular incident being newsworthy merely reflects the current media trend around the issue.
My inclination is that it's no more than a one liner in the history article but it would be more meaningful to talk about the RAN counter piracy activities over time.
ALR (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Input needed for a couple of AfDs

The article for deletion discussions for List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq and List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 are currently deadlocked, and appear to be headed for no consensus closes. Editors who would like to comment on these articles are invited to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 (3nd nomination). Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Its an interesting subject - having read the discussions of the above two I now look at British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 and wonder if an AfD is appropiate there. Do we have any guidelines that touch on the subject what is and isn't "Memorial"/too much detail. My instinct is that in an article covering casualties that scale is the issue. In a single small action of note recording names may be fitting but once you get up to wars concerning several thousand troops, recording individuals is inproportionate. With the result that you would note that "14 soldiers were killed in May, the majority from units on patrol".GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a mixed record for AfDs of articles like this; some are kept and others deleted. Articles which are just lists of names are typically deleted though (rightly in my view) but there isn't a clear consensus. A lot of the lists of casualties in recent wars were either created or mainly maintained by the now permanently blocked User:Top Gun and their sock puppets, with the result that they're now frequently out of date. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I remember that user :P My feeling on listing battle casualties is that, unless they are somehow notable (perhaps by virtue of the manner of their deaths or who they were), we shouldn't do it at all. Obviously notability would be established via our normal rules, so for example a posthumous VC winner or other high-profile casualty (such as 'H'. Jones) would likely qualify through widespread independent coverage. EyeSerenetalk 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It turns out that Top Gun was participating in the List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq AfD under two different sock puppet accounts. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

New article Tank graveyard

A bit of an odd idea, but it is a used term in published works, and I feel that grouping examples together serves a purpose in terms of the history of armoured combat. I tossed together a few examples, and a semi-related pic from Wikimedia. A buddy of mine just got back from KMTC Kabul, right next to the Kabul Tank Graveyard, so I might see if he has any good pics to share. Take a look, and add to this if you have any ideas: Tank graveyard. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident now open

The A-Class review for 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe N 15:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool Scottish GA Review

Just to let everyone know, the Liverpool Scottish article is being reviewed for GA status and assistance in dealing with article issues is more than welcome! Information on this can be found here: Talk:Liverpool Scottish. thanks! Tsange ►talk 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Blacker Bombard & De Gaulle

I'm working on rewriting/improving the Blacker Bombard article in my sandbox, found here for those interested. I'm trying to find every scrap of detail possible, as given that it was never used operationally, there's been little penned on it. However, in his history of the Home Guard, Mackenzie mentions that when the weapon was first tested, General De Gaulle was nearly killed; that's obviously something that needs to go in, even if it's just an anecdote. Unfortunately, although Mackenzie cites this, the preview ran out before I could find what book he cited. So does anyone have Mackenzie who could tell me what that book is (found on p. 95 of Mackenzie, footnote 50) or, failing that, if anyone has a copy of De Gaulle's memoirs or a biography on the General, as presumably that would be mentioned, even in passing. Of course, any other sources on this weapon would be gladly taken and used, with thanks. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I read that I think of Millis Jefferis and that lot at MD1. So probably books on British ingenuity during the war are worth a look.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, books related to them are sehr expensive, so I'll need to find a library or go to the British Library. Skinny87 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing of Commanders on info boxes

Can we have a coherent policy on this? Its getting a tad silly with every head of state/executive being lumped in; as an example people keep adding british prime ministers to the lists despite the fact the british armed forces swear allegience to the queen - she is the commander in chief; including the minster of defence of the uk would make more sense than the pm in many cases!!

The lists are becoming dominated by the 'consitutional commanders' ie the politicians; when the aim of the article should be the event or action itself, ie the lists should only include the most senior 'operational commanders' - with the actual hierarchy reflected. As an example the dday article should list the commanders in the actual order of seniority

http://cache-media.britannica.com/eb-media/88/47988-004-FC11571E.gif

Arthur Tedder was senior to everyone but eisenhover!! but if you were to glance at the article you'd think otherwise. It isn't encyclopaedic and certainly presents a pov. Just because more people have heard of say montgomery or bradley doesn't mean they should be presented as being senior.

As such id advocate a standardised policy of naming commanders in articles, as a suggestion id say something like:

  • The 'commanders' must list the senior 'operational commanders' involved in that event or theatre of operations. Not the 'constitutional commanders' ie politicians.
  • The listing of the operational commanders must be done in order of actual seniority (with references)
  • If command was changed over time, the listing should still be in order of seniority, where two commanders of equal rank served at different times, the one who served first is named first.


But i hope people can understand it doesn't reflect well on wiki, and the articles don't tell the readers any useful information if you just lump in any politician and 'commander' in any order. Thoughts?Zaq12wsx (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that it does not make sense to list people like the Monarch, President, Stalin, Hitler, etc., perhaps alphabetically would be a better way to organize lists than by seniority? Or, grouped by country, for operations with multiple countries involved? Seniority invites a host of problems, the first of which that springs to mind is relative seniority between different countries, and promotions. Say, for an example, in the Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive article, Vatutin and Malinovsky held the same rank and were both front commanders, which would be technically senior? Date of commission? Sorry to use a relatively obscure example, it's just one I'm familiar with. – Joe N 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The instructions for this field of the infobox at Template:Infobox Military Conflict state that it should include only "the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include army commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended". Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed (Nick-D), although for long lasting wars (like the eighty years war) this is already probably overdoing it (basically 4 generations were born and raised during that war!, so listing only the supreme commanders on both sides might already extend beyond seven without giving any relevant information)
I think commander is useful for battles (where politicians are almost by deault excluded), but not necessarily so for wars. Arnoutf (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, not so much for many pre-modern wars, where the political and military leader was quite often a single individual. ;-)
More generally, however, the purpose of the infobox is to aid the readers' understanding, not to collect statistics for their own sake. It's not helpful, I think, to impose overly strict rules governing what must appear in each field; ultimately, the editors of a particular article need to determine whether it's more meaningful to list a mix of "military" and "political" leaders (although, as I've said above, this distinction is quite blurred for much of history); whether commanders should be grouped by seniority, or by country, or by some other means; and, indeed, whether it's useful to list commanders in the box to begin with, or whether the box should simply link to a section or a stand-alone article which provides more details about the precise command structure.
(For the specific example cited, incidentally, I would argue that listing "on the ground" operational commanders is probaly more appropriate than listing multiple levels of general staff deputies, even though the latter may have technically been more senior; unless there's specific evidence to the contrary, I would suspect it unlikely that the deputies and so forth were ultimately responsible for the decisions made in the battle.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for School Rumble now open

