Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 127

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Military dates or civilian dates?

I had military dates style on Audie Murphy, as had been requested on one of the various reviews. My main concern is I don't want anything on it to take it down from FA. Someone has changed the dates back to American style, because he was American. Please offer an opinion here of what this project prefers. — Maile (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this M. My concern is that WP:STRONGNAT states "articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage." I have italicized modern as I don't think the term applies to soldiers as far back as AM - For example shows about the 60s - the era I grew up in - are now period pieces rather than contemporary dramas. Apologies for the digression and please feel free to revert the article back as I did not mean to cause a stir with this projects MOS. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Followup: Perhaps a brief parenthetical could be added to STRONGNAT like "modern (since 19XX) US military" so that others don't experience the same confusion as I have. I don't know how much resistance there would be to this at the MOS but I hope that they would be open to it. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We may be reading too much into that "modern". What, exactly, was the date format used by the US military in WWII? --Pete (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD, Skyring, based on scans of Audie Murphy's service documents, (Pages 8 and etc.) it would appear that the Army was using Day, Month, Year format. And, oh, during the Vietnam War, I worked for the U.S. Army and can attest that everything was DMY on documentation. I can still remember the orientation drill specifically about using DMY on everything. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to find these. To be fair the C.A.R.O. Form No. 11 uses MDY. The Enlistment Record uses DMY on its "Enlisted At" line but them uses MDY on the "When and where were you born" line and goes back to DMY on the "Given at" line. The Physical exam form uses MDY. The Oath and Certificate of Enlistment uses MDY early and DMY toward the bottom. The Individual List of Disposition uses MDY once typed and once written. The ones marked confidential all use DMY. The Battle Casualty report "Date of Casualty" line uses DMY but the rubber stamp at the bottom used MDY. I wont take up any more room listing these other than to say that most of the rest of the forms do use DMY. It is fun that one page has both a rubber stamp with DMY and one with MDY. Based on this I don't think it can be stated that the military of the time had a rigid rule about dates at the time. OTOH there is a preponderance of DMY in the correspondence (say that five times quickly :-> ) so I think you should do the honors of changing the article back M. I wish there was something we could do at the STRONGNAT section but maybe I am the only one who will be confused about this. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 00:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take care of it, and reference this talk thread in case it comes up again. Military career of Audie Murphy, which was split and expanded from this main article, is also DMY format, so it's good they have the same date format. And that includes the date on everything in the references, so it's good you didn't change all those hundreds of dates. I will also reference this talk thread over there. Just for clarification purposes, from 1943 until he died, Murphy was part of the U.S. Army in one status category or another. His Texas National Guard service was recognized on a Federal level. He did not officially move to Retired Reserve until 1969. Of course, he's buried at Arlington and was given a military funeral with full honors. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Dates on organizational letters issued by the Adjuant General indicate the change occurred after June 13, 1942 but before 7 July 1943. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

7/7/43 - I'll bet the possibility of confusion during joint ops with the British had a lot of bearing on this. Operation Husky began just after this period. and wasn't that a model of Allied coöperation! --Pete (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It is probably like measuring distances on kilometres -- or using blue for friendly troop designation on maps (traditionally the French and Americans were blue the British red and the Germans grey or black)-- a NATO harmonization policy. So a look for a source sometime after the formation of NATO and before the Vietnam War (where distances were measured in kilometres by the US Army). -- PBS (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, if I recall correctly, the British Army changed themselves from red to blue in 1914, as it would have made joint planning with the French un peu difficile. Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The format on a rubber stamp can be distracting. By 1963, the Army was clearly on on DMY standard but adjustable stamps were usually MDY because they were purchased from a civilian source. I once disassembled a rubber date stamp and reordered the elements so they would "match policy." It worked and no one complained.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

CfD Category:Former_military_equipment_of_the_Philippines

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_8#Category:Former_military_equipment_of_the_Philippines

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Boer War

The article title Boer War is a redirct. Yesterday I altered to redirect from Boer Wars (which is currently a very poor article) to redirect to Second Boer War (see hist) and added a hatnote to Second Boer War (see here.

I explain my reasoning on Talk:Boer War#Redirect. The changes have been reverted with an explanation in the same section. Clearly more editor input would help decide whether or not the change is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Soviet missile page titles

I've noticed that quite a few (or perhaps even all) of the articles on Soviet and Russian missiles are titled using their Soviet manufacturers' designation. The trouble is this conflicts with WP:COMMONNAME; the "common name in English" for these weapons will be, in virtually all cases, the NATO reporting name. For instance, K-13 (missile) is virtually WP:JARGON; AA-2 Atoll on the other hand will be recognisable by virtually everyone with even a casual interest in the subject. Using the 'official names' causes confusion in another sense, as well: 3M11 Falanga refers to the AT-2 Swatter family - the majority of which was designated 9M17, 3M11 only being the original Swatter-A (and AT-3 Sagger is titled 9K11 Malyutka when all of its variants are listed as 9M14...).

In short, unless there's a good reason why these articles are at the virtually unknown designations instead of the weapons' common names in English, I'm planning on moving them shortly.

(Note that aircraft and ships seem to be at 'correct' titles as far as I can tell - only missiles have this problem.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Bushranger, and would support those moves. NATO codenames are the common names in English in this case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this approach. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

NATO codenames would have been the more recognisable names to many for Russian aircraft, yet they all use the "Manufacturer - Designation" format AFAIK. Sukhoi Su-25 not Su-25 Frogfoot (a redirect). You might want to talk about your desire to rename them at WT:AVIATION and/or WT:AIR, since they likely have an opinion on aircraft mounted missiles, I think it's their style guide which determined the aircraft naming. (Hohum ^@) 18:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft have a unified-across-the-board standard, which is IMHO the correct one (Manufacturer + Designation + Official Name when applicable). Aircraft-mounted weapons are not covered under the aviation project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably members of that project, like this one, will have a relevant opinion about it though. Our projects overlap in this instance. (Hohum ^@) 22:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of Geobox for forts, etc

It is proposed to deprecate the use of {{Geobox}} for buildings (currently there are 274 such instances; some for forts), in favour of {{Infobox building}} or more specific infoboxes, such as {{Infobox military installation}}. Would anyone like to assist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

References needed for Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II

Gday the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II article is quite poorly referenced at the moment. I'm adding what I can but only have a fairly limited library. Hoping a few editors could have a look and add what they have. You will note there has also been some concerns raised about neutrality on the talk page so pls feel free to cmt. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheolli Jangseong (Great Wall of Korea)

Moved to talk:Cheolli Jangseong

Nominations open for 2014 project coordinator election

Hello, everyone! The nomination period for the 2014 project coordinator election has now opened. We are looking to elect up to 12 coordinators to serve for the next year; with a number of incumbents stepping down at the end of this term, this is a great opportunity for new folks to join the team. If you're interested, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on September 14. Kirill ^[talk] 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck to everyone who decides to run for the difficult task of becoming a coordinator. I hope more military veterans, and Americans decide to run. But what matters regardless of whether one has served or not, or what ones nationality is, that we all work towards improving articles under this WikiProjects scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day all, just a reminder that the nominations period for the co-ord election will close in the next day or so. We are looking to elect up to 12 co-ords, and with only nine nominations there are still spots up for grabs so if anyone is at all interested, please nominate yourself. If you have any questions at all about the process or the job, I am more than happy to try to answer them. Cheers and good luck to everyone who has put up their hand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As a reminder the ballot boxes are open and waiting to be filled. Time to place your positive chits in.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

US military unit ordinals: 2d/3d or 2nd/3rd?

Discussion at Talk:132d_Fighter_Wing. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Voting in the 2014 coordinator election

Hello, everyone! The 2014 project coordinator election has now started, with 13 great candidates to join the coordinator team for the coming year. Please cast your votes by 23:59 UTC on September 28. Kirill ^[talk] 03:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Long swordsman

Hello there. There is currently a discussion at WP:RFD#Long_swordsman about "Long swordsman", or "Longswords man" and so on. I made parallels with Bombard/Bombadier and Longbow/Bowman. I am not asking you to agree with me or canvassing, but I think you experts here at MILHIST might have a useful contribution to that discussion.

Best wishes.Simon Trew (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC) (NOT the military historian, but cursed with the same name!)

Do we have a category for Foo-ian officers serving in in on-Fooian armies?

I am looking at Category:Polish generals in other armies, which currently is a subcategory only to Category:Polish generals and I see A) a missing category structure for Foo-ian officers serving in in on-Fooian armies that should be created, and B) a problem as Polish generals is a subcategory to Polish Army officers, but but "Polish generals in other armies" category doesn't necessary mean those individuals were Polish Army officers at some point.

Any suggestions on dealing with those issues? (If you reply here, please echo me). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This category needs to be done away with. Being a general in an army is WP:DEFINING, howver being a general of X nationality/ethniticity is decidedly not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire category tree should be reformed to use the country of service name and not demonyms, which would remove all confusion about whether the category is for nationalities, country of service, or ethnicities. So "Category:Generals serving for Poland" instead of "Category:Polish generals" (note "for" and not "in" or "of", as a German general can invade Poland, and thus be serving in the territory of Poland; and someone of Polish extraction would fit in an "of" category, which should also be excluded.) -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Fairly pointless and unnecessary, as the vast majority of generals serve their own country. No reason to completely muck up the categorisation, especially not with weird contrived category names (good English, incidentally, would be Category:Generals serving Poland; "serving for" is not English unless you're a tennis player). For better categorisation, see Category:British generals. All are categorised in sub-categories by their service. The few directly in the category served other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Help requested from WP:MILHIST members

As a contribution towards Wikipedia's coverage of the First World War in this centenary year, I've written an article covering Carl Hans Lody, a German naval reserve officer who became the first German spy to be shot in Britain during the war (and the first person executed in the Tower of London for 167 years). I've been able to make use of archive material and contemporary news reports to document the story of Carl Hans Lody in, I think, probably greater detail than anyone has managed before in print. The centenary of his death is coming up on 6 November 2014; I'm hoping to request that it should be the featured article of the day. Given the short timeframe, I've taken the unusual step of bringing this article directly to Featured Article Candidates. I've aimed to write it from the outset as an FA-quality article, drawing my experience as the author of numerous Featured and Good Articles. I'd be very grateful if WP:MILHIST members could have a look at the article and provide any feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Hans Lody/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

From first glance looks very good. Very interesting story. I will have a more detailed look and try to help out as soon as I can. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through it briefly as well and suggested a few issues. Generally don't the FA reviewers want to see that the Project an has vetted the article first? And is at least a Good Article? Or an A article? It certainly is at least a Good Article, and probably an A class article, despite not having any formal peer review to date. auntieruth (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Franklin

Just to note - presuming the picture passes at FPC, which is reasonably likely given the comments so far, the Battle of Franklin should be appearing on the main page for its 150th anniversary. It might be good if someone gave the article a good once-over before then? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It currently has the quorum of five supports, and no opposes, so this is very likely to happen. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Need advice on how to use a ship's Log Books and War Diaries as reference material

Working on improving my first article, USS PC-598. I have copies of all the historical material on PC-598 available from the National Archives, including Log Books, War Diaries and Administrative Remarks. Most of the narrative is derived from these original source documents. I cannot find any examples of other articles about ships using these documents as references. As they are original source material I imagine they are appropriate for footnotes, etc. Can anyone advise me on the proper style to use or direct me to a ship's article that uses them for citations?

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Emerdog (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As primary sources they can be used cautiously for uncontroversial information, no analysis or interpretation of, or commentary about the primary material is allowed - use them for straightforward simple facts. Some guidance can be found at WP:PRIMARY. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't generally edit ship articles but rather air force unit articles, among other things. I make use of unit operations books when I have to, if secondary sources don't provide precise details. Per the comment above, as with all primary sources, you have to take care in how you employ them and usually I just refer to them for such things as the dates of moves, and complements of aircraft and personnel at any given time. There's no citation template I'm aware of especially designed for operation/log books, so I generally just use cite journal or cite web (I'm assuming these references are available online so they count as 'published'). Anyway, this is one article citing a unit operations book -- I'm not saying this is the only or even preferred way to format such citations/refs, but it's been accepted at GA and FA level. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both your your comments and suggestions. Being a small naval vessel, there is not much published about PC-598, so the logs are needed to describe location, movement and other activity. It should not be hard to use them only for straightforward simple facts, although the are opinions expressed in the War Diaries by the ship's captains.

I obtained my copies directly from the National Archives. The only web based copies I know of are on Fold3.com, which offers access for a fee. I do not recall seeing Fold3's web site in any Wikipedia citations. Do you think I should use Fold3.com as an on-line reference or just refer readers to the National Archives?

Thanks again for you help.

Emerdog (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If the logbooks are out of copyright, and your terms of getting them doesn't forbid it, why not put them up at Archive.org yourself? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam, that's a great idea and one I had not considered. Thank you for the suggestion. Emerdog (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

secret or top-secret section/category

Isn't there a category with this feater? would be help nowadays --93.184.26.78 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

MILHIST participation in the 2014–2015 GA Cup

Not sure this has been widely advertised. The 2014–2015 GA Cup starts on 1 October. Given the number of outstanding GA reviews we have it would be good to have some MILHIST participation in the effort. If you are interested you can sign up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup. Entries close 15 October. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Ac. The close date just happens to coincide with the end of the backlog drive, so if you want to "maintain the rage", have a go! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Tks AC, added a note to the Sept Bugle due out shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Partner Projects

Moved from my talk page:

How about we include WikiProject Firearms into the partner projects list?Maybe we can make a joint edit drive in the future.Catlemur (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought it already was. Where is the list of partner projects, and what is the procedure for adding one? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good question, I only knew about WP Ships... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary
Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Would appreciate watchers on Audie Murphy

I would appreciate some eyes on Audie Murphy for a while. Please see DMY discussion above. We just got the page protected because of IP disruptive edits. An autoconfirmed editor changed it back to MDY, adding other miscellaneous edits to the prose, and I reverted. The editor left me a message on my talk page, indicating they were unaware of the DMY issue. I then posted a note in the article, so there would be no question again. I also posted a note on the article talk page about not making these changes to an FA article. That same editor removed that notice , added "citation needed" to two places in the lead and made some other changes, with this edit. The lead is merely a recap of sourced material in the body of the article. I have reverted this, which makes two reverts by me, and I have no idea where this editor is going with this. It's hard to assume Good Faith when an editor deliberately removes a "Leave this alone" notice. I was hoping that among the 146 watchers on that page, someone would help revert unnecessary changes. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. I see you've tried to start a discussion on the talk page; there's not much else to do for the moment, but I'll keep an eye out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, HJ. — Maile (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have watches on all three of the AM pages, but you often beat me to it! These articles would benefit from permanent pending changes status. I know. I know.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for having it on your watchlist, Gaarmyvet, — Maile (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes wouldn't prevent the edits from being made, and it would have absolutely no effect on autoconfirmed editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

~~:::It's not the return of your mate, is it? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)~~ Forget that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nah. Not that one, anyway. But this recent round of (I assume) Good Faith edits does highlight a systemic loophole in "anybody can edit". When any article or list makes it as far as Featured anything, a lot of work has been done by numerous editors and numerous reviewers. And I know from my own experience on this particular subject matter, that every punctuation, space, formatting and wording is carefully scrutinized and worked on, challenged, rewritten. While there is no such thing as perfect where humans are concerned, all those skilled people pouring over something says a Featured anything is in better shape than average. And, yet, nothing in the system prevents an editor not previously involved in that process to come along and start a whole string of editorial changes just because they like their words and punctuations better than whatever evolved from all those reviews. — Maile (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! ;) Alas, that's its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I've long been a fan of locking articles that are obviously "written," which is not to say they could not be re-opened if new facts/research came to light. It's one of the ways in which I scream into the wind...--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

1821 bombardment of Doha

I recently came across the article British intervention in Doha,Ottoman Empire. It appears to refer to the 1821 bombardment of Doha by a British East India Company vessel Vestal in response to piracy. I can dig up a few mentions of this in sources but there doesn't seem to be much detail (see 1 2 3 4 5) other than confirming the event occurred. The article itself is erroneous and unsourced referring to British Army involvement and should probably be at Bombardment of Doha (1821) if anywhere. Personally I am of the opinion that this event doesn't warrant an article of its own and can probably be covered by a passing mention in the history section of the city article but wanted to canvass opinion first - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've heard of this somewhere. Give me a day or two and I'll see if I can work out where. Not that "Harry's heard of it somewhere" makes it notable, but there might be some better coverage in one of the books on my shelf... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. If you find anything let me know, I'd love to expand this article if possible. Just the sort of minor engagement forgotten about elsewhere that piques my interest! - Dumelow (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Mine too! I'm travelling tomorrow but I'll have a rummage on Monday. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Page move

