Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 133

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135→Archive 140

Military infobox

Just curious, but I noticed that within the infoboxes for the 5 branches of the US military, under "Commanders", the order is always;

  • President
  • Branch Secretary (for Army, Navy/USMC, Air Force) and then Homeland Security (USCG)
  • Chief of Staff (or Commandant or CNO)
  • Vice Chief
  • Branch Senior NCO

Is there any reason why the Secretary of Defense isn't in there between "President" and "Branch Secretary"...? Like I said, just a curiosity... - theWOLFchild 01:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? - theWOLFchild 03:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, sorry, the US military is not really my area, but I suggest it might have become a sort-of consensus approach. Assuming any other interested editors agree, and the parameters of the infobox allow it, there is no reason why an additional level couldn't be inserted. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I guess it would depend on if those infobox's are actually about the relevant departments (Department of the Air Force/Army/Navy) or the branch of the armed forces (United States Army/Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force/Coast Guard)? A technicality seemingly without relevance, but bear with me in the following attempt to explain-
If the infobox is about the Department, then no, the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) should not be mentioned as he is only indirectly connected as the SecDef is not part of the respective branch departments, but is instead a) the advisor to the Commander-in-Chief (the president) in that respect (see chart to right) & b) indirectly as the head of the department (Department of Defense) above the respective department's, as well as above other departments (the individual Branch secretaries, however, are subordinate by law to the Secretary of Defense, so an infobox/article about that position should include the SecDef). Listing the SecDef would be like putting in a middle management listing. If the infobox is about the branch, then the Secretary of Defense perhaps should be included as part of the civilian chain of command, though the chain-of-command in the typical sense is, per the Goldwater-Nichols Act, President -> SecDef -> UCC (again, see chart above at right). Since 1958 The Secretaries of the Departments and their Service Chiefs do not have chain-of-command control over any forces assigned to a UCC. Gradually over time nearly all forces have been assigned away from the department's to one of the UCC's (usually as subordinate Service Component Command's). Nowdays the Military Departments are mostly tasked solely with "the training, provision of equipment, and administration of troops."
Clear as mud, right?
And of course, to confuse things further, with the Coast Guard that above discussion is only relevant in wartime, as in peacetime it is instead under the Secretary/Department for/of Homeland Security.
Gecko G (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As it is, because of the G-N Act, SecDef now has direct command authority over the 4 branches, (plus CG in war time). The individual branch secretaries are subordinate to SecDef and their responsibilities are chiefly administrative. If we're going to list a chain of command right up to POTUS, then I think we should add SecDef. Interestingly enough, with the advent of the office of SecDef, he supplanted the branch secretaries as a cabinet level position. However, in the case of the CG, they are overseen be Sec-DHS, which is a cabinet level position. (Just another reason why I think SecDef should be included.) I checked the template and it does have additional spaces for more command levels/commanders. I'm thinking I will boldly add SecDef to these infoboxes and see in anyone objects. - theWOLFchild 22:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Big fan of BOLD. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done. - theWOLFchild 23:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Charles Anthony (politician) Article