The peer review for School Rumble, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated!陣内Jinnai 00:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator election candidacies

In case anyone interested isn't already aware of this: anyone interested in being a candidate in the upcoming coordinator elections is invited to sign up here by September 11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Divisions by country

Category:Divisions by country, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Brazilian cruiser Bahia now open

The A-Class review for Brazilian cruiser Bahia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Terror Bombing

Talk:Terror_bombing#Request_for_Comment All contributions to the current discussion would be welcome. Sherzo (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Military personnel killed in action

Category:Military personnel killed in action, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

http://www.naval.com.br/NGB/Letras2.htm / http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naval.com.br%2FNGB%2FLetras2.htm&sl=pt&tl=en&history_state0=
It seems to be self-published, but it gives sources for all of its information on the individual ships' pages. Google Translate is given for those who do not know Portuguese, like me. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 12:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How does it stack up against other sources? EyeSerenetalk 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is better to cite an online source such as this, than no source at all. When possibly better printed sources are found for the same information, they can be added to the citations and a comparison made. I say possibly better because all sources have errors. Some printed sources are highly reliable, and some not at all.

I recommend that you use the source, but where you can find printed sources cite both.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(@ ES and Toddy) - I've never found something that was clearly wrong in Poder Naval. Having said that, it is also more detailed than any other source that I have come across—including the Brazilian Navy's official histories—meaning that I can't check 50–60% of the information.
(@Toddy) - I cite everything, and don't add information I can't cite. So no problem there. ;-) I could get the sources that they list at the bottom, but I can't read Portuguese (I use Google Translate), so I don't think that I will/would be able to find a printed source for the information that Poder provides. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the 40-50% you can verify is accurate, I'd say that's a good first approximation that the source may be reliable. You could always ask at WP:RSN for a more informed opinion though (referring to my ramblings of course, not Toddy's!) EyeSerenetalk 20:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the last time I brought up a foreign-language source there, I got no opinion... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for what to do when the final veteran of WW1 dies

At the talk page of List of surviving veterans of World War I‎, I have started a discussion about what to do when the final veteran dies.

My proposal is at the article's talk page, and your input would be appreciated.

Hopefully, it'll be a long time before we have to implement any decision made, but I feel we need to discuss it - especially as someone specifically asked about it.

Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Lützow now open

The A-Class review for SMS Lützow is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC for SMS Hindenburg now open

The Featured Article candidacy for SMS Hindenburg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Real or hoax? Egyptian Navy SEALs

This article, Egyptian Navy SEALs looks a bit patchy, and I'm not quickly finding much on google. Plus some hilariously POV sentences like "Information regarding the units operational deployments is unknown but is likely the unit has carried out covert operations during the War of Attrition against Israel." Anyone know if this is a valid topic or no? Or maybe there is such a unit, but the editor took liberties in "translating" the title. Anyone? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax. Even if it is true it can't be sourced. Prodding.
I've just WP:CSD#A7'd it. It can always be recreated if sources are found. Buckshot06(prof) 04:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Reviews

All, three articles are at or near their 28-day limit for ACR, namely:

...so any further comments would be welcome before they have to be closed and not promoted due lack of consensus. I highlight here because none look like they couldn't make the grade with appropriate effort, but it will need to be quick... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD

There's an AfD now on-going which doesn't seem to have been included in the military-related AfD page. It's here and relates to a member of the US Army who received a Silver Star during the conflict.

In arguing at that AfD, I've come to realize that our own notability guidelines aren't exactly foolproof. I've taken the stance that winning the Silver Star is not in of itself notable, and neither is being in a unit that has won a Presidential Unit Citation. Am I right here - winning the Silver Star or the Military Medal doesn't automatically confer notability, does it? Skinny87 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Its a difficult question to answer. Concensus has been in the past that a Silver Star by itself does not confer automatic notability, however, I believe that combined with other things it can help to establish it. There have been a number of articles in the past where recipients of the Silver Star were deleted because they did not have enough claims to notability beyond that of the Silver Star. I think this is a case of where the notability guidelines are a not standard across the encyclopedia, as has been raised in the AFD. In some projects, just being selected to play professionally (e.g soccer/football or first class cricket) infers notability. Also apparently certain types of actors are notable for doing the things they do (but in my opinion add nothing to society, but that is of course a personal opinion). Nevertheless, within the military project notability is only confered automatically (that is without other claims) upon recipients of their nation's highest award. While I sort of disagree with this (more from an emotional standpoint than anything else), I think consistency is key to AFD arguments (at least I try to be consistent, but admit to not always managing to achieve this). I think that the bar was set high in our project, largely because if it were set lower there would be hundreds of thousands of stubs, which would be little more than repeating the official citations of awards. This is largely because, even though recieving a Silver Star is notable (using the non-wiki definition), recipients do not necessarily receive the level of coverage required to write a comprehensive biography that meets WP:BIO. In many cases, all that might be known about the recipient is his or her name and when and where they performed their deeds. Thus, it is not really enough to write a verifiable article. Sorry for the verbose post, btw, but that is my take. I took the liberty of adding the debate to the military deletion list also. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, verbose is better, AR. And you make a good point I hadn't thought of - the articles would just be official bio's copy and pasted most of the time, especially since a lot of the medals would have been won posthumously. Skinny87 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps something specific for military personnel needs to be added to the notability guidelines for people at Wikipedia:Notability (people). This might help formalise the notability level, for at the moment I don't think anything specifically has been written that a Silver Star does not confer automatic notability. It might help prevent some of these articles being written (but then again it might not). If not, it at least helps with making consistent arguments at AFD. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would be extremely helpful - even if it was just in our own Notabily section. But I'm not sure how it would be written - what do you call the Silver Star/Military Medal etc? 'Lesser award' just sounds insulting. Skinny87 (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
We already have WP:MILMOS#NOTE which on decoratins states that only those awarded thier country's highest decroation are considered auto notable. David Underdown (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks, David. I learn something every day. I hadn't known about that (but probably should have). — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't have anything that says 'Silver Star/Military Medal etc' isn't itself notable, which is why I had such difficulty in that AfD discussion. Skinny87 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It's simply the converse of the existing statement though, if only the highest award is auto-notable it follows trivially that any lower award does not confer notability, it doens't have to be spelled out (but maybe I only see it that way since I was once a mathematician, too many arts grads around here...) David Underdown (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do think it needs to be spelled out, if only to provide a ready answer for AfD debates against some random i.p saying 'Nuh uh, it doesn't say a Silver Star/Military Medal/whatever isn't notable!111!!' Skinny87 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to expand WP:MILMOS#NOTE with a few examples? We obviously can't cover every eventuality, but I agree that this one does seem to come up quite a lot. EyeSerenetalk 11:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'd do it, but I'm short on time at the moment and I'm unsure what to add, to be honest. Skinny87 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) Okay, since I've found another editor who's been creating articles on what would seem to be non-notable medal winners, it seems like this needs to be clarified as soon as possible. So here goes my stab at it, this being text that would go under the list of things that makes someone notable at MILMOS#NOTE. 'Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, 'or has not won a country's highest military decoration is probably not notable.' My addition in bold font. Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't quite work, I think; not having won the highest decoration doesn't necessarily imply that someone is probably not notable, since they could easily qualify under any of the other criteria. What we're concerned with are people who have not won the highest decoration and for whom the receipt of a decoration is the only claim to notability. I'd suggest instead: "Conversely, ... primary documents, or whose only claim to notability is receiving a decoration that is not their country's highest award, is probably not notable".
(Incidentally, it may be worth rewriting this as a bulleted list if we add the third clause, to match the formatting of the positive indicator list just above that.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
That seems better, but you see, this is getting more needed, as there is currently a discussion here about whether someone having been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross is notable. The article creator claims that it is per WP:BIO, as they recieved the second-highest military award of their country. But there seem to be no significant reliable sources on the soldier, and the recent AfD on Thomas Edson shows that, without reliable sources, getting the Silver Star isn't notable. But does just getting the DSC make someone notable, without apparently doing anything else? The same question goes for other medal recipients, such as the Marine Corps Brevet Medal, all of whom have articles; in their case, only a few people receieved a Brevet Medal, but does that still make them notable? I'd appreciate a wider input on this issue. Skinny87 (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Outlines