I have moved High Wood to Attacks on High Wood as mooted and altered a couple of redirects and the Somme campaignbox. I'd be grateful if someone woud check, to see that I haven't buggered it up this time.;O) RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Keith. That's some fantastic work you've been doing on that article. I've only glanced at it, but have you considered putting it up for a GA review? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I toy with the idea but there are lots of articles I want to bring up to B class first.Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Second that - in my opinion quite a few of the articles you have brought up to B look GA worthy to me. If ever you want some assistance with some of the more boring technical aspects that can sometimes come up at GA (image tagging etc) you might be able to get a few of us to assist if you ping us when they come up. Was that the issue with Battle of Verdun? I didn't really track this until the review was closed. Anotherclown (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Little community perspective - articles-notability-merger or worse

Can someone please offer external perspective/guidance on the possible merger of two articles? I've asked involved editors for reasons "why it should not be merged" and replies do not show that material establishes two separate, stand-alone articles (notability of events). The articles are Khan Yunis massacre, and Rafah massacre. I inquired but was not presented with any examples of reliable, separate significant coverage. Involved editors objected on reasoning that we are dealing with "distinct episodes separated by a week", "on different dates and locations". (a) The location issue is silly considering there's barely 4 miles (less than 7km) between the 'different locations' (South-Gaza). (b) Only one source of repute was found thus far, which lumps both into one paragraph (not much for separate distinction - even if two dates are mentioned). Involved editors brought up a cartoonist as "good source, his book got good reviews <Blimey!> and is based mostly on eyewitnesses accounts"[1] (please, someone explain everyone involved that a cartoonist is not a good source for history). Thanks! MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Castles vs forts

Hi all. I'd appreciate some knowledgeable input on the following category discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_20#Category:Medieval_forts_in_England. Thanks! SFB 16:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

PVT Chen

In looking at content to expand Military History of Asian Americans, I came across the article Danny Chen. This appears to be WP:BLP1E biography. The Soldier, a U.S. Army Private who killed himself after harassment from other unit members, is not notable himself outside of his suicide. His suicide as an event I think meets WP:EVENT as it lead to prosecution of the harassing Soldiers, and failed leadership to stop it. That being said, as it is the event that is notable, not the private himself, shouldn't the article be moved to a different namespace reflecting that, like Suicide of Private Chen and the article be restructured? It already largely focuses on the event and not the individual.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

An example of what an event article of a similar case would be Suicide of Harry Lew.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If the suicide is notable but the individual isn't notable beyond that then yes, I would say that it's better to move the article to "suicide of..." (or perhaps "death of..."?) and restrure the article accordingly. Biographical details would still be relevant, but as background. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 20:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, it might be worth looking at how other articles about an individual's death are structures. A few examples come to mind—two homicides (Murder of Joanna Yeates which was TFA the other day, and Death of Ian Tomlinson) and an accident (Death of Charlotte Shaw). I'm sure you could find something American and/or a suicide with a bit of digging. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Camp Trotter

Could someone please take a look ASAP at the recently created Camp Trotter page. It appears to have been written by the father of a US soldier "Sgt. John Byron Trotter, was killed in Ar Ramadi, Anbar, Iraq on November 9, 2004." who died on duty and the camp is named after him. It's coming up on the tenth anniversary of his death.

I've fixed it up a little, but it's basically an un-sourced obituary at the moment. :-/ --220 of ^Borg 01:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 220!. It looks like it's been copied and pasted from somewhere. It's not really an encyclopaedia article, but I don't have the heart to tell the man his son died a hero but probably isn't notable enough for an article. Let's perhaps invoke IAR and (unless somebody puts it up for deletion) give it a few days and then perhaps userfy it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Possibly unfortunately, I welcomed them to WP and basically said that to them too :-/. [2] I think that 'this may be the 'camp' mentioned, but not sure. There was certainly a soldier by the name John Byron Trotter Sergeant, United States Army. The editor had no WP e-mail contact, but I may have found his sister's, if we need to contact them directly. --220 of ^Borg 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the Michigan children's camp. I think the obit referred to "Camp Trotter, a station of Camp Corregidor in Ramadi, Iraq" as mentioned at washington.post. 83.20.255.254 (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

From the looks of the 2nd Infantry Division article, Corregidor and Trotter were built within a city as outposts, so they may have some sort of notability depending on how large it was. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alarms on submarines of the United States Navy

Hi. This article has been tagged for expert attention since 2009. Can someone take a look? Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured pictures

There's quite a lot of history-related images at featured picture candidates just now; many of them could use more reviews as to their encyclopædic value and quality. September, marking the return to education for a lot of people, is a rather slow month. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please review and comment here - [3]. Best. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Vital article nomination of Michiel de Ruyter

You can vote on the level-4 vital article nomination of Michiel de Ruyter at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Add Michiel de Ruyter. – Editør (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The nomination needs two more votes in support to pass. – Editør (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Campaign box question

Template:Campaignbox Somme 1916 has main battles and other engagements headings conforming (mostly) to the nomenclature committee deliberations of 1919. Does anyone know of another heading, for articles which aren't part of that system but which are obvious candidates for the campaignbox? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll get me coat.Keith-264 (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Odd edits by Randelearcilla

Could someone with knowledge of the Philippine theater in WW2 take a look over the contribution history of Randelearcilla? He's creating swathes of completely unsourced articles (see for instance Battle of Piis, Battle of Baguio (1945), Battle of Kiangan‎ and many more). I don't know enough to judge whether this is a good-faith editor who's improving a field which Wikipedia has failed to cover up to now and just doesn't understand Wikipedia referencing, or a serial hoaxer creating a string of fictitious battles. I'm reluctant to approach him myself given my lack of knowledge of the topic. Mogism (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it looks...suspicious, but like you I'm not entirely sure if its good faith or not. Based on the writing style in the articles my instinct is telling me that its a combat veteran or someone with campaign experience that penned the material being added, which could compound the problems with the material since the experience of the individual soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen is usually used here only to supplement the existing overview of the battles and/or campaigns fought. @Marine 69-71:, @OberRanks: - You two are the best historians on this site that I can think of when it comes to US Marine Corps and US Navy history; is there any material you guys have or have seen that would support the idea that these battles took place? If so we may be able to use that to help shore up the material, otherwise I'd given serious consideration to either merging or deleting the pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor has been active in adding material about the Philippines guerilla units rather than regular US forces. I think I can safely declare they are not a native English speaker (witness this single sentence " After the Battle on Baguio from the Allied troops.") and may be overstating by using "battle" when a minor action is meant. I can keep a lid on some of their formatting eg Lots of Capitals, and remove the most dubious inclusions eg adding experimental tank designs to lists of weaponry used by the Philippine Army but other than just stripping out sections I don't know how to handle the (garbled) narrative which I AGF. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed about 90% of Battle of Piis as a cut-and-paste copyright violation from this website. Mogism (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: In the interest of covering our bases perhaps I could trouble you to lend a hand here too? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend advising them about copyright and carefully checking their other contributions (the quick way is to pick distinctive sentences and copy and paste them into Google). Communication is always the way—discussing somebody in their absence isn't going to solve anything. At the end of the day competence is required, but communication is the first resort, not the last. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but per my original post, the reason I brought this here is that I don't think I'm the one to do that talking. My knowledge of the Philippine Campaign could be summarised as "the Japanese won but then lost", and I don't really want to get engaged in a technical discussion on a topic of which I know nothing. Mogism (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. It's late here, and I need to look at it when I'm fully awake. There's copying within Wikipedia, as well - Battle of Bulacan includes content from Battle of Davao taken without attribution. I see User:Mogism has already given him the information I would have, but I'd like to spot-check to see if there are broader issues that need cleanup now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

On the Battle of Baguio (1945), I was able to find some references, and added it to the article. From a quick skim of the content and the references that I found, it was an actual event within the Philippines Campaign (1944–45). Needs significant work though.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Without having read this thread, I stumbled across this editor creating a lengthy string of hoax articles, or articles which are so incompetent that they're indistinguishable from hoaxes, and have blocked them and are deleting the articles in question. Several contain patently false claims that large numbers of Australian soldiers fought in the Philippines in 1944-45 where they suffered heavy casualties (no Australian soldiers at all took part in this fighting) and the casualty figures given for US forces look wildly inaccurate. I'm pretty sure that this is the latest incarnation of an editor who created a similar string of hoax articles a few years ago and socked under various accounts: the key features of their editing here are articles which present the liberation of the Philippines as having involved vast numbers of Philippino forces fighting equally vast Japanese forces, with surprisingly small US forces (and Australian and UK forces in some instances) playing a secondary role and taking substantial casualties - there are also some similarities in editing style which I won't post. Some of the battles in question appear to have taken place, but not as described - the articles largely contain almost identical cookie cutter text (and badly written at that) and fanciful infoboxes. I'd strongly question everything that this guy added. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC Notification regarding Chevalier d'Eon

There is currently an RfC on the proper use of pronouns in the article Chevalier d'Eon, which falls within the scope of this Wikiproject. The RfC can be found here. Your comments and discussion on the matter would be appreciated. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

the article is interesting. I did a mild edit, and am willing to do more, but I'm not going to engage in a gender battle. auntieruth (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Adam Matthew

Hey all, just a head's-up that signups are still open for free access to several databases offered by Adam Matthew, including the First World War portal, via The Wikipedia Library. If you meet the eligibility requirements you can apply at WP:Adam Matthew. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Location map question

Capture of Gueudecourt Can anyone see what I'm missing when I add a location map like this please? There is a red dot but no village name. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How about now? Infobox military conflict/doc says it requires "map-label=", which is the only change I made. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I bow to the power of your Wikimojo ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Philippines during WWII

Found some articles (fairly recently created) that could use a leg-up. Eg Grammar and organization, but mostly referencing: Philippine Commonwealth Army, List of weapons of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and other related articles. Probably not even tagged as MilHist yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

also United States Army Forces in the Philippines - Northern Luzon, the (rather odd-looking) List of equipment of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, the introduction to List of regular units of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, 6th Infantry Division (Philippine Commonwealth Army).

PS, by comparison Philippine_resistance_against_Japan has an enthusiastic further reader section under "Contemporaneous_News_Accounts". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

USAFIP-NL was a guerrilla unit, and falls under Philippine resistance against Japan, which itself needs a HUGE amount of work to give things due weight, and remove/split some that has been given undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a bit of a problem from the reader side, with the constant use of "recognized guerillas" in this articles. My understanding is that "recognized" came about after the war; denoting those who had actually been in the resistance during the occupation (and could therefore claim payment?) as opposed to those who -after the shooting was over- claimed to have been guerillas but hadn't been. Anyone clarify that? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is significant contention on what individuals were legitimately part of a resistance force and who have claimed to have been part of a resistance force later for any benefits that may gain them. The is a notable difference in recognition of individuals and of groups between the United States and the Philippines. Also there is the case of the late Ferdinand Marcos and his claim, for example. Therefore, depending on what reliable source one uses, that attempt to create a comprehensive list of guerrilla organizations/units, depending on their publication location, they may not coincide with one another.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that the phrase is used like this: "the groups of the recognized guerrilla unit and the American military forces of the United States Armed Forces through to before the Liberation are become the conquests to attack by the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces..." or "Supporting Filipino soldiers under the Commonwealth Army and Constabulary and the recognized guerrillas against the Japanese during the Main Battles of Leyte and Samar". Leaving aside the grammar, and that's not easy, it's the application of 'recognized' before the fact. The guerilla units that were fighting the Japanese are the ones that are recognized after the liberation for having fought the Japanese. Is there a better phrasing than just deleting "recognized" before any instance of guerilla while talking about actions during the war?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd think we could just drop the "recognized", since by simply referring to the groups/individuals as guerrilas/resistance/etc., we are by definition discussing only those groups/individuals that actually took part in the resistance to Japanese occupation. One could not possibly interpret something like, as a generic example, "Filipino guerrillas attacked Japanese patrols" to include the later, false claimants. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be a fair solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've given it a go. I suspect no complaint from the major contributor. Or any kind of reaction.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am a bit concerned that the editor doesn't engage - no edit summaries, no editing changes following any of the notices on their talk page. Language problem perhaps? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to hound the editor, but another edit of his caught my attention at the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, where the editor highlights Moro position(s) among other things outside of scope (IMHO) of that article.

As for the original articles in question, I don't want to remove it, without building a consensus first. If the consensus has to come from this WikiProject and WikiProject Tambayan, so be it. But if I boldly remove the content by myself, it might appear to be WP:BLANKING, and easily reverted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it quite possible the editor would ignore you, I've removed Crusader tank from the list of weapons of the Philippine Commonwealth Army (on at least one occasion) as I am not aware a Crusader ever ended up out there, let alone outside British/Commonwealth use and yet the editor puts it back. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I put the question directly to the editor, and they have added a note (though not a source) to the Crusader entry on the list page - The British Crusader Tank was equipped by the Philippine Commonwealth Army by delivering supplies from the United Kingdom and almost 10,000 units as extemporized force during Japanese Occupation and Allied Liberation (1942-1945) . Overlooking that there were about 5,000 Crusaders built in total, Randelearcilla (talk · contribs) is capable of reading their talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

PS hadn't read to bottom of the article in it's current state. Has also listed "5,600 [Universal Carriers] as extemporized force during Japanese Occupation and Allied Liberation (1942-1945)". Use of phrase "extemporized force" repeating a note I added also suggests they don't know what it means. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of verification should be sufficient reason to take this down, and done. Lets see what happens.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

On the up side, it does call attention to some content that can be created, that meets guidelines and policy. I have created a DYK for the Bataan article. Now to see if interested editors want to create worthy content out of the namespaces provided.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia entry

I know that what is written on Wikipedia is open source, and creative commons licensed for others use, but I would like others to read the Asian American entry from page 181 to page 185. Outside of the post-World War II content, the content appears to me to be highly similar. Yet, no mention of Wikipedia. Has anyone else come across things like this before?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, yes I've seen something similar. I've found some of my own work published by other organisations/authors without attribution and I think a few of our ships editors may have had similar experiences. I decided not to take the matter further, though, but I believe that there might be avenues that you could pursue (not sure of the exact details, though, sorry). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A few years back, I came across some iPhone apps that reused Wikipedia content without credit. I was a little peeved at the time when on using one about RAF aircraft of WWII, I saw ~~some stuff I had slightly rephrased~~ my lovingly-crafted prose reproduced without credit. I left a cutting review of the product. I know, there are things that can be done with website, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The item that I linked to is published by SAGE Publishing, would I contact them and or Wikimedia regarding a request for attribution by the entry's author, one William Wei?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You should contact them, Wikimedia doesn't get involved[4]. As a legitimate publisher an allegation of possible plagiarism/ outright copyright infringement should get them motivated. If you wrote any of the text that appears to be copied, then you are in a better position to cause a stir. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You should definitely write to them. As Graeme says, if they've got anything about them they should take it seriously. But be polite—try to remember how little you knew about copyright before you became a Wikipedian, and bear in mind that most people don't realise there are actual human beings behind Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will email SAGE Publishing and see what becomes of this. I'll keep ya'll posted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is sad! I copied and edited an Appendix of Siborn's book on the Waterloo Campaign. The original source is freely available from the Internet Archive among other places. The Wikipedia version of Minor campaigns of 1815 is gradually expanding with new sources, but even the initial version had all the usual advantages of clear adjustable text, hyperlinks to other pages etc. There are now various copies of it available on the net and a couple of paper published version. Take an look at at this one:

Minor Campaigns of 1815 by Jordan Naoum. Yours for a mere $58.