Charles Anthony (politician),

I was having a look at Charles Anthony (politician) article to see why it was a "C-class". I can only assume it has to with the information in the Infobox. I have more to say about the assessment of this article while I will wait for a reply. Adamdaley (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks C-class to me, b2=n due to lack of coverage of his service in the war and some other areas, rest=y IMO. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
First off, I am not trying to start anything here. So no-one jump to conclusions. As I said in my original post, I had more to say about the assessment of the article. There has been four Wikipedia members who have had a go at the talkpage, WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Military History. Both are still not accurately displaying what the article is about. Things are missing and unfortunately, those things are left to people like me who have to unfortunately, clean things up and try their best to accurately put things into perspective for the article and the WikiProjects. Sometimes, it's only a minor spelling mistake in the WikiProject banner which is very common, but in this instance, it's missing sub-features such as the military work group and politician work group in the Biography. In the WikiProject Military History it's missing the B-class criteria as well as having the nationality and biography. I'd even add WikiProject United States and some of it's sub-features. Let's say it's for a person. Why only do it for WikiProject Military History and not for WikiProject Biography? It would make sense to do both. Why? Because it's the article is about the person who was in the military who "served in Vietnam war and did heroic things while on active duty". I would like to politely request, that WikiProject Military History users take more time in trying to get the sub-features right in the banners before leaving them as assessment being completed. Would this be a RfC type of request? Adamdaley (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, for example, we have an arrangement with WikiProject Ships so that our assessments also stand for theirs. So when I assess a ship article, I also usually fill out the SHIPS one as well as Milhist. But what people do (other than accurately complete the Milhist banner) is a matter for them, surely? Some, like yourself, might want to add an assessment for other projects they are a member of, others, like me, may not be a member of those projects and may not know their assessment criteria. I would hope that anyone assessing a Milhist article would add relevant taskforces at the same time they assess the article. I don't think we can demand that Milhist editors assess for other projects. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I've had no complaints from other WikiProjects. In fact, I was approached by a WikiProject to join them for doing such a good job of assessing their articles that were backlogged. Adamdaley (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone wants to assess for other projects. It's great that you are doing this, but I doubt anyone will take kindly to being told they should follow your example. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying they "should". I'm only saying if it was a Biography... there would WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military History and probably the WikiProject "Country here" ... could all be at least be assessed to the same assessment. If they don't want to do it, they can leave a message on my talkpage and I'll do it. Easy right? Adamdaley (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson and child/predecessor entities

A little problem has become more and more obvious as of late. From what I understand, Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson ceased to exist as separate entities in 2010 when they were merged into Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson. I've seen a literal torrent of recent editing activity, both in existing and new articles, which refer to JBER's component entities in a present-time context and typically avoid acknowledging JBER, implying that years later the old installations are still known by the old names and not as a part of JBER. I checked the main articles and it appears that JBER's recent history is being added more to the Elmendorf article than to the JBER article. When I finally said something, the response offered the impression that editors are continuing to refer to Elmendorf and Richardson because the respective post offices are still known by those names, or at the very least that postal addresses continue to use the old names. I suppose I should assume good faith and not comment on how fucked up that is. However, it posed a question here. Can this issue be dismissed as a case of misguided editors relying on outdated information, or are the component entities of JBER still commonly known as Elmendorf and Richardson this many years later? I haven't spent much time in Anchorage in recent history, so I can't answer that myself. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure from your comments here if these editors you mentioned are relying on original research or not, but the answer is (or should be) fairly simple, what do the most recent reliable sources say? If they continue to use the former/individual names, then common name applies, regardless of what the "official" name is. However, if the base is now largely referred to in sources by the new joint name, then that's what should be in the article(s). (where applicable). Follow the sources. Also, on another note, have you tried discussing this with any involved editors on any of the related talk pages? - theWOLFchild 10:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I like the term "child". There are some problems with the children that go beyond Elmendorf-Richardson. Someone has moved some USAF children back to their World War II names (e.g. Langley Air Force Base redirects to Langley Field, apparently based on the example of Pope Air Force Base, which did change its name when it merged with Fort Bragg (actually the Pope redirect is wrong, too. It did not become Pope Field, it became Pope Army Airfield. Some of these appear to be corrected. One more issue (particular to another merged institution), has Joint Base San Antonio changed its name to Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland? I don't see any source for a name changel, but a number of sources use the hyphenated name. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite error

I came across the following error on a number of pages: "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "<arbitrary ref name>" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)." Could it be that a bot is responsible for this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that these are author errors. Instances I have come across have had very minor differences e.g. a full stop in one, not in another. Hamish59 (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This came up in WP:Village pump (idea lab) back in September – nobody said then that they were taking action but I think someone must have. Basically a named reference should be declared once only, and other references using the same name should be empty, that is, one reference with name "xyz" says <ref name="xyz">reference details</ref> and all other mentions of name "xyz" say <ref name="xyz"/>. I suppose someone's written in something that checks for duplication, which is good. Stanning (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
See alsoHelp:Cite errors/Cite error references duplicate key. Can also occur where nested references are used. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Walter Model

I have nominated Walter Model for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Phonetics

Anyone know how to do the phonetics that show people how to pronounce people's names? I want someone to add one to Jacob L. Devers. His surname is pronounced Dev-ers and not Deev-ers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We have a Wikipedia Pronunciation Key, see WP:Pronunciation respelling key -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If someone is interested, it would be nice to have a {{convert}}-like template that generates WP:RESPELL, SAMPA, X-SAMPA, IPA from each other. That way we could enter a referenced pronunciation, and provide all the common sound representation methods, including the only one that most readers would understand (RESPELL) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronald F. Lewis