There's a new craze for outline articles in wikipedia. I agree that they can be very useful overviews, but I feel we should give involved editors some guidance and establish a way to review them, possibly as part of our list reviews since they are very similar. Yet within our scope is Outline of the Vietnam War and in parts are Outline of ancient Rome, Outline of ancient Greece, Outline of England and Outline of Scotland. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

and Outline of World War II, Outline of the American Civil War, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of World War I. The Transhumanist 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

More information on outlines can be found here. We are likely to need cooperation with this wikiproject if we want any achievements. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Outlines, and WP:OOK.
Note that outlines are "structured lists" and have been around a long time (2001 or earlier; see [3]). They have also been referred to as "categorical lists", "hierarchical lists", and "heading-and-bullet-style lists"). Templated versions started to appear in 2006. The Transhumanist 20:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
They look like they are working from templates - I didn't know there were any Glaciers or Fjords of England, let alone (active) volcanoes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC) :They look like they are working from templates - I didn't know there were any Glaciers or Fjords of England, let alone (active) volcanoes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The apparently irrelevant landform entries are provided for comparison purposes (making it easy to compare contries), and to avoid ambiguity - if a country's outline doesn't include an entry on glaciers, does that mean the country doesn't have them, or does it mean the outline is incomplete? When a country has none, fill in with "none" - this removes the ambiguity. The Transhumanist 20:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't follow. You'd end up with "Fjords - none" on sub-Saharan country articles. or entries like "Oases of Canada". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It does follow, since land-locked countries don't have coasts, and therefore can't have fjords. It may be obvious to some, but what about to grade-school kids? They use Wikipedia too. And then there are the users who fly through all the country outlines looking for the ones with fjords. How will they know they've found all of them if the ones that don't have them aren't filled in with "none"? The Transhumanist 20:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
What I'm pointing out is that the project is being selective about which geographical features to include, ie you are being exclusive rather than inclusive and being inclusive would lead to a lot of "none"s. The specific answer to your fjord question is Fjord#Locations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that lots of empty sections aren't helpful. If there aren't any oases then don't make a section about oases. Rather include only sections of really existing features or noteable exceptions (like Britain doesn't have an active vulcano anymore coz it exploded in 2009). You may make a model where which section should appear in case such a feature is present. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing commanders in infoboxes for ongoing conflicts

Zaq12wsx has edited the {{Infobox Military Conflict}} instructions to include the clause:

If the conflict is ongoing and has involved changes of command, list the current commanders only.

Is this a good approach?

I'm concerned, broadly speaking, about two aspects:

  • This creates an arbitrary distinction between how ongoing and concluded conflicts are covered, and (presumably) imposes an extra burden on us of rewriting the articles to include additional commanders once the conflict ends.
  • If only current commanders are listed, this implicitly prevents the listing of any leader killed or taken prisoner, which may be a major aspect of the conflict's current state.

Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also not entirely happy with this change: especially for long-term conflicts, commanders may change during the course of the conflict simply through promotion and retirement, as well as death and capture. – Joe N 21:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I support your revert there; I think I can see the reasoning behind the change, but I also think it's taking too narrow and prescriptive a view of what can be a nuanced issue. There are enough guidelines already to provide a framework for article editors to decide these things for themselves. EyeSerenetalk 19:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and done it...

Hi all. I hope I'm not causing too much trouble, but I've reopened the can of worms over at Scharnhorst class warship (1936). I've come to view the current compromise title as an example of wikiality. I feel that the article would be greatly improved if we could finally settle on either "battleship" or "battlecruiser." The discussion can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A-class article extensively vandalised for 6 months without being noticed

:( :( YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What the...every year was increased by three. No more, no less. That's certainly one of the odder bits of vandalism I have seen. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well that was rather annoying. I borrowed some books and got the article ready for a revamp/expansion etc and got led up the garden path for a few hours. How annoying. The original author RM Gillespie often sometimes added in reference details like publication years and spelt author names wrong, or [apparently] added in a book title off the top of his head and got the name wrong in his other A-class articles, so I thought maybe he got things mixed up in a big way :( Should have been more suspicious YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Hermann Detzner‎ now open

The Featured Article candidacy for Hermann Detzner‎ is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy for Black Hawk War now open

The Featured Article candidacy for Black Hawk War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Paul Haygood

So far no verification has been found for this article about an alleged counterinsurgency expert. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Haygood. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Military navigation template problem

I'm trying to convert Template:List of RAAF Squadrons to use the military navigation format so that it looks like Template:RAF squadrons, but the list of squadrons in the body of the template won't display. Could someone more knowledgeable than me about templates please look into the RAAF template and let me know what I've done wrong? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. The parameters were named incorrectly. You must be exact with your coding. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks a lot for that Trevor. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi everyone! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. Being that this project is pretty active in the FLC/FLRC process, it was suggested that some editors here may wish to run in this election, or at least vote in it (voting starts on Tuesday). You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew talk at 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator election begins