It does credit Wikipedia (on the front cover) but who if they saw that would hand over $58 for it if they knew the content is freely available on the net? From there one can go to an derivative way of earning money see Where to download Minor Campaigns of 1815 by Jordan Naoum (Editor)?, (the user enquiring is really an advertising tag). So by paying $2 you can then download a book advertised elsewhere for $58! Aalthough the CC BY-SA licence requirements are met in both cases, I feel sorry for the readers who are duped that way. -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Help Approaching Editor

I added an image to the article Fort A.P. Hill showing the facility during a boy scout jamboree. The editor Meisbergerhas removed the image and all information about the Boy Scout's affiliation with the base saying it should be focused on the training that occurs there. I have a suspicion that Meisberger is the the Public affair specialist of the camp here. I don't want to actively insult a service member but feel the Boy Scout information is pertinent, as the information is listed on the U.S.'s page here. Would a full reversion of the editor's changes be appropriate along with approaching them on their talkpage? --Molestash (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Moley: I am of the opinion that Mr. Meisberger doesn't get to pick and chose what goes on the Wikipedia article page about Fort A.P. Hill. If it happened at the fort and it is properly referenced according to Wikipedia standards, then it could properly go into the article. It should have the proper weight given to it compared to the length of the article so that it doesn't overbalance the article into a boy scout camp article. The U.S. Armed Forces has historically given enthusiastic support to the scouting effort and I wouldn't think it would be a problem now that the "gay issue" has been more or less settled for both the military and the scouts. At least eight scout jamborees have been held there. Contact him, explain the problem, and ask for his co-operation. The picture might have to be optional; there should be some room for give and take. Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

NB: I've left Meisberger a message on his talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures taken in a German museum

I need guidance on the use of pictures I took at a German museum (Luftfahrt-Museum Laatzen-Hannover) earlier this week and uploaded here on Wiki. The copyright of these pictures, taken with the verbal consent of the museum, is being challenged (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 September 19). Surely I don't want to infringe any copyright laws, but Ronhjones (talk · contribs) argues that this is in breech of German law. If he is right, than many pictures, not only mine, will have to be deleted from our articles. Can someone knowledgeable please advise. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added some comments. If the exhibits were permanent exhibits (vice a temporary installation) and in a public part of the museum, then FoP should apply. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's also my reading of the relevant guidance in Commons' excellent summary of FoP rules https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany (in particular, "The Federal Court of Justice held in 2002[19] that neither does this require the work to remain at its place for the entire duration of its existence, nor is it purely a question of the author’s dedication. The relevant criterion, then, is the original intention of the work display as perceived by an “objective observer.” "). @Ronhjones: you might want to take this into account. Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

All the images taken have been deleted. Apparently it is not okay to take pictures at a German museum and post them on Wiki, even if they have been taken with the consent of the museum. I have asked the museum for written confirmation of what they told me during the visit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Last hours of the coordinator election

As a friendly reminder, the annual election of coordinators for this project is scheduled to conclude at 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September. Editors who have not yet voted are encouraged to have their say on the election page. On behalf of the current coordinator team, Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

About 12 hours to go now Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Order of nations in infobox / campaignbox

I'm sure this is covered in the style guide somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. In an infobox / campaignbox for a military conflict, in what order should belligerents on a single side be listed? By date of entry, size of forces committed, something else? DocumentError (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a guideline, but size of forces committed makes sense to me. I always do that (sub-consciously I s'pose). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember numerous discussions about this a number of years ago on a range of articles. Some suggested alphabetical, others ordered by casualty. In the end I believe it was mainly settled on size of force committed, as Peacemaker says. The Template:Infobox military conflict suggests that "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article." Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

bicentennial of Battle of Waterloo

the bicentennial of this is in 7 months. I'm wondering if we should get the main article into FA shape, and the associated articles on Blucher et al as well. This failed the last FA attempt (in 2008!!!!) despite efforts of the legendary Kieran. auntieruth (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What a good idea, Ruth -- not my area of expertise but happy to try and assist with the writing if others can ensure the research is up to scratch... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Me too. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. User:Djmaschek are you interested? I'm not sure who else is active in the Napoleonic Era task force....auntieruth (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but I'm by no means an expert on the subject so I'm not sure how much I can offer beyond moral support. User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)/User:WereSpielChequers has some contacts with the people organising official commemorations who may be able to offer some assistance with expert knowledge or sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

By unsurprising coincidence I recently had a meeting with Culture 24 and one of my museum contacts with Waterloo 200 as one item on the agenda. May I suggest we start a coordinating page as a subproject of this? I'm hoping to get some editathons going on this in the UK, anyone with particular preferences for the non London ones in the UK please email me and I will endeavour to get something close to you. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User:WereSpielChequers sounds good. do you want to set up the coordination? looks like there are a few people interested, and I'm sure some more will come out of the woodwork once we get going....auntieruth (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Poke me after the project page is set up if you'd like to write a Signpost op-ed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

23rd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

Is anyone in the Military History Project, interested in doing an article expansion of the 23rd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)? I do have a book on the Division. I'm willing to do a joint effort with someone (or others). Adamdaley (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, I'm afraid I can't help in terms of content, but once you've expanded it, I'd be happy to help out by way of a review or copy edit. Regards and good luck with the project. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

FA could use some TLC

Any chance I could get some people to take a gander over here at the FA for Mk. IV? The last FA closed without a single yay or nay vote, and I'm hoping to avoid that fate this time around. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Maury, may I suggest that you take it fully through the vetting process of Peer Review/GA/Aclass before going to Featured article? Some of the issues that people may have should be resolved in that process. My main problem with it as a Featured article would be this: it looks like it has not been fully vetted by the project before you've moved on to the highest level of available peer reviews. So I would want to know, as a reviewer for FA candidates, where the different projects stand on this. I think also that a peer review by the projects other than MilHist would be important as well. I do not begin to understand the science behind this, and would want someone who knows it to have a read. Just my 2 cents! auntieruth (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth editor needed

Joachim_Müncheberg is on the A-class review list and could use a Commonwealth editor for spelling (valor/valour, honor/honour, etc.) I've gone through it, and found most of them, but I'd be happier with someone who uses that spelling convention to have a go. auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Done RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on 1982 Lebanon war casualties

Discussion on WP:RSN for the sentence "In 1984, the Lebanese authorities publicly retracted their earlier estimate, instead stating "about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion". Comments are appreciated. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue has mutated slightly, and is now on the WP:NPOVN. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#1982_Lebanon_War_casualties. Any comments appreciated. The WP:RSN issue is useful to see, but not necessary for commenting. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge Iraq Theater articles

Should the articles Iranian-led intervention in Iraq and American-led intervention in Iraq be merged into a single article titled 2014 Intervention in Iraq or something similar and nation-neutral? I'm close to this edit discussion so I don't want to propose it, but it seems ludicrous we have two articles that are about the same theater of operations at the same time but separated by nationality. Kinda like having an article "American military intervention in Germany, 1945" and "British military intervention in Germany, 1945" but no article called "World War II." DocumentError (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This user created the Iranian-led intervention in Iraq recently, now he wants to merge it? This is forum shopping. See his contribution history for the many ways he has already proposed his POV on this topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'd wanted to merge it, I would have proposed a merge. I'm simply asking for opinions. Discussion is nothing to fear. And we all have a right to change our minds on various things, from time to time. Best - DocumentError (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do correct me if I've misunderstood, but the way I see it is that Iranians and the Americans (with their respective partners) are essentially waging separate campaigns, with each barely acknowledging the existence of the other? That does sound absurd, but if that's the situation... I'd suggest perhaps giving it a few months and seeing how things pan. Perhaps the historical context will be clearer by then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. I've seen some news reports saying that the US and Iranian forces are carefully keeping out of each others way in Iraq (which obviously requires military-to-military liaison, at the minimum), but the two forces are definitely not operating as part of a joint effort. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The 300th MILHIST featured picture

Good choice, hard subject. Hard to understand why some deny it even happened. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Few if any disagree with the contemporary Allied statement:

In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres.

The disagreement is whether those crimes against humanity if they had been committed since the Genocide Convention came into force included an "intent to destroy" in "whole or in part" the Arminians as a people, as defined in the Convention and interpreted by the World Court and the international tribunals that have ruled on the crime of genocide over the last quarter of a century.

Deciding on whether this was or was not a genocide is further complicated by the different academic definitions of genocide that are also used to decide if the events were a genocide. Many including a lot of genocide scholars are of the opinion that a genocide happened, others such as the government of the Turkish state do not.

-- PBS (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The future of Milhist: open idea thread

See my thoughts here and please feel free to comment! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Military strategy review?

Hello. I've taken a look at the Military strategy article and noticed that it has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale, and has no importance rating here (but is listed as a level-4 vital article in Society). Clearly, at 82,646 bytes, it is no longer a "start" article. It seems to be in desperate need of review. Overall, the quality of the content is reasonably good, but there is a major problem with references. Without being able to verify content, one might assume that the article is largely either "original research" or copy/paste copyvio.

At any rate, this article is woefully overdue for some sort of peer-review. I checked over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests, but that page states: "If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it..." —which does not apply in this situation. —Any attention would be appreciated, thanks, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated to C-class. Thanks for bringing this up. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This does bring up a weakness in the classification system. The enquirer believes it cannot be a start because of its length. In fact, coverage not length is the criterion and in a complex subject like this you can have a lot of text which still does not adequately cover the topic, whereas a simple topic can have a lot less text and provide adequate coverage. While I agree with making this article C class, it is, IMO, touch and go on coverage of early strategies (no mention of Vegetius, main strategic influence in the Middle Ages, for example)and the ordering of the early coverage (up to 18th century in one section, back to 13th century, then into Napoleonic) would have a stricter reviewer querying structure too. I may be able to do something about that when I have a little time - or others please do. Monstrelet (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've put the structure into chronological order Monstrelet (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

This may be quite late, but as the leading candidate among newbies for the coordinator elections in 2012, I would like to congratulate the new project coordinators for this year. Ever Marching Forward to Victory! Arius1998 (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

On behalf of the new coordinator tranche, thank you very much Arius! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Any Anglo-Saxon specialists out there...

I was wondering if anyone on the project would have any recommendations or pointers for contemporary, high-quality books and/or academic articles on Anglo-Saxon warfare? Any suggestions of titles or authors to look at would be welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim Siddorn's book is quite readable, but WP doesn't like it and refs to it get pulled as "not WP:RS" (which seems ridiculous). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC:Should an article be created containing all states that have launched a Military intervention in Iraq against ISIS in 2014?

The RFC is here:Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#RFC:_Military_intervention_against_ISIS_2014_in_Iraq Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Regiment of Riflemen (United States)

My article submission Regiment of Riflemen (United States) was accepted last night and assigned to WikiProject United States. It's rated as a C-Class and I'd like to see it adopted by this WikiProject and get the tender loving care to make it up to B-Class. I've also asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States to review the effort. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK it's in the project now. I made some comments on the talk page. Looks like it shouldn't take much to bring it to B status. Good work and don't forget to be bold. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Coats of arms as national identifiers

I've run across coats of arms being used as national identifiers in the European Air Transport Command. This seems very non-standard to me, but when I replaced them with flags, I was reverted per this diff. AFAIK, we always use flags in MILHIST and WPAIR articles. Are coats of arms allowed in such instances? I hardly think they are as recognizable as flags, which should be the point Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree as well. The only time using coats of arms in such a context seems justified would be in cases where there's no flag available (e.g. for various medieval principalities), but obviously that's not the case here. Kirill ^[talk] 01:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, especially when Template:Coat_of_arms generated two images from files with {{Insignia}} one with {{PD-self}} and one with {{PD-Polishsymbol}}. My understanding is that such images should be used with extreme caution, primarily to illustrate an article about the subject itself (eg: heraldry or the organisation (government or monarchy for example). --Bye for now (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the risk with flags is that they have a tendency to change. For example, the Nazi flag and the modern German flag. Likewise, there are a few historical flags that are highly similar to modern flags of very different countries. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case, there is little to be concerned about with the flags. Also, coats of arms are just as prone to changes as flags are. Look at Austria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kent (1799 ship)

Does the ship Kent (1799 ship) fall under this Wikiproject? Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say yes. It's nearly B-class by my evaluation; just needs a little more information. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Conversion to Lua

I notice that some of the project's infoboxes and like have been converted to Lua - eg Template:Infobox military conflict (and underlying code such as Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style). Does the project have participants that are adept in Lua. It seems to becoming more common and while the projects templates are fairly stable, if we are all used to that mixture of html and wikitext, we might find ourselves out of depth with Module:Infobox military conflict. Though perhaps it is just that I am unnerved by the change and there is no problem...GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! I've been meaning to play around with Lua for some other things that I'm working on; this will provide some extra motivation. Kirill ^[talk] 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is at least one

. I think you'll find the source easier to follow than the old templates. You can read up on Lua here. Maybe the Bugle could interview Jackmcbarn about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be up for that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

General Butt Naked Article

Re: General Butt Naked

Should this article have the name or nickname as it's article name? Should it be named as Joshua Milton Blahyi? Of course it's a funny nickname, but seriously, this guy is living. Adamdaley (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on what I can see on the talk page, the previously established consensus was that "General Butt Naked" is the WP:COMMONNAME amongst English-language third-party reliable sources. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

GNG, BIO1E, and NOTMEMORIAL

So got to thinking, given some of the AfD's I have been involved in and the current AfD of Robert Leycester Haymes, I was thinking we might want to discuss how we handle deaths of service members again. When many soldiers die in combat, especially with the amount of new outlets of reliable sources, they receive significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, thus meeting WP:GNG. However, most would argue WP:NOTMEMORIAL come into play when the subject's primary recognition is their death. As a counter, if their actions are significantly noted in the context of a battle or campaign, one can well argue that their death is notable within the context of the event and thus WP:BIO1E, and criteria 5 of WP:SOLDIER (as occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Nakayama). Therefore, rather than a outright delete, when a subject meets WP:GNG, and their death is part of battle or campaign, perhaps a redirect should be created to that battle or campaign, as a general rule rather than outright deletion. Granted this might lead to plenty of redirects being created. I think that's better than zero content, especially given that a movie can be kept with only two reviews in reliable sources (WP:NFILM), when a service member who receives a half dozen obits in multiple reliable sources gets often auto-deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible category

Why not a Category:Military personnel of World War I and World War II? - Hoops gza (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Potentially a quite big category since a lot of the higher ranks - and therefore probably have an article - in WWII served in WWI. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It could be subcatted by nationality. - Hoops gza (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If we do this I would recommend naming it "Military personnel of both World Wars" or "Military personnel of both World Wars I and II" to make clear who we are referring to. (on first glance I thought this category would contain anybody who thought in either war, which would make it unreasonably massive). Another point regarding subcatting by nationality is that some people may have fought in both wars but with a different nationality in each (for example Austro-Hungarian in WWI and Hungarian in WWII, or British in WWI and Australian in WWII). — Cliftonian (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hate to be the bucket of cold water, but why exactly do we need this? What is the problem we are trying to fix? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with Peacemaker here. Categories are to add additional navigational benefit to related articles. I think it would only add confusion when two massive conflicts would be smushed together. --Molestash (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that it is possible to use existing tools (eg Magnus' CatScan) to derive a list of articles that lie within in a number of user-specified categories. For example setting the scope to both the WWI and WWII personnel categories with a depth of search of 4 (so that it encompasses all of the sub category levels) tells me that there are 3050 articles that lie within both categories. You can refine this search by using the sub categories as your search terms (taking Cliftonian's examples you can discover that there are 33 articles in both the British WWI and Australian WWII personnel categories (and sub-cats) and 10 articles in the Austro-Hungarian/Hungarian example). The only problem is the tool is sometimes very slow (or down), there is a long-standing proposal for an on-wiki solution at Wikipedia:Category intersection but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast - Dumelow (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the need for putting both wars in the same category. I don't see an advantage, and lumping them together just confuses things...but then categories are often confusing anyway. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that having fought in both world wars would be quite an interesting feature of a biography... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

M.v. Transit - Israli navy war crime

This article was recently created by what looks to be a SPA (Dreyfusnavy (talk · contribs)). It's a mess from whichever way you look at it, beginning with the title, and the fact that most of what it says is based on controversial evidence from a single writer ([5], [6]). But there is as far as I can tell, an actual story underneath it. [7] and [8] both confirm the existence of a ship named Transit, apparently sunk by a bomb off Tripoli, Lebanon while carrying refugees from there to Larnaca, with the deaths of 25 people. The article hangs it fairly squarely on the Israeli Navy, presumably tying it in with the 1982 Lebanon War, but as to describing it as a torpedoing by an Israeli submarine, there seems to be no evidence I can find beyond the shadowy assertions of suppressed information and court documents.

It's currently tag as a prod for deletion, and if there was ever to be an article on this, it would need to be written from scratch, so I'm wholly in favour of its deletion. But the primary reason for deletion, that it's a hoax, may not be quite true. There seems to have been an incident of some sort, that would have been written about if wikipedia had existed at the time, alas it's now massively distorted for probable POV pushing, but this incident seems to have been overlooked on the internet at least. Does anyone have any more detailed reliable sources that might shed some light on this odd episode? Benea (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of military-people

I've completed the above category. It is down by 4.82%. I may have missed some that were containing images, but that's alright. At least the majority of them have been removed. Adamdaley (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Page watching

Since some people here are more knowledgable than I am in the topic, I recently processed this OTRS thread on Operation François, where the person asked how to fix the article. Besides calling it wildly inaccurate and subject to revisionist history (they are apparently an expert on this sort of thing), they also have proposed deleting it and creating two articles in its place. @Tomasgreene: You also might want to check this out since it is your article, but I would like it if others who might actually know more about the topic than me could take a look and watch it, as I suspect that they'll just replace the text and plug their book. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Kukri

Some members of WP:MILHIST may be aware that the Kukri has become involved in the controversy over Top Gear's visit to Argentina. Officials in Ushaia have claimed the name of the Gurkha knife is the EKH (not the Kukri) and one of the cars had the plate EKH 46 J. An editor combining this with WP:OR and WP:SYN found an American website selling Gurkha collectibles[9], with its product design of EKH-GACI-19 and has jumped to the conclusion this is proof that it was an insult [10]. In army service the Kukri is designated the "The British Army Issue Kukri, Service Number One". I would appreciate it other editors could comment on the talk page confirming this please. W C M_email 21:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Philippines during World War II - problem on article naming?