US Army LtGen. Just relieved by the SecDef. Article worthy? Doesn't seem to be one on him at the moment. 83.25.90.172 (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

yes. news reports say he was quite influential. Removals at this level are very rare. Rjensen (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree, particularly since he rose from Brigadier General to Lieutenant General in the last year, Chicago Tribune story says he only became a Major General in January and the Senate confirmed him for a third star in June. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Notable as a general officer no matter what. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

48th Armored and 48th Infantry Divisions

We have an article for the 48th Armored Division (United States); it's been inactivated, but was a National Guard division in Georgia and Florida. The 48th Armored was created by redesignating the 48th Infantry Division (United States), which had also been a guard unit in Georgia and Florida. The 48th Infantry had earlier been a "phantom division" as part of the U.S. deception operations in World War II. We used to have an article for the 48th Infantry but it was converted to a redirect and the text of its history moved into the article for the armored division. The move doesn't reference any discussions. I think the approach is wrong and that the 48th should have its own article with a cross reference to the 48th Armored and vice-versa. I can do the work but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Comments?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It really is two different formations, and the article looks like two articles pasted together. There is no commonality between them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If they are one formation, ie the inf div was converted into the armoured one, then the usual process would be to have one article using the title of the most recent iteration, and include all the history from its creation. We have German panzer divs that started their life as inf divs, in just one article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It's current incarnation is the 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States) as most of the WWII-era National Guard divisions only now survive as brigades of various sorts and have articles under both names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The brigade article indicates a lineage entirely separate from the division. (Aside: other obvious inaccuracies make me question this -- e.g. the statement that few existing units in the US National Guard saw service with the Confederacy). The Center for Military History site does not have a lineage posted for the brigade to check this. On the other hand the armored division article expressly says it was activated in the Guard as an infantry division, so they seem to the same unit, although there may be an issue as to whether the "ghost" division with the same number was the same unit. Leaving that aside, the armor and infantry division articles seem to be short enough that a merger and a redirect would seem appropriate to me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I merged the brief infantry division existence of the 48th AD into the 48th AD article in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, 'the most current name of the formation,' as the 48th had *not* been 'clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names' [48 ID]. In accordance with that guideline, my preference would be to keep the 48th ID brief period within the article about the 48th AD. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm working the article now from the perspective of "48th" being the determining factor. I haven't being able to verify the ghost division's "cover story." I'll leave the brigade alone for now.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sand War casualties

There's a slow-moving edit war going on regarding the casualties in the Sand War regarding what sources to use. Some input at Talk:Sand War#Casualties would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer review now open

G'day all, a peer review is now open for the RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II article. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II/archive1. If you have time and are interested in helping one of our newer editors improve their article, please stop by. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for second opinion on article size for Kursk submarine disaster

G'day all, I have commenced a GAN review of the subject article, but would like a second opinion on its size. At 64K, my concern is that it is probably WP:TOOBIG and needs to be more concise and/or possibly divided into a summary article and a spinoff article covering some aspect of the detail. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking just at the numbers in the article history section, I wouldn't be too concerned. USS Constitution: Revision history and USS Iowa turret explosion: Revision history both show their articles are larger than yours and both are at FA-Class. I say the more information the better, but thats me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
IDK what the guideline says (& don't care ;p ), 'cause I'm with TomStar on this one: it isn't too big until I can't fit it on my thumb drive. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The article does seem overly-detailed to me, and doesn't provide readers with a summary of what occurred. I'm interested in this topic, but find the article rather daunting, especially as much of the detail provided is unimportant or disputed. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that it is too big by virtue of some arbitrary measure of size (word count or kB etc) but I would opinion that it is probably too big for the subject. I found it to be overly detailed and somewhat repetitive. It appears as if the section/sub-sections have been written in isolation of the whole and this leads to repetition of detail. Hope this is useful. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a good summary of the problems with the article. A lot of the material waffles on or is a red herring. Nick-D (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with Cinderella157 regarding size and repetativeness. Hamish59 (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who chimed in here. Lots of good points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67, I just read the thread/comments re GA review on the articles talk page. Your point of readability is spot-on - not because of length but because of the issues I identified above. I found it just a hard slog to get through as a result. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
While the article is long, there are others GA articles that exceed 65kb, for example, Wyatt Earp. I suggest a complete review and if this is the only issue, evaluate whether this is sufficient to withhold GA status. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but it clearly isn't the only issue. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Greco-Italian_War#RfC_v2