The project coordinator election has now begun, with sixteen candidates standing; project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Crimp now open

The peer review for Operation Crimp is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!  Roger Davies talk 08:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for John Kourkouas now open

The peer review for John Kourkouas is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Henry Wells (general) now open

The featured article candidacy for Henry Wells (general) 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! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Campaign Box for the Battle of the Somme

The Campaign box template for the first Battle of the Somme (1916) (campainbox can be found here) currently lists the following battles:

  • Battle of Albert (1916)
  • Battle of Bazentin Ridge
  • Battle of Fromelles
  • Battle of Pozières
  • Battle of Mouquet Farm
  • Battle of Guillemont
  • Battle of Ginchy
  • Battle of Flers-Courcelette
  • Battle of Morval
  • Battle of Thiepval Ridge
  • Battle of Le Transloy
  • Battle of the Ancre Heights

The official British nomenclature as published in the Report of the Battles: Nomenclature of the Somme differs slightly from the above. I recommend the following adjustments to the campaignbox to align the template with the official record:

1. Rename the Campainbox to "First Battle of the Somme" (the fact that the campaignbox title is "Somme 1916" is to distinguish it from later actions on the Somme).
2. Make the following changes to the list of battles:

  • Battle of Albert (1916) If we change the name of the campaignbox as recommended by 1 above, this battle should be renamed to "Battle of Albert"
  • Battle of Bazentin Ridge
  • Add: "Battle of Delville Wood"
  • Battle of Fromelles
  • Battle of Pozières Rename to "Battle of Pozières Ridge"
  • Battle of Mouquet Farm Remove this item, as the Battle of Moquet Farm was as secondary action to hold the farm which stretched accross the battles of Pozières, Guillemont and Ginchy
  • Battle of Guillemont
  • Battle of Ginchy
  • Battle of Flers-Courcelette
  • Battle of Morval
  • Battle of Thiepval Ridge
  • Battle of Le Transloy Rename to "Battle of the Transloy Ridges"
  • Battle of the Ancre Heights

I have a hard copy of the actual nomenclature report - but I have not been able to find it on-line to include here as a soft-copy reference. Refer transcribed copy of official nomenclature here.

Views?

Farawayman (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Two (mostly logistical) questions:
  1. Is the idea to rename the underlying articles themselves, or just change how they're linked to from the campaignbox? Ideally, we would want to do the former, to minimize confusion for future editors; is there any reason why moving the articles wouldn't be feasible?
  2. As regards the Battle of Mouquet Farm, I generally take the view that campaignboxes exist primarily as navigation templates rather than precise chronologies of a conflict, and thus leaving articles out (and therefore with no easy way to navigate to or from them) isn't a good idea. Are you planning to merge the article somewhere, or move the link to a different campaignbox? If not, I'd retain it for completeness, even if its placement doesn't exactly match the official breakdown of the engagements.
Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. I think it would be correct to re-name the items in the campaignbox and to move the articles.
  2. Perhaps instead of deleting items, we could in fact add all secondary actions to the campaingbox in italics
Farawayman (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Using italics might be somewhat confusing, since that's commonly used in other infoboxes to distinguish between labels for geographic battle names and explicitly named operations (see, for example, {{Campaignbox Tunisia Campaign}}). Perhaps something like what {{Campaignbox Waterloo}} does, with the auxiliary engagements split onto a separate line, would work? Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this will work. First one is the existing Campaign Box. There are two new options - New1 shows the Campaign Box containing a list of all the battles and secondary actions as recommended above - for which there are Wiki pages. New2 lists all battles and actions, even if there is currently no page available for a listed action. I'm not sure red-links are acceptable for a Campaign Box banner though. Perhaps its best to leave all battles and actions in the campaign box but mask out the one's for which there are currently no pages.
Also, having looked at it again, there is no need to move or re-name any of the existing pages - we simply reference them according to their current names, but use the "official" name in the Campaign box. Farawayman (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Redlinks are definitely acceptable (and perhaps should even be enouraged—a number of people at Wikimania this year mentioned that fewer redlinks led to fewer new editors), so I'd go with the second variant. I'd suggest "engagements" rather than "incidents" in the description, though. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done: Modification done iaw above. Comments and reference to the above discussion added to template page. Template tested. Farawayman (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Didn't we go through all this with the Imperial Campaign Nomenclature Committee at the time? Wasn't there a Donnybrook about this, resulting in the compromise you see before you?
  1. You can call the battle Pozieres Ridge if you like but all Australian accounts refer to the Battle of Pozieres. There is also no such ridge though. Nor is there any other battle that it is likely to be confused with that I am aware of. I suggest leaving it as the "Battle of Pozieres".
  2. Mouquet Farm should be retained. It was not part of the battles of Guillemont and Ginchy at all - as the articles themselves (all them) make clear. It just happened at the same time. There is a clear demarcation between Pozieres and Mouquet, the latter starting on 8 August. People typing in Mouquet Farm will expect to see an article on the battle. The battle is important in Australian military history, and the article should be retained.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, I’m afraid I don't know the "Donnybrook" history, or the decisions forthcoming from those discussions! If the intention was to "lock" the Somme Campaingbox, so be it and lets revert it and put a notice to say it should not be edited!
However, after making the changes, the end result is slightly different from the above discussions, because when it came to implementing what was discussed, it was not so straight–forward and I decided it better not to move or rename pages. Maybe as a first step, take a look at the campaignbox as modified here. You will notice:
  • Pozières – It is called "Battle of Pozières Ridge" in the campaignbox but it links to a page called "Battle of Pozières." The page was not changed or moved. If you believe "Battle of Pozières " and not "Battle of Pozières Ridge" (as defined by the Imperial Campaign Nomenclature Committee) is preferred, I have no objection to you reverting it in the Campaignbox. I was trying to "standardise" the naming conventions.
  • Mouquet Farm – The Campaingbox refers to "Mouquet Farm" and, if you select that link in the Campainbox, it links to "Battle of Mouquet Farm." The page was not re–named or moved. Also, people who type "Mouquet Farm" will still see the article on the Battle of Mouquet Farm page. Take a look at the campaignbox and the associated links, and if you disagree, edit or revert. Again, the article was not changed, only the naming conventions in the campaignbox were "standardised."
I trust this is no longer an issue! Farawayman (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