An IP editor - who may or may not have edited in this area before - has been adding previously-removed content in articles relating to the Philippines. I suspect from one or two elements of their editorial style (excessive use of capitals, a non-English idiomatic form, the material added) that they are the previous editor but that is by-the-by. While any troublesome edits can be handled in the usual manner, I'm not sure what to do with redlinks added for guerilla/insurgent conflicts during the Japanese occupation. Creating redlinks in Template:Military Operations of the Philippine Commonwealth Army is reasonable; there was activity by former PCA personnel/units on the various islands of the Philippines, and in an ideal world someone would turn these into articles with useful content, but what should these conflicts be called? The IP editors forms (eg Japanese Conflict and Insurgency in Luzon (1942-45)) generally fail to meet the norms of article naming on several levels. I've edited the names of some of the redlinks to what to me is a more natural form but has anyone got better names for these. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a blanket deletion of the redlinks per WP:BURDEN is in order. The Commonwealth's Philippine Army ceased to exist as an effective organization, sure there were units that became the hearts of guerrilla organizations (including some American units), and some organizations claimed to continuations of that organization, even after the formal surrender of USAFFE (which the PA fell under). However, without the IP editor showing some source indicating that there is significant coverage for these campaigns (like guerrilla activity on island B) in the talk page, than deletion of those redlinks shouldn't be unwarranted IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, if I'm wrong it's no effort to back to an earlier version. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this reversion. I've also blocked the account. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the process of blocking these accounts?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ex-Royal Artillery Major stripped of Military Cross

According to this BBC news report, as backed up by this notice in the London Gazette, a former major in the Royal Artillery has been stripped of the Military Cross, which was awarded for service in Afghanistan in 2009. I've made a note of the award been annulled in List of British gallantry awards for the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), but as such an action does seem to be fairly unprecedented, it may make more of a splash in the media, which may affect articles on Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth some sort of section in an article on British decorations being the first annullment but I wouldn't like to see an article about ex-Major Armstrong on its own. Nthep (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War

The absolute majority of articles related to the Syrian Civil War are written by non MILHIST members.Same goes for the Donbass War.Maybe we can recruit some of the active editors, working on the above mentioned topics.This will lead to a steady article quality improvement.--Catlemur (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything written so recently isn't history, it's journalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Military history/Weaponry task force articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation help needed with Messenian Wars

Messenian Wars has eight incoming links, and seems a bit thorny because of conflation of the first two. It may be necessary to turn this into a freestanding article to resolve that issue. Expert attention would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Manual archive

We've got a couple of topics at the beginning of the list which aren't auto-archiving. can it be done manually? Monstrelet (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those sections are unsigned/undated. The archive bot ignores them because of they aren't dated. I just archived them. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John V. "Scarsdale Jack" Newkirk

Dear military experts: This old AfC submission seems quite interesting. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks quite interesting. I am prepared to help out with it - though I can't promise where it will lead, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be plenty to go on to make this into a decent article. Could someone please "rescue" this from the AfC backlog - even if only as a stub?. I 'll work on it for a few days or so then submit it for assessment. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 10:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bye for now. Now that it's being edited, it won't be deleted for six months, so you have lots of time. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Another day is all I need but it will be another ten weeks before I have enough time in to be able to assess it myself according to the AfC criteria. Maybe I should push the button on it and see what happens, --Bye for now (PTT) 18:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that worked ok. The article has been created. --Bye for now (PTT) 07:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's coming along nicely. Keep up the good work. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost there now - just details from his final mission to be added, then lead can be done and it can be submitted, (subject to tidying up first) --Bye for now (PTT) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Bye for now, you certainly dug your teeth into that article. Thanks again! —Anne Delong (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

I don't quite get why this is a MILHIST article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing because it is set during the American Civil War, and includes large battle scenes etc... but I can't remember if our guidelines mean that this is a suitable/sufficient reason for including it in the project! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume that's the reason too, though the connection might be a little tenuous -- much as I enjoy it, as a Civil War picture it ain't exactly Glory or Gettyburg... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

One of my favourite movies. I think it's reasonable, the bridge battle scene reflects on the senseless nature of the fighting, there are a lot of scenes involving Union or Confederate soldiers. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism problems at HAL Tejas

Posting here because I suspect this is the most active project with an interest in this article. I reviewed HAL Tejas (a new indian multifunction fighter) for GAN here and found serious and widespread problems with close paraphrasing and plagiarism. I don't have enough experience writing these articles (or dealing with cases where a large article has been copied piecemeal from multiple sources) so I'm hoping someone who watches this talk page can weigh in with some suggestions or better yet try to re-write the article to remove most of these issues. My review only went up to the end of the Development section but I don't have a reason to believe the issues stopped there. Sorry if this seems like I'm dumping a problem on you folks but I figured I would just light the bat signal and see who flew in. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Protonk! I suspect you'll want to cross-post this at WT:AIRCRAFT, but The Bushranger will know much more about this topic than me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@The ed17:

Done. Also I haven't forgotten the essay you asked me to spruce up. I've just become somewhat busy as of late. I'll get there, probably well before VE is ready for primetime. :P Protonk (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What is it?

Having created this article (UK Military Flying Training System) I am not at all sure about how to categorise it. Is it military history? Is it a military establishment? Is it a company? What infobox would be appropriate? any ideas would be welcome! If you can spare a few minutes, I'd appreciate your input on the Talk page. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bye, categorising an entire system isn't simple; all those you've mentioned could be argued as being appropriate. As far as an infobox goes, however, for List of British Commonwealth Air Training Plan facilities in Australia we simply used a unit infobox, which is pretty flexible, so that may be appropriate here. There may be other opinions of course! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks similar, Ian. But another close equivalent could also be the Future_Strategic_Tanker_Aircraft - similar overall value and much the same contractors bidding, which has an Infobox aircraft program template. Another military PFI deal is Colchester Garrison (£2.2bn ?)- though the WP article doesn't even mention it! Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 21:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Or is it just a privatised organisation with a very large background section going back to 1917 ?? :o) --Bye for now (PTT) 21:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft article is primarily about the acquisition program for a single aircraft type, for whih {{Infobox aircraft program}} is appropriate. UK Military Flying Training System is about much more than just an acquisition program, so using that infobox wouldn't be appropriate there especially as it involves multiple aircraft types. The unit infobox is propably the best one to use. NATO Flying Training in Canada is about a similar program, though on a smaller scale, but has no infobox. - BilCat (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate: how can an organisation that is owned, run and (ideally/eventually) entirely staffed by civilians be considered a military unit? Is it not really the name for a supply contract, admittedly a very elaborate/complex one? --Bye for now (PTT) 09:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Though THIS presentation I just came across gives the impression that the RAF are calling the shots. Perhaps I have inadvertently created a section for the No. 22 Group RAF article. --Bye for now (PTT) 15:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it's fulfilling the role of a military unit? As Ian Rose, the unit infobox is fairly flexible, and it may be the best one out there for dealing with the various aspects of the organization. Other infoboxes that might work are Template:Infobox company and Template:Infobox organization. An alternative would be to create an infobox for military contractors, perhaps Template:Infobox military contractor, which would ave the specific fields needed in these cases. Such total service contracts are becoming common enough that a specialized infobox might be warranted. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

BFN, you might want to create a sandbox, and use Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox company and Template:Infobox organization in it. This will let you try out the various fields available in each infobox, and see if one will work in the this case. If none are appropriate to your needs, then you'll have an idea of what parameters a Template:Infobox military contractor would need. - BilCat (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers - I've had a look at them (plus clicked around at some others). Thing is, I'm not convinced that the UK Military Flying Training System actually is a civilian organisation, I was just playing devil's advocate. The term UK Military Flying Training System has been used freely within UK procurement as the name of the project and they are the ones paying. Having come across some organisational info now (via Berlin, of all places) I'm thinking maybe Template:Infobox_government_agency might suit. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That one's an option too, though may you discover it's inadequate too. If you can keep track of what's lacking, it'll be useful if we do decide to create a new navbox. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll put it up for now - even if only as a starting point. --Bye for now (PTT) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

MV Transit

The M.v. Transit - Israli navy war crime article has been PRODded. I'm uncertain of the notability of the article, but the subject would certainly seem to be notable. A merchant ship torpedoed and sunk by an Israeli Navy submarine. Can anyone shed any light on this? If true (prodded as a possible hoax), it should at least be mentioned in the List of shipwrecks in 1982. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrecksite (of patchy reliability, but this entry is sourced) states sabotaged, not torpedoed. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Stichting Maritiem Historische Databank has a good history of the ship (in Dutch and English). Seems that there was an incident involving the ship after all. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had a look around for information in Hebrew and while I cannot find a reference to this incident specifically, a lot of the information surrounding it seems to be genuine. Almog, Rahav and Mike Eldar are real Israeli naval officers, albeit now long since retired. After retiring Mike Eldar wrote a lot of books about the Israeli military during the 1980s and 90s, some of which were published by the Israeli Ministry of Defence. He has been in trouble with them over the last couple of decades because he published military secrets in a couple of books, which were swiftly banned. Last year he unsuccessfully sued the state for restricting his freedom of speech, and this year Admiral Zeev Almog launched a lawsuit against Eldar for defamation. Here are some links (in Hebrew) with information on this. [11] [12] Hope this helps. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I drew attention to this initially here. In short there does seem to have been a ship of that name, sunk at that time, but coverage in reliable sources is very scant. Probably the grain of a truth around an actual event has been overlaid by a dubious and POV mess in the article. Benea (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The PROD expired, so I've nuked it. Per Benea, the ship was lost, but the story seems to have been exaggerated somewhat. Entry now on the shipwrecks list. Vessel should be notable enough for an article. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

An Irish WWI priest and a US consul who fought slavers in the Congo

I have recently been able to expand Francis Gleeson (priest) and Richard Mohun, articles that I first started writing a few years ago. If anyone gets a chance I would appreciate any help, particularly with copyediting and grammar. I'd love to take these articles further along the assessment process eventually (I think Gleeson could use some more detail but Mohun's article is fairly comprehensive now). Let me know what you think, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Looking at Mohun...

Lead

Why "soldier of fortune" and not "mercenary"? It sounds like a romanticized portrayal.
There's definitely some room for reducing fluff: "... commercial agent in Angola and the Congo Free State. During his time as commercial agent ..."
Awkward: "Mohun remained in the service of the US government during this time and was subsequently posted as consul to Zanzibar."
"Following the conclusion of his three-year posting, ..." -- When was this? There's no reference to any years around here, aside from the initial birth and death.
"His most ambitious undertaking was a three-year expedition, ..." -- Did he lead this expedition? I assume he didn't lay it himself. ;-)
You don't mention in the lead how he got back to the US and/or how he died.

Early life

"Richard Dorsey Mohun was born in Washington, D.C. on April 12, 1864, and was the grandson of the Catholic writer Anna Hanson Dorsey, and was privately tutored at home." -- several problems here. First, who were his parents? There's no need for an extensive description, but were they wealthy? Poor? Etc. Second, he was privately tutored while being born? The last part of the sentence does not agree with the beginning. Third, you're using "and" far too much. You need compound sentences, but you should find other ways to link them together!
"... became the fourth member of his family to campaign for its eradication." Who else?

US agent in the Congo

Repeated information: "Mohun's grandmother, Anna Hanson Dorsey, was close friends with the mother of US Secretary of State James Blaine and Blaine and Dorsey shared ties with Notre Dame University." -- repeated information (grandmother), and just read the rest of the sentence out loud. :-)
Awkward: "The US had maintained an agent in the Congo ever since it had first formally recognised the state and the commercial agent also acted as the diplomatic representative in the country."
Awkward, too many ands: "The post came with a $5,000 annual budget and a remit to investigate the commercial potential of Congo and to promote trade between the two countries, which previously had been almost non-existent."
"Mohun travelled to Africa via Belgium, the European colonial overlord of the Congo, where he met King Leopold II who, in spite of his callous reputation, impressed Mohun with his apparent ambition to bring peace and western civilization to the Congo." I tweaked this sentence nut still don't like it. It's unclear where "where" is referring to—the Congo or Belgium.
He was based in Luanda? The city in Angola? Either way, you need to fix the link, as it goes to a dab page.
"He spent much of his time in exploration of the country's interior, visiting several areas where no white man had ever ventured. -- try "exploring"
"On one occasion ... eaten by cannibals." -- this is a series of run-ons.
"The slavers, who originated from the East coast of Africa, were in conflict with the Belgian authorities, who were heavily outnumbered." "Who ... who"
"On April 19, 1893, Mohun was appointed commander of the artillery attached to a Belgian expedition ..." -- Passive voice. Who appointed him?
"Mohun had risen to the position owing to the illness of the original Chief of Artillery, a Belgian Army officer." Try "Mohun rose to the position after the original chief of artillery, an officer in the Belgian army, fell ill with [disease name]."
"The expedition was struck by a smallpox epidemic in December 1893 at Bena-Kamba but Mohun survived to lay siege to the slavers' Boma at Basoko. -- there were still enough men alive to conduct a siege?! Begs for a little more information if you have it. Also, you've left it to the reader to assume that they won the siege, but did they? How long did it take? Or did they escape to Tanganyika, where they were finally driven from the country? Was the defeat total, and slavers never bothered the Free State again (you imply this)? Very confused.
"... subsequently made second-in-command ..." Who made him second-in-command?
"... successfully completed the remainder of the task." Fluffed out. "Successfully" or "completed" are redundant when used together, and "the remainder of" can just be removed.
"Mohun had remained US commercial agent throughout this time, ..." -- "Had" is unneeded, but you did need "the" or "a" before "US".
$5000 ... how much is that now? ({{inflation}}) USD or Belgian franc?
"Société Anonyme Belge pour le commerce du Haut Congo Brussels" -- translate the name into English as well?
"Mohun's stated priority in the Congo was to improve conditions for the inhabitants by bringing them within the Belgian sphere of influence." -- his own priority or his directive from the US government?
"He also claimed that the popular image of Belgian brutality in the region was a lie spread by missionaries—a statement contradicted by evidence of unnecessary cruelty by Belgian troops." -- you're correct, obviously, but what evidence? Did the US/Belgian public and government have access to that evidence at the time?
"The diary does, however, record an incident where punitive action was taken against a Chieftain by burning his village. " Was this the incident mentioned earlier in the article?

Just the first couple sections. You've got some great information in this article, so these are just suggestions on how to improve your writing to make it clearer for readers. I'd also take some time with Tony1's writing exercises. Hope these comments help! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help Ed, I have pasted your comments above into the article talk page so I can work through them when I have the time. I fear the prose has suffered and fragmented during the recent expansion of the article and I will try to work through and tighten it up in the next couple of weeks. Any further help is, of course, much appreciated. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hoax article?