G'day all, there is a RfC about the scope of the Greco-Italian War article that you may wish to contribute to. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Recommended article split

I'm seeking input on my recommendation for splitting articles about the Battle of the Bulge here. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Father and son notability

There's a couple of new articles William Arthur Winter and Draft:Robert Winter (Soldier) about son and father, respectively, who are believed to be the only father/son pair to both be awarded the DCM. Is that enough for separate articles on the two or for father to be a section in the article on son? I moved the article on father from main to draft space as it was unreferenced when originally posted. Nthep (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that the original author has copied Draft:Robert Winter (Soldier) to Robert Winter (CSM, Leinster Regiment & DCM) – which I renamed to Robert Winter (soldier). Sigh. I think this may fall under WP:MEMORIAL; given the author's name User:Wintermike65 and only edits are to William and Robert Winter, there also may be WP:COI. Unless the main point can be substantiated "the only father/son pair to both be awarded the DCM" then I believe that both articles should go. Hamish59 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Assuming this is true, I would say they could both be covered in the DCM article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think this could be covered in the article about the medal itself, as Peacemaker suggests. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I PRODed the one in article space. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 19:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, can you PROD the other one in main space as well, please? Robert Winter (soldier). Not something I have done before. Hamish59 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, done. I use WP:TWINKLE, that way all you have to do is one-click, add your rationale and save. I recommend you install it, because you can also use it for requesting speedy deletes, normal requests for deletion of a range of pages, requests for protection and adding maintenance tags. Great little tool, it's just a pull down menu next to the watchlist star. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Hamish59 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
One has been dePROD'd, so I've AfD'd it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I have added my 2 cents at AfD. Hamish59 (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The second one has been dePROD's, so I've AfD'd it as well. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the AfDs are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Winter (soldier) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Arthur Winter. I'm a bit surprised that there isn't more interest in this given the obvious WP:NOTMEMORIAL aspects and highly likely WP:COI of the article creator. The article creator has admitted that they can't "prove" the claim about them being the only father and son to be awarded the DCM, and I've seen more notable people quickly deleted. I hope this isn't the first in many DCM recipients to have articles, we'll end up with 30,000 of them. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

List of military occupations

Hello, on List_of_military_occupations there is an RFC regarding whether to include East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The lead of the article states that only military occupations, as opposed to annexations, are to be included. Please comment. Thanks. Yossiea (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I am a bit bemused by that statement in the lead. Annexations can be both legal (post-bellum by treaty) and illegal, and some are just military occupations that have effectively become annexations by force. Seems to me that the article scope itself has problems. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The underling notion that hostile "occupations" are always enforced or run by military forces is a bit odd as well. There also seems to be a strong bias towards only "bad" interventions being labelled military occupations: the early stages of many UN-endorsed peace keeping missions, such as that in East Timor in 1999, were effectively military occupations, and the various western Allied military governments of World War II are missing. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Having read the comments on the page, I have little patience with the view that East Jerusalem and Golan be excluded, since the reasons look like pretexts. Hair-splitting about annexation or "annexation" should not disguise the fact of occupation. Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I was expecting to see lists of MOS codes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
So it wasn't just me. Gecko G (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I think it should be List of belligerent occupations.
I got that, too--but given the inherent ambiguity, IDK what pagetitle isn't ambiguous... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

September 2012 Camp Bastion raid

There's currently an edit war (involving me) on whether the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid should be described as a victory for the ISAF forces. Comments from other editors would be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Percival

I have nominated Arthur Percival for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed the merger of the articles List of military occupations with List of territorial disputes. You can join the discussion here.

Thanks for your participation. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

48th (South Midland) Division

I don't suppose anyone could help source and improve this article, especially in regards to the First World War?

I note that the division took part in some key battles, but little is mentioned in the article and the Great War falls outside of my field. Likewise, would someone be able to vet the OOB for that war? I note it is largely sourced to 'Becke, History of the Great War: Order of Battle of Divisions, Part 2a: The Territorial Force Mounted Divisions and the 1st-Line Territorial Force Divisions'. I do presume this is the Great War's version of Joslen? At anyrate, it is not a work I own.