New article Inuit weapons

I realised that there's very little info on this subject online, and even a handful of folks asking about it on various answer websites with no replies. I found a GB limited preview with a lot of content, basically all saying that various Inuit groups used hunting tools as dual-purpose weapons. I've found references to "war hapoons", "war clubs", and using spear-throwers in war, but if anyone has anything else to add, or better cats, it'd be appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I regret I can't be of any help with material, but I've copied your above note across to the Weaponry TF talkpage (here); someone there may be able to help. Good luck! EyeSerenetalk 17:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rough Rider

Edward Jennings VC rank is given as Rough Rider. Does anyone know what this term meant? Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I beleive that working with the regimental Riding Master the Rough Riders broke in newly bought troop horses, and taught recruits to ride, but that's an impression I've formed from reading Allan Mallinson's novels so I don't think it entirely counts as a reliable source, despite his military credentials. David Underdown (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
None of the external links or refs say anything, but I'm afraid the legacy section of the article looks like a possible copyvio of this page, judging by the dates. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Werner Mölders now open

The featured article candidacy for Werner Mölders 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!  Roger Davies talk 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks Roger. I thought it was an interesting article about an intriguing fellow. It's been up for FAC for a while now, and only 2 reviews (both supports). Not sure that will get it through the process. Please take a look at this article! Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Midshipman now open

The peer review for Midshipman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle off Texel now open

The peer review for Battle off Texel is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone in Northern Virginia?

I'm in a discussion with Durova, here on her talkpage, and she's mentioned that she would really like a MILHIST volunteer in or around northern Virginia who could show a number of her image and photo restorations to an historical society in the area. They really are excellent images, especially the one she's highlighted in the discussion, and it would certainly be a boon for Durova if this could happen. So, if anyone is in that area and can help out Durova, could they drop her a line on her talkpage? Skinny87 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As an FYI: it's not so much about showing her images, it's getting societies to upload images under a free license to the Commons. The restorations are just a way of showing them why donating their images could be beneficial to them. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Whoops on that and the he/she thingie :( Skinny87 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It happens, I'm sure she understands. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Gregzeng

Would someone who knows how to deal with such things take a look at the activities of User:Gregzeng please? He has edited 14 articles so far today, most of them within the scope of this project, usually adding plausible-sounding but unhelpful sentences. At best they are unreferenced additions, and if I were not assuming good faith I might think worse. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've taken a look-see. They're all WP:AGF additions, but usually poorly written and sometimes nonsensical. I've reverted some, rewritten a few others, and left one or two that seem okay, albeit uncited. Skinny87 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm now open

The A-Class review for SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr. now open

The featured article candidacy for Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr. 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) 01:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oldest current MilHist FAC - think we missed announcing it on the talk pages first time round so pls have a look when you get a chance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group now open

The A-Class review for Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!  Roger Davies talk 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Somalia Air Force Regiment Special Force

Can someone check this new article out? - it looks a bit hoaxy to me.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{hoax}} and am toying with tagging it with {{db-hoax}}; Somalia operating F-15 Eagles, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and Mitsubishi F-2's? Yeah right. Also, a google search brings up just Wikipedia... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Removed all the images from the gallery section as those aircraft obviously belong to other forces. Also, I'd suggest the speedy deletion of the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Since it's well known that Somalia doesn't operate F-15s and F/A-18s, but B-2s instead :), I've taken the liberty of deleting the article. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to tag it with db-hoax now; Global Security has no mention of this "special force", let alone aircraft flown by the SAF—"None of the squadrons have been operational for some time." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well that was weird. No edit conflict? Thanks Buckshot. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
And now the original editor has re-created the article - complete with hoax tags!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy deletion. I got a kick out of {{hoax}} on there too. ;-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we please get contributors to help create Somalian B-2 procurement scandal - very important but littleknown aviation event? :) Buckshot06(prof) 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It's more than just the B-2, Buckshot. I think that a title of Somalian F-2, B-2, F-15 and F/A-18E/F procurement scandal would describe this entirely factual topic much better. ;-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Recreated, deleted for the third time, and salted. This editor has obviously got a master copy saved somewhere, so now they can't recreate the article using that page, those who are watching this may like to keep an eye out for similarly-named articles appearing. If this turns into whack-a-mole, we may have to apply the mole hammer. EyeSerenetalk 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Xdamr has blocked the editor responsible for this article for being a vandalism only account. Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The_ed17's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, The_ed17, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of The_ed17's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment.  Roger Davies talk 02:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Anders Örbom

Can people take a peek at the article Anders Örbom, its a translation from the Swedish Wikipedia, but the English version is up for deletion, you can help improve the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Scott Sather

This USAF airman was awarded the Bronze Star in the early stages of Iraqi Freedom. Does this make him notable? I thought even Silver Stars didn't confer automatic notability. Buckshot06(prof) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but the claim that he was the first airman killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom probably puts the article out of the range of speedy deletion. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably it is non-notable enough to Prod and see if anyone contests. – Joe N 00:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree that he's not really notable, though one could make the argument that since Sather Air Base was named after him, he has somewhat more of a claim than your average Bronze Star recipient. It may be worth considering that we have Lofton R. Henderson, the namesake of Henderson field, though he did win the Navy Cross for his actions. Parsecboy (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This could be redirected to Sather Air Base; the last sentence of the article pretty much covers his main claim to notability. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, I think I'll Prod it in about 12 hours, taking Joe N's suggestion, unless anyone has any other thoughts. Cheers and thanks for your input people. Buckshot06(prof) 04:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of the Alamo now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of the Alamo 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!  Roger Davies talk 13:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Bien Hoa (1968) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Bien Hoa (1968) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Belligerent

In the Operation Sealion page ithere is a list in the info box of beligerents, but as fighting never occured this does seem a bit odd. Especialy as we cannot say (beyond those forces actualy deployed either for the invasion or in the defence of the UK (in September 1940)) who would ahve taken part.Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree, the infobox suggests a conflict that didn't happen. I'd say an Operation Infobox would be much better. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army departments

I'm cleaning up some U.S. Army stub articles. Can anyone give me the first date departments were introduced as organisations within the U.S. Army, and a source? A list of all departments ever active would also be useful (again sourced). Please direct all responses to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force#U.S. Army departments. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(prof) 07:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidacy for Boxer Rebellion image now open

Mil Hist's newest FP

Just an FYI for all you folks, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Beijing Castle in the Boxer Rebellion is now up, my first image restoration on an image WP:MILHIST may be interested in. Just letting you know. Staxringold talkcontribs 12:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice about maps please

I'm back to tweaking Battle of Dunkirk, and I think it'll benefit hugely from some maps showing which units were where, but I'm a bit daunted by the possible need to draw them myself. (I don't have relevant software.)