Hi all, if this isn't a hoax, it should probably be AfD'd: Republic of Louisiana. Thoughts? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Times of January 9, 1861 announced an election for 23 Jan 1861 [13] with an immense majority in favour of seccession announced on the 23rd.[14] So maybe it's not entirely made up. --Bye for now (PTT) 20:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've CSD'd it. There was a succession vote but there are no reliable sources saying any such entity existed. Claiming Louisiana was a republic for two weeks is OR, at best. It's a hoax and I commented on the talk page explaining my rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair points - anyway, there's a couple of refs for the secession vote in the History of Louisiana article for you, if needed. --Bye for now (PTT) 21:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The entity called itself "State of Louisiana" and never "Republic of Louisiana" so it's a bad title. I moved the entire text to a new article Louisiana secession since this one did contain useful info. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for the quick assistance! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We now have:

There's a campaign under way here.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Spesh531 into this conversation. Given that these are all 'informal terms', why shouldn't they be redirected or deleted? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the time restrictions of Louisiana being independent for 2 weeks is not a reason, as Crimea was independent for a day (from what I understand, there was an agreement of Crimea being independent according to the standards of Wikipedia, but these sovereign states are from 1860-1, so I digress). Say I represent the government of, for example, Nevada, and for whatever reason, I, as Nevada, leave the union. Am I in limbo? How is the land that would be what was the state of Nevada, be considered? If I as Nevada were to claim to secede and be independent (and for purposes of the civil war states, there is no convention specifying on what constitutes an independent state), it simply self explanatory. Creating a separate article for Louisiana secession makes sense, as Louisiana itself was not independent alone for 5 years, it was however for about a week and a half. Now if you want to have a discussion on whether it was the "Republic of Louisiana" or "State of Louisiana", that is fine, but do not deny that Louisiana itself was politically independent from the union and the non existent CSA.—SPESH531 Other 02:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That's great theory, but do you have a single reliable source, such as a statement from a contemporary politician, a diary entry, a letter from one official to another, an entry in a print encyclopedia, a newspaper article? Otherwise, what you're doing is original research.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not researched anything from the two Louisiana pages, the only thing I have sone with the pre-CSA states and the CSA was make accurate maps for them. [http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm#Louisiana gives a source for Louisiana. If the page must be moved to "State of Louisiana", so be it. It can also be set up like the Alabama Republic page, noting that "Republic of Louisiana" is unofficial.—SPESH531 Other 03:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

28th Tennessee Infantry Regiment

I've just found the 28th Tennessee Infantry Regiment article and it needs some work but I have no experience with the U.S Civil War so I was wondering if someone could get it up to a good standard? Gavbadger (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

British Army - Combat Support Arms and Combat services naming conventions

Would be it possible for all the British Army - Combat Support Arms and Combat services have the same naming conventions such as:

4th Regiment Royal Artillery (United Kingdom)
35th Engineer Regiment Royal Engineers (United Kingdom)
1st Signal Regiment Royal Signals (United Kingdom)
1st Military Intelligence Battalion (United Kingdom)
17th Port and Maritime Regiment Royal Logistic Corps (United Kingdom)
2nd Medical Regiment Royal Army Medical Corps (United Kingdom)
1st (Close Support) Battalion REME (United Kingdom)

Other options include

4th Regiment Royal Artillery
35th Engineer Regiment Royal Engineers
35th Engineer Regiment (United Kingdom)
1st Signal Regiment (United Kingdom)
1st Military Intelligence Battalion (United Kingdom)
17th Port and Maritime Regiment Royal Logistic Corps (United Kingdom)
17th Port and Maritime Regiment (United Kingdom)
2nd Medical Regiment RAMC (United Kingdom)
2nd Medical Regiment (United Kingdom)
1st (Close Support) Battalion REME (United Kingdom)

Because at the moment the:

Royal Artillery use "th" then Royal Artillery at the end of the article name
Royal Engineers use (United Kingdom) at the end
Royal Signals use nothing
Intelligence Corps have no unit articles
Royal Logistic Corps use do not use "th" but use RLC at the end
Royal Army Medical Corps use "th"
Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers use no "th" but use REME at the end

Royal Army Dental Corps have no unit articles
Royal Army Veterinary Corps have no unit articles
Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps have no unit articles

What do you think?

Gavbadger (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Original edited again. Gavbadger (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see where you are going with this and can understand why. It's similar to the Royal Engineers topic that I was tempted to chirp in on - but decided it had too much can-of-worms potential. Some examples:

No. 653 Squadron AAC was known (and still is) as six-five-three squadron (no number) Mod version: 653 Squadron Army Air Corps

29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery was known (and probably still is) as two-nine commando (no sugeestion that 28 had existed before it)

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment was known (and still is) as three para. Here we have the first exception that proves the rule, because there actually are a first and a second battalion.

I could go on. Obviously this is just OR on my part, based on having spoken in the past with people who have either worked for or had dealings with these units. Nevertheless, I hope it gives some idea of how hard it might be to impose some sense of order on the naming conventions of the British Army. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

How often is disambiguation needed? No need to add "(United Kingdom)" after 4th Regiment Royal Artillery if there aren't any other units known as 4th Regiment in a Royal Artillery. My view would be go for the minimum disambiguation if the corps name isn't clear enough, but equally you could have 2nd Medical Regiment (United Kingdom). What price (or benefit) consistency?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the discussion is also about if at the beginning of the unit name should be just "2" or "2nd" or even "No. ". I know some of the units wouldn't need the United Kingdom disambig but since at the moment the unit names are being constantly being changed with multiple variants I thought a standard naming convention would help. Gavbadger (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion would be skip any No. at the front and any st, nd, rd or th at the end. --Bye for now (PTT) 18:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

eg, WP article: 39th Regiment Royal Artillery , MoD article: 39 Regiment Royal Artillery --Bye for now (PTT) 19:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

webpage styles change see eg the former page for the regiment at army.mod.ukWelcome to the home page of the 39th Regiment Royal Artillery and the current page for 12 Regiment Royal Artillery uses "12th Regiment Royal Artillery" in the text. I note its also still 2nd Royal Tank Regiment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one feature of British Army regiments seems to be a reluctance to be regimented --Bye for now (PTT) 21:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Helpful link - US Army manual of style

For anyone writing about the U. S. military, this link is helpful on U. S. Army CMH Style Guide. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman army Turkish diary source

Here is a source for "The Diary of Sami Yengin, 1917-18: The End of Ottoman Rule in Syria" by Zachary J. Foster. The diary was originally written in Turkish by someone who later became some kind of army clerk, so may be of interest to anyone working on the Arab Revolt, the topic of Turks in the Ottoman army, or looking for lists with more war diaries, as there is an extensive bibliography. [15]. Also here: [16]. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

British Army's Royal Engineers article names

Should all the appropriate Royal Engineers articles such as the regiments and the squadrons have "RE" after the name so they look like "21 Engineer Regiment RE"?

The Royal Logistic Corps, Army Air Corps, Royal Artillery and the Royal Air Force have their approipate initials in the titles.

Gavbadger (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought commonname takes precedence. One problem with RLC, RE etc is that country disambiguation is probably still needed, as only military types will know what the initialisation stands for. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, interesting question - always keen for a chat about the Ginger Beers. I'd suggest just using the country disambig in most cases, for instance 22nd Engineer Regiment (Australia). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If corps names are to be appended (and that is common in most cases, although I'd dispute it with engineer regiments and with all Royal Corps of Signals units), then I'd prefer them to be expanded. For example, 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps instead of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment RLC. RAF is one of the few abbreviations recognisable to most people. The others are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just chiming in to agree with the suggestion that undefined abbreviations (like RLC -- or most commonly in the articles I concentrate on, AFB) should almost never be used in titles, or in an article without being defined on their first use. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the general public. There are exceptions (I think more people have heard of the RAF than the Royal Air Force), but I don't think RLC or RE fit into the exception. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bergfried

For those interested in castles: I've just completed expanding the bergfried article, essentially by translating it from German Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible article- Rochereau

french-soldier-room-unchanged-first-world-war looks like an possible page. Also lanouvellerepublique Fr:wiki hasn't done it yet.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a heart breaking story - it really drives home the terrible cost of war. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That is probably the strongest and most poignant war memorial I've ever seen. A lost world. — Cliftonian (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Against my better judgment I clicked on this link, then spent the next hour unsuccessfully trying to force myself NOT to write something... Most of us can only begin to imagine the grief of losing a child in war (even those who have seen the consequences of that first hand and pathetically tried to help where we could) but this must surely articulate it better than any number of words ever could. Anotherclown (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Aviation category discussion

Any aviation experts available to give their two cents at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 15#Category:Great Medal of the A.C3.A9ro-Club de France winners? I think we may struggle to get some enlightened input on the importance of Aéro-Club de France and its medals. SFB 17:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please help me find the name of these medals!

See here and scroll down to the picture of the medals. Can anyone please help me out finding the names of these medals? The article says German Iron Cross...but which one? As for the Turkish medals, would anyone happen to know exactly which ones they are? I'd really really appreciate it. Please ping me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: I found out that the big Ottoman medal is an Ottoman War Medal given to those who participated in Gallipoli. As for the rest, the smaller ones I still have no clue. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a stab: The one at the lower left is a silver Liakat Medal, apparently of pre-war origin since it is missing the 1333 AH (1915 AD) medal bar. The iron cross is a WWI 2nd class, I think, since it is suspended from a ribbon (the 1st class was held by a pin I think). Someone more knowledgeable will hopefully be along shortly to fact check me and ID the other award! - Dumelow (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the one at lower right is a silver Sanayi Medal awarded for civilian merit in the arts and sciences. They were usually inscribed with the recipients name in the blank section (this is actually the reverse of the medal) - Dumelow (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966: as our resident Iron Cross guru, could you have a look at the linked pic? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much Dumelow (talk · contribs) and Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs). I found a source confirming that the Ottoman medals are as follows: Liakat (Liyakat), Iftikhar, and Ottoman War Medal. But I would like to hear the opinion of MisterBee regarding the Iron Cross. Is it 1st lieutenant? 2nd lieutenant? I think it's 2nd class. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I'm worried that this source can be wrong about Iftikhar. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Iron Cross displayed is indeed a 1914 variant of the Iron Cross 2nd Class. The year of re-institution, in this instance 1914, is stamped on the lower obverse arm of the Iron Cross. Also noteworthy is that an Iron Cross 2nd Class is always attached to a ribbon worn in the button hole of the uniform. This can also be seen on the picture above the medals. An Iron Cross 1st Class is a badge, without ribbon, pinned on the left uniform pocket. I hope this helps MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Did a bit more digging around. The article page for the Sayani medal is in fact at Iftikhar Sanayi Medal. This source claims Iftihar as a previous name for the medal. If you look at the image on that page you will see the reverse of the silver medal (and the ribbon) matches the one in your photograph with the exception that your man did not have his name engraved in the space provided. Hope that helps - Dumelow (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Romanian Revolution template

Hey everyone! I was looking at Template:2014 Ferguson unrest and thought it was pretty crazy that there wasn't one for the Romanian Revolution. I've started one at User:Yaksar/Template:Romanian Revolution but before I put it into any article space I thought it would be good to get some help in fleshing it out more to make it more logically structured. If you want to help out, feel free to do so there, or discuss it on the talk page. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Gendered pronouns

Hi all, just letting you know that John has written an op-ed for the Signpost on ships and gendered pronouns. As the Signpost's editor, I made the final call to publish it, and I'd appreciate your views on the comments page. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User: HNJhack, 380th AEW and Al Dhafra Air Base

Hi

User:HNJhack keeps removing information from the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing and Al Dhafra Air Base articles claiming the links contained "classified information" even though the information came from the Global Security website and AirForces Monthly magazine. I've reverted him twice on both articles and I'm requesting assistance to keep an eye on the individual. Gavbadger (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't be such a big secret, see HERE or HERE--Bye for now (PTT) 14:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Luton Castle

This article cites no sources. I've had a, albeit very quick, Google search and cannot find any references to a 'Luton Castle'. Did it actually exist? Can someone locate a reference? Sotakeit (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is noted as being built by 1221 near the parish church in The Story of Luton (Dyer, Stygall & Dony 1966) p63. Not much else, though there are more details and some inaccessible refs at History of Luton - Dumelow (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Kasino Point deletion request

I nominated Kasino Point for deletion more than seven days ago. It hasn't been contested so would an administrator take a look and delete, thanksKeith-264 (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, all information was successfully incorporated into the Capture of Montauban article and have deleted the page - Dumelow (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Naval Party 1745

I have just found a reference to Henry Wheeler (signalman) being in "Naval Party 1745". The only hits Google finds for that term are [17] (in German) and a mention in The Royal Navy and German Naval Disarmament, 1942-1947 by Chris Madsen (Routledge 1998; ISBN 978-0714648231). Can anyone shed any light on this unit, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Military history/Military science and technology task force articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Death percentages during the American Civil War according to Dyer Compendium

Statistics

I have compiled the death statistics by each state and territory with the percentages for each from the Dyer Compendium. It's currently my sandbox. Possible list article? Adamdaley (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Military history/Japanese military history task force articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lochnagar mine

Could anyone point me in the direction of editors who have sources on Great War memorials please? I'd like to do enough on this article to get it to c class if poss. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, at the Military memorials and cemeteries task force page there is a list of participants. One of those may be able to help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Peasant wars

Should we include Maoist insurgencies into the List of peasant revolts?Any further suggestions are appreciated.--Catlemur (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone fancy helping me out at Battle of El Herri

I am awaiting sources for a couple of other articles I am working on and in the meantime have returned to an article I first started almost four years ago. I intend to go through and revamp/update it with a mind for eventually going for A-class assessment. I would appreciate any help at all, particularly with regards to grammar. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Titles of articles about military equipment?

I came across a discussion that I participated in a few years ago, at Talk:Denel Y3 AGL#Article's name. The conversation ended inconclusively but raised a question about whether there is a preference between the manufacturer's designation of the object or the (major) user's designation. WikiProject Aircraft and WikiProject Ships, which obviously overlap quite substantially with this project, have some guidance about the issue, but for non-flying/non-floating military hardware there is nothing specific addressing this issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Use the standard guidance/policy on article names - what do the reliable sources call it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem, sources are split. The name used in news/magazine articles depends on who the reporter is quoting/citing - the manufacturer's or army's spokesperson will each use their own designation, so that's what the article will use. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear from the article as it stands what is the manufacturer name and what is the service name. I'd say if sources are split it's not that important which one is picked, worst case pick a common element from both and name the article name (grenade launcher). GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Austrian castle database template

I've just created Template:Burgen-austria which produces a standard link to a comprehensive Austrian castles online database, "Burgen-austria", that is widely used on German Wiki and by other sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The September-October backlog drive has concluded

G'day all, the September-October backlog drive has concluded, and in the process has almost got us to our B-class target of 10% of all Milhist articles (we're now only 0.8% short). Thanks to all who participated, it's been a long six weeks... I'll update this thread once I've tallied the scores. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Results

G'day, the points have been tallied, and the preliminary results are as follows:

Peacemaker67 2210 points for the Working Man's Barnstar and the Golden Wiki
AustralianRupert 2030 points for the Working Man's Barnstar and the Silver Wiki
Zawed 675 points for the WikiChevrons and the Bronze Wiki
Anotherclown 625 points for the WikiChevrons
Molestash 510 points for the WikiChevrons
Lineagegeek 485 points for Three Stripes
Dumelow 450 points for Three Stripes
Cuprum17 335 points for Three Stripes
TeriEmbrey 25 points for One Stripe
Ian Rose 25 points for One Stripe
Chris Troutman 15 points for One Stripe
Gavbadger 5 points for One Stripe

I'll leave it a day or so for any repechages, then start handing out the gongs. Thanks again everyone! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it's been a couple of days, I'll crack on with the awards tomorrow my time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

All awards distributed except mine. If someone could do the honours? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Done -- congrats PM, AR, and all the other entrants for their great efforts! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee

I'm thinking of trying to pull this up to GA. Can anyone recommend some similar articles that are FAs that I can use to make sure all relevant information is there? Also, any definitive sources that I should make sure to consult? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War generals already at FA include George B. McClellan, William Tecumseh Sherman and Winfield Scott Hancock of the Union and Thomas C. Hindman, Simon Bolivar Buckner and Lawrence Sullivan Ross of the Confederacy. Other high-ranking Southerners already at FA include the President Jefferson Davis and the Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin. The best FA I recall at this moment about an American general is George S. Patton—from a different time period I know but a look might be useful as a reference for structure, etc. I hope this helps. Good luck, cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee / Battle of Appomattox Court House

I have four or so possible images I can probably get to featured picture for the anniversary of this, but I'd like to talk it over a bit.

First of all, the illustration options. None are fantastic, though: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.02091/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.21320/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.01895/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.03035/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.05039/

Of them, the Waud image ( [18]) at least has the advantage of being drawn by someone actually there.

Secondly, we have some photographs of the Court House itself, that might be decent. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.03908/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.35136/ seem like the best images for this purpose, as they show soldiers at the court house clearly. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.35159/ is a third possibility, showing what I believe are the surrendered rifles.

Thirdly, there's two stand out-images for Lee: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3g07982/ and http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.04402/ I think the first is a far better photo, but the second is in uniform, and more contemporaneous, so I'll probably do both.