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There's this: 48th (South Midland) Division, Loegaire Humphrey ISBN 613692868X but it's expensive. Keith-264 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Becke is the source for British WWI OOB. Like Joslen, but much better (IMO) - lots of footnotes and a good narrative section for each division. I have a copy to hand and will have a look when I get a chance. This is also a good starting point. Hamish59 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Hamish.
Keith is that the official divisional history? If so, it would be nice if someone had a copy to quote from ... although I imagine it may just have to be resigned to a "further reading" list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think so, I had a look on Bookfinder but couldn't find anything else. Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Hamish59 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys for the edits!
Still, if there is anyone out there who can flesh out the division's first world war activities it would be much appreciated. I can attempt over the long term, but I have very little knowledge of that war and would not want to risk missing something.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

MV Boka Star

There is an AfD discussion re the Boka Star article. This ship was found to be arms running in 2002, so could fall under the remit of this project. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Turns out she was a Yugoslav Navy auxiliary ship. Mjroots (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

PL-15 please

Can we get a PL-15 article please?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-seeks-interim-champ-longer-range-air-to-air-416828/ Carlisle says outmatching the Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missile in particular is an “exceedingly high priority”.

Hcobb (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Operation Rah-e-Nijat

Operation Rah-e-Nijat is in need of updating. References 2, 3 and 4 are dead links (yahoo2, yahoo3, yahoo4). New references needed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

So what's stopping you?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Bell islands

Can someone take a look at this page? Only has an infobox. Was there a battle of this name? Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd imagine that it relates to what's at Bell Island (Newfoundland and Labrador)#World War II in some way (though the mention of a Japanese officer who found in the Aleutians is confusing). But without any content the article should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Even with the content from that page (I considered copy-pasting), IMO it fails notability. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
PROD it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Having disambiguation for GIGN article

Going to raise the point that Djibouti has a GIGN unit. Not sure on which jurisdiction it falls under. But I know that it likely falls under its gendarmerie branch, closely based on the French. There's not much English articles on this, so I'm using Marine Corp articles on it as a basis for its existence. Ominae (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For the moment I would suggest expanding the Djiboutian National Gendarmerie article with a note. Once there's more data, the GIGN article could be modified to note that following the French example, GIGNs have been formed elsewhere. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft lists again

More discussion on the finer points of tabulated lists of aircraft for military operators here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC about the Duke of Windsor (Edward VIII) article

There arose a dispute about the proper extent of the Duke of Windsor's wartime activities in regards the German Nazi regime. An editor feels that the pro-Nazi sympathies and activities, including one act of treason, is not reflected with the appropriate due weight in the article, and believes that the insertion of an extract of a German embassy cable should be added, as a footnote. Another editor feels that quoting the entire text of the cable is overkill, and that overall the article is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse and presents them with due weight and cites them to reliable sources. The question is now being put forth to Wikipedia editors whether to Support the addition of the contested material in a footnote or Oppose it. Anyone interested to participate in the relevant RfC is welcome. -The Gnome (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Titanic (1943 film)

This article, about the flop propaganda "blockbuster" commissioned by Nazi Germany's Josef Goebbels, has just been through a pretty nasty patch of edit warring, which included personal attacks and the use of sock IPs. The editor responsible has been blocked fo 2 weeks, but it might be a good idea if folks were to add it to their watchlists to make sure things don't start up again when the block is over. BMK (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission - 26/11/15

See Draft:Maxwell K. Goldstein. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography

I couldn't figure out if there was a place at the open tasks sections but an editor created User:MadMax/list to have a list of biographies missing from Trevor N. Dupuy's The Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography. Is there an interest in have this list and/or moving it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day, potentially some of the requests could be added here, maybe: Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Military biography. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
At a quick glance, many of the red links in MadMax's list do have corresponding WP articles, but not under those exact names, e.g. "Sir Douglas Robert Steuart Bader" => Douglas Bader which I just corrected along with four or five other B's. Stanning (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Well the initial question is, would there be any objection to moving it and the subpages to say Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Harper or something? From there, would the project be interested in keeping it going (even if it's just copying to the lists with a note that Harper has it)? I'd just prefer someone's eyes on it so that the details aren't lost. If not, I'll review and incorporate the listings here when I get a chance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
If we're going to move it, I'd suggest placing it under the military biography task force (so e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military/Harper). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQ#Pinging when a "task" section is edited