Can anyone who's added maps to an article offer advice?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I reckon just about any conflict article benefits from maps, they detail a huge amount in a simple way and make visualising positions/movements much simpler for the reader, so I'd definitely recommend trying to get some in. I'd suggest that it's best if someone who knows the battle can do the map, that way it's easier to check sources etc.. and get it right. Small details can be important (depending on scale and number of units), and because the map is equally important to the factual accuracy of the article it should be based on as many sources as possible (or existing maps). There might be some guidelines on wikimedia about keys. I put them onto the maps I did for Battle of Arnhem, of course it occurred to me afterward that makes them kinda en.wiki specific. That said, Operation Market Garden uses foreign language maps! I'd definately use a scale, try and keep north at the top and include a title within the image. Just my 2 pence. I'd offer to have a go, but I don't really think I have the time and I'm not an expert on Dunkirk! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
To add to what Steve's said, I've been asked to take keys off maps I've made before now as it does indeed prevent them being used on other 'pedias. Unit labels are fine though. If you're having problems finding anyone, feel free to drop me a note - I quite enjoy the chance to work on something different from my other on-Wikipedia activities :) EyeSerenetalk 07:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
What software do you use to create maps?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Try "Inkscape" - its a free open-source application and generates SVG and PNG output files. Farawayman (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I use Photoshop. I have trouble with Inkscape on my mac, although it is much cheaper than Photoshop. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Is PNG an acceptable file type for maps? I need to sort out the JPG versions I used. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I use Inkscape; much cheaper than Photoshop indeed! PNG is good when there are lots of colours, but I think SVG is preferred (and JPEG is a lossy format so discouraged). SVG is certainly easier to edit at a later date, and Wikipedia has got better at displaying SVG files that it once was. The only problems I've had with Inkscape SVGs rendering incorrectly on Wikipedia are with imported images such as national flags (have to remember to embed them); and getting text to render properly (it works ok if you convert it to a path though). EyeSerenetalk 09:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

JPG files are simply image files – a set of pixels optimised to view at a certain image size (100%). If you enlarge the image beyond this 100% optimisation, the image blurs. SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) images are much better as the individual components in the map all scaled correctly as the image size is increased (in fact I think the image is stored as a set of XML data, as opposed to a set of pixels) - keeping the content crisp. Not all image viewers can view SVG, that’s why once created – the map is normally saved as a PNG file. Although there is some loss of crispness, its still far better than JPG and is scalable. Take a look at WikiTravel -a good tutorial on drawing SVG / PNG based maps: [4]. Farawayman (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'll take a look at Inkscape, and hope it doesn't have a substantial learning curve!—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick addition to Farawayman's last, it might be helpful to upload in both PNG and SVG formats? EyeSerenetalk 12:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Sacrifice (video game) now open

The peer review for Sacrifice (video game), an article for a real-time strategy game within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Congress (1799) now open

The A-Class review for USS Congress (1799) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for M22 Locust now open

The A-Class review for M22 Locust is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Review (2009)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1 Fifelfoo (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry

I just tagged this article for inclusion in the project, is there a reason it wasn't previously? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It probably just got missed; we get a few popping up every month on here. Skinny87 (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Warsaw Uprising (1794)

I have nominated Warsaw Uprising (1794) for Featured article review due to a number of issues that currently exist in the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded onto the main WP:FAR page so all the folks and friends can see YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

KITOLOV-2M

Could someone take a look at this article? It lists some stats for the gun, but gives no reason why it might be notable - why it was designed, where it was placed, is/was it the best at something, &c. I am also wavering on slapping {{copyvio}} on it since it is remarkably similar to the source given ... but since both are just lists of capabilities it probably does not apply. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's any context added within the next little while, I will delete it as a copyvio. Comments appreciated. Buckshot06(prof) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaza war

Editors previously uninvolved in this maelstrom may want to stop by the talk page, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_War#police, which has devolved into a two-editor dispute. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1

Hello. If someone with a knowledge of Japan-US copyright law for pre-WWII could post at the linked FAC, it would be much appreciated. Regards, NW (Talk) 01:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Lockett

I'm rather dubious as to whether Michael Lockett actaully meets our notability requirements. Probably the first recipient of the MC to be kia for a long-time (excepting those awarded it posthumously to start with), and there's been a fair amount of press coverage over the past few days, but I'm not sure it really amounts to notability. If I weren't going away for a few days, I'd be tempted to afd it, but I don't want to appear to be donig a hit and run on the article (though the fact I've jsut tidied it up a bit might mitigate against that. David Underdown (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly precedent for an AfD in terms of WP:NOTNEWS and the recent AfD that deleted a non-notable Silver Star recipient who served during WWII. Skinny87 (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tosa class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Tosa class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Special one-week offer

Featured sounds has been a neglected part of Milhist's coverage, but, nonetheless, has some strongly encyclopedic material on Milhist, from Reagan's "Tear down this wall" to Himmler discussing the extermination of Jewry to the music of various wars.

To help out a bit, I've just prepared restorations of three Milhist-related sounds: Stars and Stripes forever, the Semper Fidelis March, and a light touchup of Anchors Aweigh.

Furthermore, for the next week, if anyone can find a Milhist-related sound, uploads it with good documentation, and nominates it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates, I'll have a listen, and deal with any fixable problems, uploading an edit. Editing sounds is one of those things where, if it can be done (really badly degraded sounds can run up against insurmountable problems) and you know what you're doing, it can be done fairly quickly.

You will likely need too be able to convert to Ogg. I suggest Audacity, which is a free sound editing program that pretty much everyone working on sounds here uses. Anyway, ask me on my talk page if you have any problems. Note that it's very hard to convert from Real Audio formats - I can't do that, for one - but if you figure out how, I'm sure we can have a very productive relationship.

Anyway, the only real rule is that if you edit it beyond converting to Ogg, upload the original under another filename, state your edits, link between them, and include a link to the unedited version in the "Reason for nominating" section of the nomination.

If you have any questions about copyright, ask. Countries generally have far less restrictive rules for sound recordings than other works, but the underlying composition needs to be free licensed (usually public domain).