I've given up on Grant, as the largely finished image restoration I did for him File:Brady-Handy_-_Ulysses_S._Grant.jpg would not stick in the article. The current lead for Ulysses S. Grant is a particularly damaged photograph, and its only advantage appears to be that it's zoomed in a bit, because the pose and expression are probably the worst out of the Grant images. If zoomed-in is more important than good, I'm not interested. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Lee was basically the face of the Confederate Army by the end of the war and is today the first person many think of when they think of the Confederacy. In my opinion it is preferable for the lead image to reflect this and show him in a Confederate uniform. — Cliftonian (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Arab Winter

There is a lot of discussion going on... sort of. If interested, feel free to insert your comments there. --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Church as whetstone

I've come across three instances in the English Midlands where Parliamentary soldiers in the English Civil War were believed to have sharpened their weapons on the stonework of churches, including internally. Does anyone have an RS for this being either a general practice or one specifically associated with this war or armed force? I've also seen hints that parishioners may have sharpened their knives in the same way, so probably not as unacceptable as we would think. Medieval graffiti on church columns was also frequent and often of a votive nature Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you'd also find many churches where Cromwell stabled his horses too. Unless you have clear contemporary evidence that troops were quartered in the church I'd be cautious about attributing the sharpening marks to anything but locals.Monstrelet (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have an RS source that the marks in the church concerned, St Helen's, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, were from pikes, and the neighbouring castle was a major Civil War site. It's local belief that the church was occupied by parliamentary forces, haven't yet found an RS for that though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Utility of Force

Hi folks, I'm a little out of my comfort zone writing about a book. If anyone fancied casting an eye on it and offering some informal feedback, I'd be very grateful. Likewise if anybody can suggest other places to look for sources/reviews. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ulysses S. Grant needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Ulysses S. Grant; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Table format question

British casualties
(19 December 1915
– June 1916){{sfn|Edmonds|1932|p=243}}
Month	Total
December	5,675
January	9,974
February	12,182
March	17,814
April	19,886
May	22,418
June	37,121
Grand total	125,141

I knocked this up by copying a table and substituting the data but wonder if it's possible to right-justify the numbers? I'd be grateful for some Wikimojo, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just the numbers? You can do it by preceding each number with: align="right"|. I don't know if there's an easier way to do the whole column - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

EythenkewKeith-264 (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikitable style is to use ''+ table title'' to put the table name above the first row.

British casualties
(19 December 1915 – June 1916)
Month	Total
December	5,675
June	37,121
Total	125,141

Right thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Like this?Keith-264 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Military history/World War II task force articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sausage Valley deletion suggestion

Sausage Valley the material here has been incorporated into Capture of La Boisselle, would anyone object to me taking steps to delete the page as redundant?Keith-264 (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Just change it to a redirect. Gavbadger (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I do that?Keith-264 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I did it. Syntax/change here: [19]--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(E/C) Edit Sausage Valley to empty it, add #REDIRECT [[Capture of La Boisselle]] at top, then save, done. Include an edit summary saying that Sausage Valley was merged to Capture of La Boisselle. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very muchKeith-264 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this is basically a merger, I'd suggest adding;

On the Sausage Valley page, add {{Old merge full|otherpage=Capture of La Boisselle|date=Date 2014|result= |talk=Capture of La Boisselle}}

On the Sausage Valley talk page, add {{merged to|Capture of La Boisselle|Date 2014}}

DoneKeith-264 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

On the Capture of La Boisselle, add {{merged from|Sausage Valley|Date 2014}} I believe the last two are required by the copyright assignment --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Agincourt - 600th anniversary next year

Just thought I'd mention, as today is St Crispin's Day and the 599th anniversary of the English victory at Agincourt in 1415, that next year today (25 October 2015) will be the 600th anniversary. Seems to me this would be a good thing to mark. — Cliftonian (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And next year will be the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta; and, the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: Re: Agincourt - I've done a little tidying, but don't have the knowledge or sources to do too much more. Perhaps putting it up for peer review might be a way to spark some interest? It might also be something that could go in The Bugle in the help wanted section? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you've put in AR. While there are a small number of regular editors on this article, nobody has yet found the time to work through and put in the references, so your expert eye on where exactly they are needed is useful. Most of the citations could be added from current works in the reference list (it has a pretty full and up-to-date reflist) - it just needs someone to sit down with the books and detail the relevant pages. Thanks again Monstrelet (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've now left a note on the article talk page encouraging regular editors to do some work on the citations Monstrelet (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

A busy year for centenaries! Lots of WWI battles. -- PBS (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE! I need information for what happened events everyday during the War of the first Coalition

I am making an article Timeline of the Napoleonic era. I'm currently adding some timeline and events that were everyday during the War of the First Coalition, can anyone try and add more information to what happened during the War of the First Coalition like what events and battles took place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowNinja1080 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Try reading War of the First Coalition. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@ShadowNinja1080 please engage in a conversation on talk:Timeline of the Napoleonic era, because while your efforts are appreciated they have to follow polices and guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with the co-ordinates line within infoboxes

Good Afternoon,

There is currently an issue with the co-ordinates line within the Infoboxes, Infobox Military installation (Blandford Camp) and Infobox Airport (RAF Middleton St George) are currently affected but neither have been edited recently so I don't know what is causing the problem. Any ideas? Gavbadger (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the subject of a long thread and now site notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 131#Coordinates display appears to be broken. Nthep (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

chopping out the coord line on the airport template seems to fix it - the template already has the info, (edit: see HERE) - but with the military installation infobox, it seems not --Bye for now (PTT) 19:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference for Soviet Naval Aviation

This article in the NWC Review by a Soviet naval officer is a useful reference for equipment & tactics of Soviet/Russian Naval Aviation - concentrates on the Backfire (although it could carry 3 missiles in training, the warload was generally 1 missile because of the effect on handling) but covers everything from emergency escape routes on bombers to targeting equipment. Well worth a read if you're interested in naval warfare, although the first couple of pages on kamikazes are nothing new.82.26.92.97 (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Should military conflict infoboxes, etc be used for mythical or semi-mythical conflicts?

This came up at Kurukshetra War, a war described in the Mahābhārata. This may have been based on real occurrences but that doesn't make the details accurate. An editor reverted the infobox for that reason, it was restored and I reverted it again. It gives details such as how many days, a range of possible centuries, who won what and who became king, etc, and strength details broken down into chariots, elephants, horses and their riders and infantry. It also give casualties, ie "Almost total (1,530,900 soldiers),
only 8 known survivors - the five Pandavas, Krishna, Satyaki, Yuyutsu." and "Almost total (2,405,700 soldiers),
only 4 known survivors - Ashwatthama, Sage Kripa, Kritavarma, Vrishakethu (son of Karna)." The article describes it as a mythological war, and of course Krishna, one of the survivors and leaders of one side is a Hindu god - I won't bore you with the stories of the others.

The editor who replaced it points to the use of the infobox at Battle of Banquan and Battle of Siddim. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Similar issues have come up a few times - at one stage we had articles on the battles in George Orwell's novel Animal Farm complete with infoboxes, and the Emu War used to have an infobox presenting it as a conflict between Australia and emus (and rapidly would again if the article is ever unprotected, I fear). From memory, consensus in these discussions has been that the conflict infobox should be reserved for battles/wars which actually took place. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

On Doug's last point - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no justification. 82.26.92.97 (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Refer to policy, not essay or advice. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We do take common practice into account when discussing some issues. BusterD (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti - the point is that per the WP:OTE nutshell "Other stuff sometimes exist according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them" 82.26.92.97 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked through the history of Emu War hoping to see a proper conflict infobox fully filled out, but was disappointed. After all, we have everything we need. Sir George Pearce and Major G.P.W. Meredith as commanders on the Australian side, Emu commanders "unknown but probably included numerous dominant females". The units involved on the Australian side should be "7th Heavy Battery, Royal Australian Artillery (elements)". On the Emu side "Emus of Western Australia". We have evidence for a strength of 3 on the Australian side, and "up to 20,000" on the Emu side. Casualties are attested as zero on the Australian side, and 50 to 500 (depending on source followed) on the Emu side. That's for the first campaign, though; later Emu casualty figures are based solely on estimates from the opposing side, so should be viewed with caution. No-one could argue with the article history's verdict of "Emu victory". The only thing lacking is appropriate flag icons to add alongside the various participant names, commanders, strengths etc.

Maybe there should be a Wikia wiki for this sort of thing, the Orwell battles included? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also add "Ornithologist sympathisers" under "supported by" on the Emu side, which would allow us to add Dominic Serventy as an Emu commander. On the Commonwealth side, we could perhaps add the reigning monarch as supreme commander, as is customary in many conflict/war infoboxes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not adamant about adding or removing the military infobox from this particular article, many of the readers won't find them to be accurate as they contradict other records. I don't think that we can attribute so well in the infobox. According to Nick-D, we should be only using military infobox for those wars that have been 100% confirmed? I would agree and we can remove military infobox from these pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I pulled an infobox from a battle description of a book by a political author, because I didn't think there would be much controversy. But I'm coming across a few which may end as tests of page consensus: First Battle of Beruna, Second Battle of Beruna, Battles in the Narnia Chronicles, Robotech Wars, Galactic Civil War, Clone Wars (Star Wars), Cylon War, War of the Ring, Battle of Wolf 359, Dominion War, Great War (Harry Turtledove), How Few Remain and don't forget Battle of Armageddon (Left Behind). These are mostly well-watched pages and I suspect pagewatchers would squawk if I summarily deleted the infoboxes. BusterD (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for digging up those examples Buster - they certainly indicate that the examples I was previously familiar with aren't the only side of this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

While I have no dog in this fight, IMHO if the infobox for a mythical battle "improve[s] the appearance of an article on Wikipedia", it should be retained. If not, it should be deleted. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not add a switch to indicate the battle is real, mythical, legendary, fictional, or a political/personal confabulation? That would solve all problems, since infoboxes are used to better articles. I don't think we would want fictional topic versions of infoboxes floating around duplicating the functionality of those used for real topics just for the heck of it. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

World War II request for comment -- give your opinion!

An RfC on the World War II infobox has been opened. Please give a few minutes of your time to examine the options and give your opinion. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Modern Italy: verification help

Can anyone help verify the following information that has been inserted (by me) into the Italian invasion of France? It is based off some material I wrote a few years ago for another article. I was double checking the sources used and noticed that the below material is not cited on page 170 as stated in the article. I am inclined to think that this might be a typo and the information may be on page 270. However, I cannot access that page on Google Books. If anyone has access to the below source, could you please confirm if the following statements are sourced by the book?

Statement 1: 'During the late 1920s, imperial expansion became an increasingly favoured theme in Benito Mussolini's speeches. He argued that Italy needed an outlet for its "surplus population", and it would therefore be in the best interests of other countries to aid in this expansion.'

Statement 2: "Among Mussolini's (non-publicly proclaimed) aims were that Italy had to become the dominant power in the Mediterranean that would be able to challenge Britain and France, as well as attain access to the Atlantic and Indian Oceans."

Smith, Denis Mack (1997). Modern Italy: A Political History. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-047210-895-4.

Thanks for any help EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian Monro

I am concerned that the article Ian Monro does not satisfy the criteria at WP:MILPEOPLE. The subject did not command a ship in combat, nor seemingly meet any other criterion. I would appreciate some advice here rather than proceeding to AfD. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing provided in the article at present is not sufficient to meet WP:BIO. I'd be guessing that the commanding officers of NZ's few warships have always had a much higher profile than equivalent officers in other countries, but am not sure whether this would generate sufficient news coverage (though if Australia is anything to go by, the media covered the military in much greater detail in the 1950s and 60s than is the case now, so you never know). Paora (talk · contribs) who created the article has been around since 2006 though, so it would be worth discussing this with them if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Publicity drive

There appears to be a new user dedicated to publicizing Don Mackay, "historian, farmer, writer and editor" and ex-notable resident of Invercargill - see HERE,. Could someone in authority please have a word before everything ANZAC/Gallipoli/WW1 is infested? Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 09:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Had a quick look and left a welcome message on their talk page. A very "particular" interest in promoting one source seems strange for a generalist editor, but maybe they just picked up this book. On the other hand, seems a bit obsessed with it. One to watch. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Waterloo Campaign Bicentennial

aka Hundred Days. Is anyone interested in working on it? Editing, redoing maps, finding/editing images, etc? Waterloo campaign bicentennial in the incubator has a start to gathering articles that will need work. auntieruth (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am working on it. I have moved the Waterloo Campaign out of the Hundred Days, so that the Hundred Days can be cleaned up. I have recently worked on two sources on Wikisource: about the campaigns in 1815:

s:Supplement to The London Gazette of Tuesday 11 of July (supplement to Minor Campaigns of 1815)
s:The London Gazette Extraordinary, June 5, 1815. (Number 17019) (supplement to Neapolitan War)
s:Portal:Waterloo Campaign
s:Portal:Hundred Days

Commons:

File:Part of Belgium engraved by J. Kirkwood.jpg
File:Invasion of France in 1815.jpg
File:A map of the Eastern boundary of France to illustrate Article III in The First Peace of Paris 30th May 1814.jpg
File:Crofts Ernest The Battle Of Ligny.jpg (renamed as it was previously misidentified as a painting of Waterloo)

I am also using PD sources to created new articles:

Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities (15 June)
I have in my sandboxes several half completed articles.
- Minor Campaigns: addition for the actions/battles around Strasbourg
- Waterloo Campaign: Peace negotiations (all but completed)
- Waterloo Campaign: 17 June (day between Quatre Bras and Waterloo)
- Waterloo Campaign: 19 June until the surrender in Paris on 4 July (which has already led to the expansion of Battle of Rocquencourt and Battle of Issy, but will need splitting into several articles.

Along with these main articles there are scores of minor articles to cover biographies (see history of Order of battle of the Waterloo Campaign) and place names for the bivouacs,skirmishes and actions.

I hope this information is of use to you and I would be interested to know what it is auntieruth that you have in mind? -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. There is also a incubator page here campaign bicentennial that should help us keep this all together. I've started a list there as well. auntieruth (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest

Is there any chance we could have some sort of regular contest with images? I could really use some means of pacing myself, and making sure I keep up regular amounts of work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Category usage}

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippines Campaign (1941–42)#The Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army issue. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do two images look so different?

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.07595/ - photo of Daniel Weisiger Adams

File:Daniel_W._Adams.jpg - Our photo of him.

Have we accidentally grabbed a filler image from a site? Is there a second Daniel W. Adams? I'm inclined to trust the LoC image more, if noone objects. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree on using LoC image.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The LoC image appears to be his brother William Wirt Adams! MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is the other way around. The LoC is correct and we have the wrong image at the WW Adams page. The source for the image used there appears to be this site where he is named as DW Adams - Dumelow (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/strong_strph35003/ Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Most confusing! The same images are used for both men all over the place... - Dumelow (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a confederate general poster on the LoC. If it has one of them.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I found a fellow who looks like this: File:WWAdams.jpg on several pages as Wirt Adams: http://www.kemper.msgen.info/military/civil_war/1st_ms_cavalry_co_e.htm http://yesteryearsnews.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/the-double-death-which-disgraced-mississippi/ - can we buy that that's a different person than the LoC image, remembering that facial hair could change rapidly in the Victorian era? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I note our article on Daniel states he lost his right eye at Shiloh (6/7 April 1862) and wasn't promoted to brig-gen until 23 May 1862. So the man shown in the LoC image (who has both his right eye apparently unharmed and general's insignia) cannot be Daniel, unless the image has been flipped or our article is wrong - Dumelow (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Check the buttons. I'm pretty sure the buttons are always on the same side, just I always forget which. It's a far better image than we have for either one of them, if we can use it. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Old maps and views of battles and other military history

As you might have seen in the Signpost this week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps (and ground plans), with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. As I'm writing, over 6100 new maps have been identified, with 32.6% of the target books looked at -- but see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.

There are quite a lot of images and especially maps in the BL image release that may be of interest to the military history project -- for example, our poster image for the map tagging campaign (right) is a map of a battle. (A battle that we don't in fact yet have an article for ...)

The list of index pages to do is mostly organised geographically, but some of these geographical index pages include history sections, which may also include sub-sections on particular wars -- for example, the following pages would all appear to have relevant sections

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index, USA

(esp. "History" section and sub-sections)

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index, UK and Ireland

(esp. "History by period" and "Military history" sections)

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/France

(esp. later sub-sections of the "History" section)

There are also spillover index pages for entries that haven't yet been so hand-indexed, for example

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/to do/United States history

All of these pages still have lots of pink templated links -- ie Flickr book pages still to be looked at, that may still contain maps and ground plans not yet tagged as 'map' on Flickr (with many other parts the world still to be looked through as well).

Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps and ground plans for tagging, which is what it would be particularly good to achieve this week so that the BL's volunteers can start a new round of getting them georeferenced, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or uploading for different articles.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Quintinshill rail disaster

The Quintinshill rail disaster, which occurred on 22 May 1915, involved major loss of life to troops in wartime (over 200 soldiers from the 1/7th (Leith) Battalion, the Royal Scots, were killed). Although it was not caused by enemy action, does it fall within MILHIST? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so. Do you know if the men killed in the accident were regarded as having died on operational service (or equivalent) and/or were listed in war memorials or the like? This project has generally taken a broad ranging approach to the articles which are in-scope, and I think that the fact that almost all the victims were soldiers heading to a war zone brings it within scope. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly a memorial; see File:Memorial to victims of the Gretna Rail Disaster in Rosebank Cemetery, Edinburgh.jpg and Rosebank Cemetery. I don't know if they were regarded as having died on operational service or not, but I suspect that they would have been, since they were not on leave but travelling to Liverpool in order to embark for Gallipoli.

I've added {{WikiProject Military history}} but left |class= blank: other WikiProjects have rated it B-class but they don't use the B-class checklist params. Can we get it to FA-class in time to be WP:TFA on 22 May 2015, that being the 100th anniversary of the accident? I've started a discussion at Talk:Quintinshill rail disaster#Centenary TfA? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

CWGC records 219 deaths for the Royal Scots on 22/5/15, mostly buried in Rosebank; grave registration documents list "Gretna rail disaster". (Presumably one or two more died overseas on the same day, hence 219). So they were certainly considered war deaths in service. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirect request

I did a new campaignbox but need to modify the redirects so they don't point to Second Battle of Ypres. Wikipedia:Redirect is unhelpful so could someone give me an idea of how to modify the redirect pages to create redlinks in the campaignbox please.Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you are looking for here, Keith. The redirects point to the appropriate part of the article on 2nd Ypres. Are you looking to add ne articles on, for example, Battle of St. Julien? Hamish59 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I need to move the redirects away from the 2nd Ypres page (or delete them or something) so there is a redlink to a vacant page for each battle. Keith-264 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you click on the link then scroll to the top of the article you will see something like "(Redirected from Battle of Gravenstafel)" that will take you to the redirect page. Simply edit that page to replace it with content (removing the #REDIRECT [[Second Battle of Ypres#Battle of Gravenstafel]] redirect code). I would leave the redirect in place until you are ready to actually add content otherwise you are cutting off the reader from a source of information unnecessarily. You can also navigate to a redirect directly by the url, just append &redirect=no to the end of your url (eg [20])- Dumelow (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I bow to the power of your Wikimojo.Keith-264 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added a note to the box.Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Review of a three month move moratorium for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Since a three months requested move moratorium came into effect on the page Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a few editors have complained that there is no consensus for the moratorium, so I have initiated an RfC to see if there is a consensus to end the moratorium with the closing of the RfC. See:

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves.

-- PBS (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for consideration

Can someone with the relevant patience/expertise please adjudicate on the dispute currently going on at Algiers expedition (1541)? There's some real edit warring going on... —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is concerning, also at Sand War. A pattern of edit warring from a "new" editor. I have reverted and left a note on their talk page. That said I'm going to be offline for the next 24 hrs so hopefully a few other editors can watch these articles as well. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Socks, Cigarettes and Shipwrecks

Has anyone here read this selection of letters from World War I? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Distinguished Conduct Medal

Hi,

I have just been looking up information about the D.C.M. My grandfather was awarded it in WW1. I noticed you had a list of recipients, but my grandfather was not listed. His medals are actually for sale for a lot of money, but I have information to back up that he was awarded it.

Should he be listed on your list? or have I totally got the wrong end of the stick?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Louise 90.196.25.71 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Short answer, all due respect to your grandfather, but I don't think so.

Long answer, what (I think... if I'm wrong, please point me in the right direction) you are looking at is Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Conduct Medal. For the spectators, what we are talking about is the Distinguished Conduct Medal, a second-level bravery award for British and Commonwealth enlisted personnel. The category system on Wikipedia is an organisational method used to hierarchically collate articles with a common feature (in this case, being about people awarded the DCM).

All of the people listed in that category are the subjects of articles because they are 'notable' (which is Wikipedia shorthand for being the subject of multiple, reliable, published sources). This is almost always for something unrelated to the DCM (receiving the Victoria Cross, being a flying ace, being the first British soldier to fire in World War I, etc) and sometimes not connected to their military service at all (like being a politician and author, a bishop, or a international level sportsperson as examples). Receiving the DCM alone is not sufficient 'notability' for an article, and while your grandfather would have to have done something pretty amazing to receive it, over 25,000 were awarded during World War I alone (compare the Victoria Cross, of which just over 1,300 have been awarded total). -- saberwyn 08:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

However... if he was awarded it twice (DCM and Bar), that could well be a different story if there were reliable third-party sources that had significant coverage of him. The DCM and Bar was awarded to only 28 Australians in WWI. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming event at the WWI Museum in Kansas City

Hello all! I would like to invite you all to a Wikipedia editathon about WWI and Dissent on November 22 at the National World War I Museum in Kansas City. Join us for the U.S. branch of this international event as we write more social history from the era around WWI into Wikipedia! All editors are welcome, contributors to topics around WWI other than Dissent also encouraged! Food and drinks will be supplied by the WWI museum, Sadads (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Great choice of topic: Wikipedia's coverage of protest movements and the like during World War I is rather under-developed, and there's a huge number of references on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support @Nick-D:! I think its a great topic too! I kindof hopped on the project because its international and I have a connection with the WWI museum. We hope to do more topics, and I hope to cultivate a WP:GLAM-Wiki relationship with them. Also, it would be great if non-attending editors used some of the resources as well that would be awesome! Sadads (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Free source access available

The Wikipedia Library has a number of free accounts available for various sources and source databases. Any editor with over 1000 edits and one year of wiki-experience can apply. Of particular interest to MilHist editors is Fold3, a new partner offering resources related to American military history - they have 100 one-year free accounts available. Apply at WP:Fold3~ Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to apply but I don't have enough time in yet. So I was wondering if it might be possible to have a list of MilHist editors with accounts that people could request a search from? --Bye for now (PTT) 22:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we could talk about setting up such a list. Alternatively, you could request things through the Resource Exchange. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sign up for Fold3 American military history database

Hi folks!

Just wanted to make sure you were aware of a neat Wikipedia Library donation we recently received from Fold3

Fold3 is a database of documents, images, and other material covering American military history, owned by the genological database Ancestry.com. Fold3 has significant collections covering African-American history, Native American history, the American Revolutionary War, the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the US Bureau of Investigation, Project Blue Book and other aspects of American's history and military organizations and conflicts. 100 accounts for a year's worth of access are available for Wikipedia editors.

Please sign up!

Best, Jake Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg

The Siege of Godesberg will be TFA on 18 November. It's been a while since I've written it, but I've still got it firmly in head. Would someone else take a look at it and make sure it's not got stupid stuff in it? auntieruth (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Still looks great. Only item I noticed was a missing "." in an external link. --Molestash (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The article does not have an External links section now. Do you mean at the end of a cite/source? I think I fixed that yesterday. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, folks! :) auntieruth (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Yura2404

Can someone please look at edits by Yura2404? Over the past year he has almost exclusively edited articles about Russian/Soviet Union wars and all edits proceed in one direction. I believe his edits are not NPOV. I have tried to have a discussion with him but am not making any progress. I think his edits end up making articles look absurd. For example, prior to Yura2404's edits, the casualties for the Brusilov Offensive were 3X for Austria, but after his edits it is now 2X for Russia. That is there has been a change by a factor of 6. It is hard to believe the Russians suffered twice as many casualties given that the introduction to the article say "Brusilov Offensive of 1916 the worst crisis of World War I for Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente's greatest victory". Similarly after Yura2404's edits to the Battle of Smolensk we now have Soviet casualties to be 6X German casualties even though the introduction says "Red Army was able to stage several breakthroughs, liberating several major cities including Smolensk and Roslavl."

Such absurd casualty figures make Wiki look bad and I would appreciate if someone took another look at his edits. The link to a discussion I had with him is [[21]]

Thanks,

JS (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Unit naming conventions: ordinal number abbreviations

Are there different naming conventions used for U.S. military ground and air units? For example, 3rd Infantry Division (United States) abbreviates "third" as "3rd" yet 3d Wing just uses just "d". The same is true for 2d Bombardment Wing (World War II) and 2nd Infantry Division (United States). Unit names using first, fourth, fifth, etc., on the other hand, are abbreviated the same way for both. Is this a Wikipedia (or Wikiproject) naming convention or is it a U.S. military naming convention? Also, does it apply across the board or vary from country to country? For example, 3rd Fighter Division (Germany) and 2nd Fighter Corps (Germany) respectively use "rd" and "nd" instead of just "d". I couldn't find anything about this at MOS:ORDINAL or WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. I'm not saying anything is being done incorrectly; I'm just a little curious. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

a perennial issue. So far as I know, only US units are rendered as Xd, and that is very inconsistent. It really depends on the WP:COMMONNAME of the unit or formation in reliable sources. Even the Xd ones have sources that use Xnd. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

For the most part article titles for US Army and Marine Corps units use 2nd/3rd and Air Force article titles use 2d/3d. A mix of 2nd/3rd and 2d/3d is used in article bodies. Non-US unit articles tend to use 2nd/3rd. There was a recent discussion at Talk:132nd Fighter Wing on articles in Category:Fighter wings of the United States Air Force and the consensus was for 2nd/3rd. A broad move request for all USAF articles was suggested but hasn't yet been proposed. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the added clarification Peacemaker67 and Kkmurray. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Philippine Commonwealth Army - copy edit required

Hello all. Without wanting to sound too discouraging this article is in poor shape. One or more of its primary contributors seems to have English as a second language and it is almost impossible to understand in many places. Several editors are trying to improve it but any help would be gratefully accepted. Anotherclown (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Lots of content, very little inline citations. This goes with many articles about Philippine and American military history in the Philippines of this era.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 Milhist article writing contest results

G'day everyone! It is a glorious spring morning here in southern Australia. The October contest is done and dusted, and I have finally remembered to post the results. Here they are: Parsecboy smashed it yet again with an prodigious 155 points from 16 articles for the WikiChevrons, and auntieruth was runner-up with 42 points from five articles for the Writer's Barnstar. Other entries in the contest were "yours truly" with 37 from six articles, Ian Rose with 25 points from three entries, Lineagegeek and Zawed were in a photo finish on 20 points from five and four articles respectively, Djmaschek with 17 points from three articles, and TParis with a very creditable 15 points from just one article. Well done to all who participated, October saw contest participants bring four articles to A-class, 19 articles to GA, and 19 articles to B-class. Get your entries in now for the November contest, it's already picking up momentum... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

Picture of the Day for November 30:

Picture of the day

The Battle of Franklin was fought on November 30, 1864, at Franklin, Tennessee, as part of the Franklin–Nashville Campaign of the American Civil War. It was one of the worst disasters of the war for the Confederate States Army. Confederate Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood's Army of Tennessee conducted numerous frontal assaults against fortified positions occupied by the Union forces under Maj. Gen. John Schofield, but was unable to break through or to prevent Schofield from a planned, orderly withdrawal to Nashville.

The Confederate forces lost 1,750 men, with another 3,800 wounded; the Union forces, meanwhile, lost 189 with another 1,033 wounded. Although many Union soldiers were captured, they were recovered when Union forces reentered Franklin on December 18. The Army of Tennessee had been routed at the Battle of Nashville several days earlier.Lithograph: Kurz and Allison; restoration: Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Scorpion project

http://www.c4isrnet.com/article/M5/20141025/DEFREG01/310250026/Firms-Sign-Contracts-Kick-Off-French-Vehicle-Replacements

I can't seem to find where this is listed, given the hundreds of other military projects called Scorpion. We do however have a French page.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engin_blind%C3%A9_de_reconnaissance_et_de_combat

Hcobb (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Guidance on sourcing and call for mentorship

I'm doing a class on Wikipedia this semester in a local high school, and several students are interested in military history topics. If anyone would be interested in working with them, please let me know. Otherwise, I looked through the project docs and I'm not finding any sort of introduction to sourcing—do you have something like that? I picked brains at my institution's Reference today and got a few recommendations, but they didn't take me so far... One student is interested in working on HMS Janus (1778) or vessels of the period (I believe he got that one from one of your redlink lists), but it might be too hard for right now, what with the multiple ships with similar names and the Janus's own renaming, skimpy sourcing, and the UW–Madison libraries' lack of holdings on the topic. (It could also be fun—I have experience and I'm willing to help.) If we keep going with it, I'm going to recommend the structure of its neighboring GAs. So to sum up the questions: looking for mentors for high school students, looking for a guide/intro to military history sourcing, looking for source recommendations for the HMS Janus (1778) or for potential topics (project priorities?) with more abundant sourcing. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help where I can. Could you give us some general stats for what the make-up is at the moment? Are we talking European military history around the 17-18 hundreds, or is there a broader circumference for the subject material? As for Janus, all the articles here were redlinks at one point or another, and all they need is a little TLC from anyone willing to contribute, so even if it doesn't bare much fruit I'd welcome the new article as a someday FA subject. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The class is a mixed seminar of about a dozen with three interested in military history. The one I'm setting up right now is interested in British naval history and chose the Janus. Do you have recommendations for sources, since it'll take a little while to interlibrary loan them? Everything I found was more or less one-sentence mentions, which is workable, but I was hoping there would be more in a reference text of which I'm unaware. And if there's another ship (contemporary to the Janus or otherwise) that may have more sourcing available and be easier as a newcomer's first article, we're open to suggestions. czar ♔ 15:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as sources go, Rif Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714–1792 is probably the best place to start. There are two editions in Worldcat and both look to be fairly prevalent - this edition has a copy at Marquette University - don't know if Wisconsin has a library sharing program but that will probably be the easiest to get. Parsecboy (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Any other recs? Already have that one and its sequel en route czar ♔ 16:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You might try looking in the republished volumes of the Naval Chronicle for any any mentions of Janus. It was a Napoleonic-era newspaper that republished captain's reports and other official documents of the time. If the ship participated in any major battles then she might be mentioned in good histories of those battles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You could try this site (http://threedecks.org/), which is often used by people in my field of work as a first stop guide. There's a page for Janus, most of which is sourced to Winfield (http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=7592). Comparisons between the site and Winfield (and other sources kicking around on the office shelves) for other vessels suggest the data is reliably sourced. Whilst I can't comment on the quality of the comments section, I have no reason to doubt the transcript of the Edinburgh Advertiser. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Access to The Times archive should give some of the history of the ship between 1785-1800. Mjroots (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS/R has links to online sources that may be of use in researching articles. Would suggest The London Gazette and possibly Hansard could prove useful. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Czar, in case you've not seen my responses. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. By way of update, Winfield has a good paragraph that we're going to use. I have a few brief mentions from reference works. A few questions:

Is Three Decks a vetted source, or just used as a means to its listed secondary sources?
SHIPS/R was useful—thanks! Are there any primers (in the MILHIST Academy or otherwise) for military history article work? Say, something that explains the go-to sources, naming policy vis-à-vis the topic area, and so on? It's for me, as a novice in this area, as well as for my other students, who are interested in non-ship military history and know a bit as hobbyists but likely haven't used or done research with basic military history reference works
The Janus appears to be better known renamed as the Dromedary, which would be reason to rename the article, but Three Decks lists it as Janus (don't know why) and I'm not sure what sources would weigh the heaviest in considering a rename
Does the ship renamed Dromedary have any necessary relation to previous ships with the same name? What are the terms for claiming another name like that?
Special notability criteria for ships? Are all fifth rate frigates automatically notable?

I should have database access to the papers recommended above, so we'll give that a whirl as well. Appreciate the feedback, will keep y'all apprised czar ♔ 07:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots, Ranger Steve, Sturmvogel 66, Parsecboy, and TomStar81, ping czar ♔ 00:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much every commissioned warship over 100 tons is notable, although the lines are awfully blurry at the bottom end. Generally we use the most common name for a ship as given in the sources. Colledge (Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy) gives the history of the ship under Janus which seems reasonable given that duty as a warship is rather more important than her time as a storeship. There's no real rhyme or reason for the RN's names as it seems to vary over time. Sometimes there's some logic, like naming a storeship for a beast of burden, other times not so much. Captured ships often had their names perpetuated in later ships to commemorate the capture.