This bot request may be of interest to anyone who regularly checks one small section of a busy page. Volunteer coders who are interested get my undying gratitude ... actually, a lot of Wikipedians will probably love you for this. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Request ID help for armored vehicle

Can anyone identify the vehicle shown in this photo? Ran across it while moving unused photos over to Commons and I haven't been able to figure out what it is. Kelly hi! 08:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

M42 Duster regards Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with Donald Nichols

Hello, all. Calling for a bit of help here. Question at hand is, is Donald Nichols (spy) the same man as Don Nichols, the racing team manager?

Little is known about the military Nichols after his 1962 retirement except that he died in Alabama in 1992. The racing Nichols bio basically begins at this point. A link at the racing article [1] claims they are the same, but is an unreliable source. A photo comparison between this article's photos and a photo in Apollo's Warriors is inconclusive to my eyes. Also, the military Nichols had the reputation of being sloppy in dress; pictures of the racing Nichols show him to be somewhat dapper, with a thinner face.

I am posting this in hopes that someone will prove/disprove the connection between these two.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Citations outside brackets

Does anyone have a link for the style guide for this practice please? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There's this, but that's pretty short and simply lists it as an acceptable method (and links to the template to use to do it). What exactly are you looking for? Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
HMS Ben-my-Chree I moved the cite on line 1 outside the bracket but someone objected. I decided to check my facts and couldn't find them....Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, I misunderstood. This is what you're looking for, and actually, the cite should be inside the bracket. Parsecboy (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh bugger! It looks horrible. Keith-264 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

military aviation image issues

See WT:AVIATION where there is a discussion about a mass deletion request on Commons, some of which involve military aircraft -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

US Military uniform cuff stars?

I was doing some reading and came across something about US military uniform accoutrements I've never heard of.

Wyllie, Col. Robert E. (1921). Orders, Decorations and Insignia: Military and Civil. New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, the Knickerbocker Press.

in chapter XI- Decoration of the Colours, page 208-9 Now for our American system, which has been entirely changed since the close of the World War. ... In addition we have followed the Belgian custom by embroidering on the [regimental] colour the names of battles in which the regiment so distinguished itself as to merit citation in War Department orders. ... In addition each officer and man in an organization which is cited in War Department orders wears a silver star on the cuff, a second star is added for a second citation. For a third citation the two silver stars are replaced by a gold star, etc., a gold star being used for every three citations, and a silver star for each intermediate one. This is purely a regimental decoration, and not in any sense personal, it is a part of the uniform of the organization and must be removed when the individual is transferred elsewhere..

Is this some sort of predeccessor to both the Silver Citation Star and unit awards? Anyone know anything more about this?

Gecko G (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? I'm hoping this will lead to some information on the history of unit awards in the US military to be added at that article when I have the time to regularily return to wikipedia early next year. Gecko G (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding a url to Gecko's book citation. I have never heard of stars on the uniform cuff except in the sense of a general's rank insignia (see here - the 1941 artwork). I googled "star on army uniform cuff post-world war I" and got, besides a bunch of extraneous stuff, nothing that points in the right direction. I thought it was curious that Wyllie useed "colour" as his choice in spelling.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Need reviewers for a FAC

Hi, Juan Manuel de Rosas needs reviewers for its FAC. It would be great if anyone could take some time to take a look at the article. --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Salvage?

Anyone think that Draft:Stress related to military pilots could be salvaged? It seems to have potential, but its under the gun at the moment, hence the question. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Bringing balance to Blue-water navy

We in Wikipedia cannot say with any authority which countries are blue-water or not. What we can do, however, is use reliable sources to determine which countries are largely believed to possess blue-water capabilities. But simply inserting a reliable source which says country A has a blue-water navy is not good enough. Because you may similarly find other reliable sources which say country A doesn't have a blue-water navy. Currently at blue-water navy, these latter sources are not mentioned, and it gives the false impression to the reader that the navies mentioned in the article are uncontested blue-water navies in the opinion of experts. This is wrong. I propose then, that we include as board a view as possible.