Also, consider voting on other featured sound candidates (remembering that some of them are quite old - Sousa playing Sousa is never going to sound modern, f'r instance). Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 04:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the first of many? Sousa's 1920 "Comrades of the Legion", done by "The President's Own" United States Marine Band. —Ed (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Poking all members, tho offer is still open for another four days; hurry up! :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hones Abe FA

I'm trying to get Abraham Lincoln up to FA, and his article is within the scope of your wikiproject. It's a big job, but the article is in pretty good shape. Anyone want to help? Drop by the talk page if you're interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at GA review Plea

there is a slug of articles in the military section of the History section of the GA review. I've cleared a bunch up, including the one on History of the Swiss Air Force, which was a good article, but it needs a box. Someone else could take a gander at a few of these; several are on hold, need second opinions, mostly relating to content, I think, and on some of the divisional and regimental histories, I'm not sure I'm qualified to do that. so just hoping someone else will do a few more of these.23:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC) very weird but my name disappeared from this yesterday. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator election results

The eighth project coordinator elections have now concluded. Our new lead coordinator is TomStar81; he will be assisted by Abraham, B.S., Cam, Eurocopter, EyeSerene, Ian Rose, Joe N, Juliancolton, Maralia, MBK004, Nick-D, Parsecboy, Sturmvogel 66, The ed17, and Woody. Further, Roger Davies has been granted the position of coordinator emeritus for as long as he wishes to hold it.

Congratulations to the new coordinators, and thanks to everyone who participated! Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Winter War now open

The peer review for Winter War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!  Roger Davies talk 07:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles: more eyes needed

If you have time, please review the following featured articles:

If you have not reviewed any featured articles before, please note that you are expected to provide a rationale, consistent with the criteria, for any comments you add. Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 14:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also a review FAQ that I encourage all new reviewers to read. Among its most helpful advice - reviewers do not necessarily have to review against every aspect of the criteria, as long as your comments make it clear which criteria were considered. Karanacs (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It'll be a useful link for the Academy too :)  Roger Davies talk 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the eyes on Hermann Detzner. Passed Featured article process today. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Idea about backlog

I was looking at the slew of articles listed on the contest page, and awaiting reviews. I took care of a bunch yesterday (sigh! instead of writing my dissertation or the Cologne riot article I've been wanting to do). Several had been in the review queue for a month (and the Swiss Air Force History since July 2!!!) and it did not seem fair that they would sit there past for so long, especially if so many are focused on writing articles, not in reading what our colleagues have written. Maybe we could have a contest category for reviewers and assessors, because a good contest is not possible without constructive reviews.  ??? Just an idea from a newbie. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, all of teh reviewing for teh contest page is done at the end of each quarter, and only by the co-ordinators. Also, the project hands out awards for those who give feedback on Military History Peer reviews and A-class reviews. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
well, if the GA reviews have to be done by the project coordinators, they've got a biiiiggg backlog, and this is the first I've heard about it. I've been doing GA reviews for a few months now and no one has told me to stop. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the MILHIST contest page, not GA-reviews-those can be done by anyone. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MHL#ADMIN

Hi. If you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, please consider listing yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about B-class criteria

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests  Roger Davies talk 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get a second opinion on my Tupolev Tu-14 article. Nick-D assessed it as start because it lacked coverage of its service in Soviet Naval Aviation and China. Unfortunately this information is simply not available, AFAIK, and I don't think that it should be penalized simply because the information isn't available. This sort of thing is an issue with much broader implications than my little article as there are any number of topics where detailed information simply isn't available. Do we need to establish a policy of some sort to cover this sort of situation? Because there are similiar situations for anything to do with the Soviets and Chinese, even before World War II. We probably need to kick this conversation over to the main talk page, but I'm throwing it out here because I won't get regular Internet access for another couple of weeks. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

357 squadron

MY HUSBAND WAS ON THE SQUADRON AND FLEW IN THE LIBERATOR. ARE THERE ANY EXMEMBERS OF THIS UNIT THAT YOU MAY HAVE HAD CONTACT WITH? HE HAS SOME INTERESTING EXPERIENCES OF THE CONFLICT, WHICH ARE IN HIS LOG BOOK.

Not sure this what you want bu we have an article for someone in this unit Lewis Hodges. Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
We also, of course, have a wikipedia article on the squadron itself, here. Might I suggest contacting a local history museum or historical association, who might be interested in such an artifact? Skinny87 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
or the Smithsonian....Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Although, in a more immediate sense, I wonder if Wikisource would accept such material? Presumably it would need to be digitized and then converted to text form, but records of this sort seem like exactly the sort of thing that project is meant for. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the US Air Force Museum would take the item. It would hold historical value, and would be a good connection to any oral history program that it may support. Or perhaps more relevent would be the Royal Air Force Museum? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Distance in military affairs

deletion discussion

If anyone wants to comment? --Arkelweis (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS

Could someone please assist with the article history? I requested a second review of the article and I am unsure how to fill in the article history template correctly. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Convoy PQ 17 now open

The peer review for Convoy PQ 17 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!  Roger Davies talk 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Ellis Wackett now open

The featured article candidacy for Ellis Wackett 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) 22:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Nassau now open

The A-Class review for SMS Nassau is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Pearl Corkhill now open

The peer review for Pearl Corkhill is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Derfflinger now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Derfflinger 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] [pf] 02:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS now open

The peer review for List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask the question whether or not the article would stand a chance at A-class or FLC review. Auntieruth55, the only feedback I received so far, questions whether the size may be a blocking issue for the article to achieve a higher rating. A very important point of the list is to point out who is a legitimate recipient and who isn't. Roughly 13% of all Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients who were members of the Waffen-SS have some serious doubt associated with their listing. This is to my knowledge the highest percentage within the Wehrmacht (I know the Waffen-SS is technically not part of the Wehrmacht). I therefore think this list has encyclopedic value. Could one of the moderators please have a look at the article and let me know how you feel about this? Thanks I appreciate all your help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Military personnel categories

I know that the thinking about this has gone back and forth, so I'm not sure what the current consensus is. Do we include people in categories like United States Army soldiers or American military personnel of World War II whose service is not notable? Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations says:

  • Limit the number: Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. However it is also important to ensure that categories contain all of the most relevant articles. This means that some prominent people, such as senior politicians who have held many different offices, will be in a considerable number of categories. Apart from these factual categories, for those categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics (e.g. art movement style...), try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."