I started off writing articles by copying the format and (sometimes) the style used by Good or Featured articles on the topics that I wanted to write about. I don't do much with sailing ships, but user:Benea has done a bunch of FA-quality sailing warship articles and might be able to point you in a few useful directions. You can find links to the quality MilHist content on the Project's front page that ought to provide examples for most topics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

For ship notability, if the ship has any service under its belt then it has established notability, since we decided that fact in the afd for USS Illinois (BB-65). As for ships that are renamed, usually we anchor the ship where it was best known, and in some navies of the world a ship does have connection to a vessel that carried its name previously. I'm off a 10 hour road trip, so I'll have another look at this when I've had some sleep. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about which name the article is housed under. She spent 10 years as Janus and 12 as Dromedary, but on the other hand, her front-line service was under the former name. Six of one and half a dozen of the other really. Redirects are in place so that the ship can be found. Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

E/1/32 Infantry

This recently create article E. Company 1st Battalion 32nd Infantry Regiment seems to lack individual notability and be below the unit level that articles are normally created about. Should it be upmerged, if there is enough material to 32nd Infantry Regiment (United States)? Nthep (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This article, despite its title, doesn't seem to be about an element of the 32nd Infantry at all, but about a support unit titled E/710th Brigade Support Battalion that was replaced by J/10th Brigade Support Battalion. The article states it supports forward deployed elements of the 32nd, but I don't see it as an organic company -- or did I miss something? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you missed anything. Based on the order awarding the Valorous Unit Award, I think E Company of the 710th was assigned (or attached) to the 1/32d during an operation and that the unit got mis-identified as E/32d in the writer's understanding. (See the current note 3 in the article). Flag for deletion?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, (barring a Band of Brothers situation, or a sub-unit receiving a Presidential Unit Citation, like D/6 RAR), companies are usually going to be non-notable. Brigade Support Battalion's too, I'd expect (don't want to be too hard on the pogos, but that's just the reality). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MILUNIT, or WP:GNG, perhaps merge to its parent organization per WP:BRANCH.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

But there is no article for the 710th Brigade Support Battalion --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The next higher echelon unit, which the subject in question falls under is 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States). This would make an appropriate redirect target.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Military biography task force assessment statistics

When does the BOT, update the above assessments table? There has been a lot of changes done to the statistics of that table. Was wondering if and when the statistics will be updated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday Adam. Apparently the bot is broken, but the stats can be updated manually here [22]. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Please comment on Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan Uhlan ^talk 06:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

City timelines

I'm a bit baffled by these (see Category:City_timelines). At first, they appear to be "history" and many of these cities will have had military involvement (eg: Timeline of Baghdad). Yet there seems to be no requirement to consider them as within the scope of MILHIST. Unlike most lists, there are no real rules about what can or cannot be on them. So - for example - in the one I have had some involvement with (Timeline of Granada), Cafe Futbol being in business in 1910 (according to lonelyplanet) has to be in there as well as the openings of movie theatres. Little wonder there isn't room for the Spanish civil war. What's going on with these timelines?? --Bye for now (PTT) 15:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this subject should be opened up to any other area with a history remit, but I brought it up here first as at least it's an area in which I have some experience. MilHist has guidelines as to what can be included (military people, units etc) so maybe Category:City_timelines should have some guidelines as well? Here's a starter idea: no event should be included unless it has at least a B class article about it. Can this sort of thing be done - or do we just have to accept that a kind of alt.history can exist on on Wikipedia? --Bye for now (PTT) 22:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day Bfn. I haven't commented here as I have zero experience with this issue, but it seems like a wider WikiProject History thing to me. Sorry to not be of more help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably best if I stay clear of any articles that have a city connection, then. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. according to the Granada article itself, nothing happened after 1492. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely you don't expect the Spanish Inquisition to be covered - nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Seriously though, the Grananda article has lots of room for improvement. But why bother if a parallel one exists? --Bye for now (PTT) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a merge proposal at the Administrators' noticeboard here that may provide some enlightenment on the principle of timelines. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic IP changing the meaning of cited text without discussion - Tactical assault group and 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia)

I've requested discussion on a few occasions but this guys isn't prepared to do so it seems. Probably need some assistance here. Have requested semi-protection for 2 Cdo but it seems no admins are around at the moment. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not an admin of course but I've watchlisted the pages so there's at least an extra pair of eyes for the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully, I do have admin privileges, so I've gone ahead and protected the article for you for 2 weeks. Hopefully, some good will come of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you gents, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP has now logged in and the edits are continuing at Commando Selection Training Course and Tactical assault group. The editor, whilst obviously meaning well, is adding references which do not support the information being added. I've attempted to explain the issue but don't seem to be getting through. I had hoped not to resort to templated warnings but that's probably what will have to happen next. Nonetheless I would welcome others reviewing my edits and where we are at so far. By all means if I'm overstepping the mark let me know and I'll pull my head in. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Recommend section name and order?

Does this WikiProject make a recommendation for the names and orders of sections in articles? I am looking for something like what WikiProject Medicine has. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday. Yes we do - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting video

Wonder if any of our aircraft and airforce editors would know a place to put File:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics wind tests (1946).webm. It's footage of a 1946 test regarding the effects of high windspeeds on the human body. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 Hello, I am visiting from WikiProject Medicine today to ask about something else, but when I saw this, I added it to Human subject research. This is an interesting and politically-neutral video in an article where most other media would be controversial and problematic. It has a home there for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bluerasberry. It never would have occurred to me to put it there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No. 255 Squadron RAF

Does an aviation specialist/copy editor want to have a look at this article? It's been recently expanded considerably by someone who is closely associated with the squadron association and it shows. There looks to be too much trivia and speculative content bordering on OR as well as predominant reliance on primary sources. Nthep (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The article needs massive surgery. Most of the content is more appropriate for a squad on association website, not for Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I scanned the article as well and fully agree with Nigel. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems seriously over the top, but I can imagine that modifying it would generate a ton objections from those who made it what it is today. Are The National Archives an RS? If not, then a lot could be easily chopped. --Bye for now (PTT) 22:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The National Archives contents tend to be collections of primary sources - memos, reports, unit diaries etc.

There's a heavy dose of formatting issues (capitalization, font colour) to be dealt with as a start. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Following some tweaks by others I have had a go at a major cull and taken it down to 30K, probably needs some other eyes to make sure it still makes sense or needs further tweaks, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I had a go at some copy editing, but I stopped after I saw the comments on the talk page. Feel free to revert my changes if you don't agree with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for other editors to fix an incomplete paragraph fol copy vio removal - Battle of Greece

Gday - I have expressed some concern about the way an editor has removed an apparent copy vio from Battle of Greece. Ultimately I have no issue with removing copy vios if they are proved to be so (although providing some evidence doesn't seem unreasonable); however, the edit in question removed a key sentence which renders the rest of the paragraph unable to be understood. I highlighted the issue to the editor in question but they aren't interested in a discussion it seems as all my approaches on their talk page just get reverted. Apparently I'm meant to fix the problem they created. As I don't have the source though I cannot do this so the paragraph is now just nonsense. I'm hoping another editor might have a source to fix the paragraph by including the required information. If not it may be best to delete the rest of the paragraph because it just doesn't make sense anymore. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I think Dianna has fixed the issue with this edit: [23]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes its sorted now, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Renaming "Battle" to "Siege" procedure

At Battle of Fort Pulaski three participating editors concur with changing the name from "Battle of Fort Pulaski" to "Siege of Fort Pulaski" as the scope of the article has changed from an over-night bombardment to the month-long series of naval and infantry engagements to encircle the fort and reduce it. What is the proper procedure for changing the article name? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There should be a little tab at the top of the page saying "Page". Hover over it and a drop-down menu should appear on which the option "Move page" will be listed. Click it. Then simply enter the new title and your reasoning, press "Move page", and it should do the rest automatically. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Windows mojo question

I'm using a new laptop which has Windows 7 and wonder if an aficionado knows how to use it to change maps and diagrams? The old laptop had a programme (Windows Media Player?) which allowed you to brighten and alter the contrast and to crop maps etc. When I tried to do the same, I got something called Windows Photo Viewer which doesn't do the same thing. Am I looking in the wrong place? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest downloading and installing GIMP if you want to work on the images yourself, or ask for help at either the Map workshop or Illustration workshop of the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. (Hohum ^@) 12:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get the Gimp.Keith-264 (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, it's no use, I need a way to use the old system.Keith-264 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For maps, nothing beats Inkscape - and its open source! Farawayman (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at Windows Live Essentials (might have changed name along way) it has the MS photo-editing capabilities you are describing. Although there are more capable programmes, I appreciate that they take longer to get the hang of. (I uninstalled GIMP out of frustration at the interface.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Once you're in Photo Viewer, do you have an option to "Open for editing" or something like that? That might lead you to paint. (My just-retired machine would open a jpg with paint but a jpeg with viewer; go figure.)--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"Open" which drops down to a menu box with nothing in it. When I found WMP in Programme Files it reported that the latest version was working, so I fear that picture viewer is WMP minus the cropping etc. I'll have to use the old laptop with XP if I can get it going. Thanks all.Keith-264 (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Windows Live Essentials is a free download so I'll try that.Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It works! Thanks everyone.Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship requested at Draft:Infantry weapons in the American Revolutionary War

Any help in figuring out if this is a worthy topic, and advising the novice submitter as to format/sourcing, etc would be appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chantilly Conference

Dear military history experts: I found this draft, which seems to be about a notable topic, but it seems too obvious to not already have an article. Also, there appear to have been more than one of these conferences. Should this be moved into article space? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Issue about categories at the Help Desk

Please see WP:Help desk#Category:Military Doctrines, it looks like the military branch of the category tree needs some attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Westland Scout#What_replaced_Scouts

~~Little progress seems to be occurring at this discussion. Some extra input might help move it along. Cheers,~~ --Bye for now (PTT) 14:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For aircraft related topics, try WT:WikiProject Aircraft first. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

done, --Bye for now (PTT) 14:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

VC image

Do we have any images similar to File:Victoria Cross Medal without Bar.png but with the Navy blue ribbon as opposed to the crimson? There are some VC winners pages e.g. Humphrey Osbaldston Brooke Firman where the blue ribboned image would be more appropriate i.e. pre-1920 deaths of RN/RM personnel. Nthep (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this is the only photo on Commons of the VC with the blue ribbon. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Kargil War

Need some attention on Kargil war, especially since the addition of this dubious puffery[24], [25], that I highly doubt, unnecessary commentaries are being added to the infobox.[26] [27] However, we have far more reliable source to describe the result as an Indian victory,[28] I preferred a neutral result parameter, remained until the last week.[29] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reserve Army (United Kingdom)

Reserve Army (United Kingdom) Does anyone know why the campaignboxes won't show? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keith, Template:Infobox military unit doesn't support an internal campaignbox field. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

D'oh!Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article candidate related to Military history project

I've nominated an article relevant to this project for WP:TFAR consideration, discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/George B. McClellan. — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence

A discussion is currently taking place on the talk page of the Croatian War of Independence article to gain consensus to move the page to Croatian War. All interested editors are invited to comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Archibald Murray Article

Re: Archibald Murray

Currently stands at a "B-class" assessment for being a Biography in the Military History WikiProject due to Djmaschek (talk · contribs). The only part that is unreferenced is the "In Popular Culture" section. Should this section have at least one citation? As the WikiProject Biography and United Kingdom they are not assessed as "B-class", a possibility they could be "B-class"? Adamdaley (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The uncited Popular Culture section was added after (21 Oct 2012) I reviewed the article on 3 Feb 2012. The same user also appears to have added a lot of good cited material to the article. Djmaschek (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Bring the other WikiProjects upto "B-class"? Adamdaley (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The relation of the Allies with Hungary at the Paris Peace conference

In the article Treaty of Trianon I found the text below:

The treaty was dictated by the Allies rather than negotiated and the Hungarians had no option but to accept its terms.[11] The Hungarian delegation signed the treaty under protest

Aren't the above facts self-implied? As far as I know, after any military conflict the winners dictate the terms of the peace treaties to the losers (and don't negotiate with the defeated sided when taking the decisions).

So, is it necessary to include the phrase above? Undecand (talk)

I would say so, yes. You are assuming that in 1918, there were winners and losers, or people who thought of themselves that way. When WWI ended, it was in an armistice, which is by definition an agreement of the parties to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of the war, and accepting an armistice certainly does not mean accepting wins or losses. In any treaty related to the end of WWI, there must be an understanding of this. The sides fought to a standstill on the Western Front. In the east and the Balkans, and in Italy, the case was less murky. The Germans certainly expected some kinds of negotiations, and when the representatives showed up to discuss it, they were presented with the agreement, and told to take it or leave it, and if they left it, expect to be invaded. This was one of the reasons that the Nazis were able to claim "knife in the back" ....auntieruth (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military history for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 20:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

U.S. National Park Service URL's have been moving--needs attention!

I don't know if there is a systematic way for Wikipedia to address this, but a large number of NPS links are fouled up. In recent years the NPS server has moved from DC to Denver. The old "cr.nps" URL's are supposed to have migrated to "nps" addresses. Apparently "dual URL's" have been a problem for years and now the old "cr.nps" links seem to have been shutdown wholesale. Unfortunately, some of the directory paths have also been altered recently and a number of "e-Library" publications referenced in articles have completely disappeared. I've made updates from "cr.nps" to "nps" for the new URL's of some of these, then had those stop working days or hours later. The NPS search engine isn't accessible/functioning on the pages at present. I've been inquiring about all of this, but so far no fix has been provided and as yet the NPS doesn't have an accounting of what has been inadvertently lost.

I don't know how many wiki articles are impacted, but I do know that many of the old simple ACW battle summaries contain these "cr.nps" URL's. Most of those can be fixed just by deleting the "cr." and I've been hitting them as I find them. A Bot might be able to do this systematically--but it probably should be limited in ones it actually changes. There is a huge catch with regard to other referenced NPS pages, since each change needs to be checked to see if the path is correct. If an individual update doesn't work, the "cr.nps" URL address should probably be left as legacy, in case this ever gets sorted and updates can be made en masse. Red Harvest (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A related item: Some years ago the Air Force Historical Research Agency changed its URL. This impacts most pages on USAF units. Again, as I update these I either update the URL or find an archived page, if available. If there's a bot that can do this job en masse, I would be happy to provide the bot owner with inputs for change. --Lineagegeek (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Christmas truce

A few years ago I started rewriting Christmas truce, which is (theoretically) a good article, but really quite lacking - over the years it's become a miscellaneous grab-bag of anecdotes and trivia. Is anyone interested in helping me give it an overhaul before the centenary? I don't think aiming or a six-week FA is a good idea, but if someone is braver I'll help ;-)

The main problem at the moment is that it really lacks historical context - very little sense that localised truces were a thing throughout the war, not just at Christmas - and is very muddled on whether there was A Truce, or several. This isn't helped by many good-faith attempts to add eyewitness accounts, which individually aren't always very significant and interrupt the narrative. The lead gives an idea of the structure it probably needs. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: If I were you, I'd start with a summary of the original newspaper accounts. There were two main newspapers, I believe, so cover those and you set it up well. If anything is inaccurate, mention that, but don't spend too long debunking anything.

Once you have your source material in place, it's far easier to expand and explain from there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm moving onto the main section now and it looks like the newspaper sources are used relatively sparingly by the historians, with a lot more use made of diaries & letters (several of which, of course, turned up in the papers). I worry focusing too heavily on the early-January papers would skew the results and, of course, omit German/French perspectives. (The Belgians don't usually get a look-in, for one reason and another).

That said, the reporting of the truce is an interesting angle in and of itself. Do you have details of the two main reports you're thinking of? Be interesting to build something off that...

Thanks for the picture, by the way - really sets it off! And glad to see it's scheduled for FP... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a warning though, there are plenty of WP:OR and WP:TONE issues in the article. A lot of the books also do not have page numbers cited. What Adam Cuerden is suggesting, I fear, would probably make the situation worse - we're reporting the secondary literature (of which, I'm sure, there is plenty). There's nothing wrong with quoting of course, but it should be done sparingly and trawling through newspapers is textbook OR. Good luck though! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Well, the original, biased reporting is what made it famous. There's two thread here: What happened is one of them, but the cultural impact - the sociological aspect - is also important. I think that explaining what was reported initially, marking anything that's wrong, and then going through and detailing the nuanced views of modern historians is a good way to get both sides. Also, this kind of structure helps protect the article from well-meaning people who don't understand that the initial reports are biased.

I don't think it'll be ready for this Christmas, but a friend of mine's grandfather is a primary source on the truce (amongst other things); his letters are in the Imperial War Museum. She owns the copyright, and was also interested in the idea of getting some letters on Wikipedia. No promises, but... watch this space. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden:, I don't doubt the interest of these but primary sources do not have a place on Wikipedia - at lease not in the main text. It's all covered by WP:OR which I really urge you to read. By all means write a paper on them or publish them in an edited volume - but Wikipedia only serves as a literature study of reliable, published sources. If what you say is correct, which I have no doubt, it can be found in the secondary literature and should be cited directly from that! —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Actually, they're published. I've been on here since 2006. I know what I'm doing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)