For example, while some experts assert China now has a blue-water navy, other experts equally put across that China is still a long way from developing a blue-water navy. Or how about the United Kingdom - it unquestionably had a blue-water navy for centuries, but in recent years a significant number of critics assert the Royal Navy is no longer capable of maritime power projection due to decades of cuts.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Without having had much, if anything, to do with the article, I'd say IOT satisfy NPOV all significant view points should be covered. As such if there are reliable sources which provide contrasting assessments of a navy's capabilities then yes they should both be covered (with appropriate attribution). So on the face of it I'd say yes your proposal is the correct approach. That said appropriate care would also be needed to ensure the article doesn't become too long and complies with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Anotherclown (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply and your advice there, I agree. To my mind, sources written by academics or defence experts are what we are looking for, especially if their works are peer-reviewed or subjected to fact-checking before being published. This should prevent fringe views from finding their way into the article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

PO-92 Ugor

There is a discussion at talk:PO-92 Ugor as to whether or not the PO-92 Ugor article should be moved to a new title. Mjroots (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Eugene Bullard

Would someone please look at the assessment of Eugene Bullard? At a quick glance, the article looks closer to GA than to 'Start' to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I've had a look. I'd say it is close to B class, but isn't fully referenced so it would be C-class IMO. If you are interested in a GA review, it will need to be nominated via the process at WP:GAN. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not strictly military history...

...but has anyone else noted a change in the default appearance of the contents boxes on articles? They appear to defaulting to being collapsed on my system, and I can't work out if this is a default change somewhere on the wiki or not...? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

WWI airfield photographs

File:Belrain Aerodrome - France.jpg and File:Maulan Aerodrome - closeup - France.jpg obviously show the same airfield; apparently (but I can't provide a source for that claim) it's Maulan. Help getting this sorted out would be greatly appreciated. User:Bwmoll3 uploaded both of them but is blocked on the English Wikipedia; I'll leave a note at their Commons talk page. Huon (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military person#General usage question

Comment requested on proposal. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 22:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

German Air Force

I have posted a minor correction about the status of German Jever Air Base on Talk:German Air Force (the base is not "completely" defunct). It would be great, if anyone interested in air force topics, specifically air bases, could take a look please. GermanJoe (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ships naming, using prefix and standards in that area

There is a discussion at talk:PO-92 Ugor about ship naming. This discussion is important because it has wide influence in ship naming on Wikipedia. Some standards should rise above personal thoughts and should be implemented equally to all articles about ships of one navy. Many articles about military ships have different naming standards on per ship basis. And guideline given at WP:NC-S are respected partial and mostly in cases about UK and US navy. Same principles should apply for other navies around the world and their ships in accordance with their standards. Making naming conventions out of thin air creates confusion for readers and is not based on facts. Loesorion (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that the editor above is exhibiting a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the argument and has now decided to forum-shop. Wikipedia's naming standards are very much based on facts - the fact you aren't getting the answer you want there doesn't mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD: List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients

Hi. Given that the subject is within the subject areas covered by this WikiProject, I thought you should be aware of the pending WP:Articles for deletion discussion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients. Your participation, insights and comments are welcome there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 15th anniversary is coming

Wikipedia's 15th anniversary is coming! A couple things. First, does Milhist want to get some sort of online event (an edit-a-thon?) together? There's only a couple online-specific events so far, so I think we could be a potential leader here. Second, there's now a battleship wordmark available for use (see right). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