Personally, I think that categories with too many entries become less useful. What's the usual approach nowadays?   Will Beback  talk  02:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Lloyd Waddy now open

The A-Class review for John Lloyd Waddy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bengal Horse Artillery

Was this formation a unit of the Bengal Artillery or was it a seperate entity? I note that Sir Henry Tombs VC although often listed as a Bengal Horse Officer was gazetted as a Bengal Artillery officer? Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States)

See subject title, I wanted to see if anyone with more experience in this area could weigh in on the discussion, thanks. -- Atama頭 21:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Kourkouas now open

The A-Class review for John Kourkouas is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe N 22:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Walls of Dubrovnik now open

The peer review for Walls of Dubrovnik is now open. All editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

News about special projects

The coordinators have spent the last few weeks working on a plan to revitalize some of our "special projects". You may have already seen a few of the changes—for example, the projects are now listed on our main page—but the two main ones are:

More detailed coverage of these initiatives appears in an article in this week's Signpost. As usual, any comments and suggestions are very welcome, as is any assistance with the special projects themselves! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

British airborne operations of WWII

I'm currently putting together a Good Topic attempt in my userspace, here, focusing on British airborne operations of World War II. I'm nearly two-thirds of the way through getting the articles I've found to GA-Class or above. However, I have certain questions I'd like to get consensus on. I've only been focusing on articles of operations conducted by 'official' British airborne troops; by that, I mean the two airborne divisions, their constituent brigades, and also 44th Indian Airborne Division. Should I, however, also be including the glider operation conducted by the Chindits (Operation Thursday) and the large-scale parachute operations conducted by the SAS? Do they need to be added to that topic, or are they sufficiently seperate? Skinny87 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chindit operations were a mixture of glider insertion and Shank's pony, so although Op Thursday had an airborne component I don't think I'd call it an airborne operation. Not sure about the other special forces ones; I think you have to make a logical cut-off somewhere though, or eventually you'll be writing about the drops of Allied agents into France ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Will there be mention of the 2nd Airborne Division (United Kingdom) and proposed plans for that division as mentioned, but not sourced, in that article (if such operations were indeed planned)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's be quite clear: that division is the single British dummy deception division - of the ones listed at the Axis History Forum discussion on British deception divisions in World War II at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=67514 - on wikipedia. There were about four other dummy deception airborne divisions (see Talk:6th Airborne Division (United Kingdom)#Division Numbering) and a host of other dummy infantry and armoured divisions. Buckshot06(prof) 22:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am well aware of the deception divisions and that this was one of them; however quite a number of the deception divisions were based around real brigades etc.
The article mentions several deception operations, i was qurtying if these would be mentioned.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Based on the sheer scale of Operation Thursday, I'd be inclined to add it. I believe it was a separate and specific Chindit operation (within their larger mission) and the largest undertaking of airborne insertion at the time so I'd say it met the criteria. As for SAS, it's tricky. Given that Colossus wasn't strictly an official airborne formation there might be a case for operations like Tombola, which were pretty large airborne insertions. But as Eyeserene says, where do you stop? Personally, I'd stick at Colossus as the first example of airborne insertion. For the same reason I'd go for Thursday as well, as the first example of (near) Divisional insertion. I wouldn't mention 2nd Division as they didn't actually carry out any operations of an airborne nature, and if you included all the planned British airborne ops you'd be busy! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Colossus needs to be in there as it's the first airborne operation as you said, RS; but more importantly, the battalion that conducted it was transformed into 1st Parachute Brigade, which in turn lead to 1st Airborne Division. Skinny87 (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hmm, righto, Operation Thursday does seem like it's sensible to add in, so I'll see what sources I can round up. As for 2nd Airborne, I can always mention it's existence in the main article - what it was, why it existed, maybe what formations were supposed to be a part of it. As for the deception operations - again, I guess they could be mentioned in the main article as and when they might have occurred, but they'd probably be better in some kind of article on planned but unexecuted airborne operations during the conflict. Skinny87 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to mention 2nd Airborne, please mention all of them - details at the 6th Abn talkpage. I think either mentioning all or none of the dummy airborne formations would be best. Buckshot06(prof) 21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Dont forget Operation Dragoon, 2nd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom) dropped in and Operation Slapstick is a poser carried out by 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom) by boat and not by air. As it was an airborne division operation should it be included ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally I took the name of this topic to mean operations of an airborne nature rather than operations by airborne forces - so I'd stick with the literally air-borne missions/battles. If you start considering all battles that airborne formations were involved in it could get quite large - 6th Airborne were at the Ardennes, 1st Airborne went to Norway etc.. It would be difficult to justify including the Battle of the Bulge in the topic. I'd have thought you could include a brief shake down of planned airborne operations (Comet, or Monty's idea for a post D-Day drop on Caen for example), real or dummy, but as Skinny says, they might in time warrant their own articles. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If needed, the details for the 1st Airborne Caen operation are detailed in the Operation Perch article under the Operation Wildoats section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree including planned-and-cancelled is worthwhile. I've a few notes on a proposed closure of the Falaise pocket with airborne forces here, if it's any help. Shimgray | talk | 13:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit, for the main article of the Good Topic, I wasn't envisioning adding anything like Slapstick, Doomsday or the Ardennes, except perhaps as a mention of what each division was doing before/after each airborne operation. They would properly go in individual division articles, where they could be expanded on. Mentioning the dummy airborne divisions, however, is a good idea. Skinny87 (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was at the Imperial War Museum yesterday, where I totally failed to find anything in the reading room for my work project. So I had a look at their Arnhem books and found copies of Then and Now: Operation Market Garden (definitely on the birthday list now). They list an impressive 25 operations either planned or cancelled last minute that would have involved British airborne forces between D-Day and 17 September. I thought about noting them all, but there was just too much to copy! I'd probably recommend doing a list article of planned/cancelled/dummy ops, mentioning the number in the main article and some key ones (Comet for example) and linking to the list. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you copy any of the details to my talkpage, Steve? When I write the main article, listing planned but cancelled airborne ops (well, those that got further than 'Shall we do this?') will be something I'll need to do. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thing...

I've removed Operation Market Garden from the topic. My reasoning is thus: M-G is a pig of an article and getting it even to GA would be a miraculous feat. However, bitterness aside, that isn't a good reason. My real reasoning is that the MG article isn't specifically to do with British airborne operations during September '44, as it includes the Americans, the Polish, XXX Corps and so forth. The Battle of Arnhem article, which remains in the topic, would seem to cover everything British airborne-related without needing the main M-G article. If anyone wonders about Operation Varsity, it's there because there's no way of dividing up the British and American sections; whereas M-G had three essentially seperate airborne operations (1st ABN, 82nd ABN and 101st ABN) in three geographically seperate areas, Varsity had one area with one British and one American airborne division within a mile of each other. I'm hoping the preceding is persuasive, but I'd like thoughts about it (oh god don't make me do Market-Garden it's impossible)</pleading>

I agree. MG is too large a scope, detailing at least 5 allied divisions of which only one was British Airborne. The fact that the division's actions are covered in another article makes it an easy decision in my opinion. Same as just including Operations Fustian and Ladbroke instead of Invasion of Sicily I s'pose. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_89&oldid=1088735654"