what about choosing a level-3 vital article or two that are already GA or A-Class and working together to get them to FA? There are a few obvious ones like Alexander the Great, Napoleon, George Washington, and Adolf Hitler in the bios, and World War II and Cold War. I'm best placed to help with the later three, but even though selection of the article(s) might depend on who was interested, I'd give it my best shot to help out on any of those, or even one of the level-3 weapon articles like Nuclear weapon (a former that's now ). We could work from 15 Jan to 31 Jan... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I think those are both great ideas! I can verify citations, if needed. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I think this would be a viable idea. As an alternative though what about World War I given the ongoing centenary of that conflict? It is a former FA but is now only a B. Getting that to even GA standard would be a milestone for the project. Anotherclown (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
World War I would be a very good choice Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd be fine with World War I. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
WWI seems the most appropriate given the ongoing centennial anniversary. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Pritzker Military Museum & Library is the founding sponsor of the World War I Centennial Commission [[2]]. PMML's interns and I can support WWI article editing as needed. We currently have a pending DYK nom for Harry Hill Bandholtz, a WWI General. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Teri. I'd be willing to pitch in where I can, especially for the naval parts of the conflict. @Peacemaker67, Anotherclown, Nick-D, TomStar81, and TeriEmbrey: What do you think about the current state of the article? Does it give too much weight to any points? On a quick glance, I'd say that war crimes with a section-listing of individual incidents could be condensed a bit, and the overall narrative should be shortened—we're about 20kb above the recommended prose size. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree the war crimes section could probably be summarised and spun off, and there is probably scope for several sections to be more concise and rely on the spin-off articles to cover the detail. What might be useful is for people to take an interest in a specific area they have a speciality in. For example, I'd be happy to look after the "Conflicts in the Balkans" part of the Background section, the Prelude section and the Balkan-related bits of the rest for a start, perhaps others could look after the political, naval or air aspects, the armistice and peace treaties, Western or Eastern Fronts, Ottoman stuff etc? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Keith-264: - given your previous contributions to articles in this topic area is there any possibility you might be available to assist with this effort? The more hands the better I'd say. Anotherclown (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I can barely do anything with WWI, other than verifying facts. I was also wondering about the status of the Spanish Civil War, a (recently) demoted FA.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, any chance you'd have sources for this effort? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 07/12/15

See Draft:Royal Navy Future Frigate Programme. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be on the brittle edge of WP:CRYSTAL, if you ask me. That having been said, the article could be reorganized as a part of the Future of the Royal Navy article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Operation Pedestal GAN

G'day all, Operation Pedestal, an article about a significant Malta convoy during the Second World War, has been nominated as a Good Article candidate. I have completed an initial review here: Talk:Operation Pedestal/GA1. If anyone is able to help out with addressing some of my concerns, it would be greatly appreciated as I think it would be a great feather in Wikipedia's cap for this article to progress towards GA and beyond. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevant RfC

See Talk:Greco-Italian_War#rfc_E480763. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unknown US aircraft

Not certain if this is the correct group, I am trying to identify some US Military aircraft from the 1920s that were at Brooks Field Texas. These are not the correct names, I have just called them AC-1 through AC-5 until I can give the photos the correct names.

File:Brooks Field - AC-1.jpg

File:Brooks Field - AC-2.jpg

File:Brooks Field - AC-3.jpg

File:Brooks Field - AC-4.jpg

File:Brooks Field - AC-5.jpg

If someone who is knowledgeable of these type of planes could identify them, I can change their names in commons and correctly catagorize them

Thank you in advance Connor7617 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Brooks Field - AC-1.jpg appears to be a Thomas-Morse MB-3, while I think File:Brooks Field - AC-3.jpg and File:Brooks Field - AC-4.jpg are Orenco Ds.
AC-2 is a Nieuport 28. I think AC3 and AC4 are actually Spad XIIIs.Monstrelet (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
AC-1 appears to be an MB-3A. See this image https://airscapemag.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/mb3a-a2a.jpg which is either the same aircraft or another of the same squadron, from the markings.Monstrelet (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow ... thank you for the fast response :) I will rename them and classify them shortly Connor7617 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Connor7617 Not an expert on planes but I would tend to agree with Monstrelet, that AC-3 and AC-4 are more likely Spad XIIIs than Orenco Ds. They planes in the picture have two vertical wing struts per wing and an exterior exhaust manifold/exhaust pipe. The Orenco Ds Have a single strut and individual exhaust header pipes for each cylinder. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that the infobox photo in the Orenco D article is actually an Orenco D2, a different aircraft - the actual Orenco D (as shown by the other photo in the article) is much closer in appearance to the SPAD.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish I am confused. The caption for the "other" photo says it is a prototype D2. You appear to be saying that the photo files should be swapped to conform with the captions? I did note the similarity to the "other" photo but for the horizontal tail surface - it is not in line with the top of the fuselage. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that the captions are the wrong way round, certainly compared to pictures elsewhere - see [3] where the second photo is captioned as an Orenco D. On closer reflection, however I think I agree with you that the two photos are SPADs, based on the position of the horizontal tail. Now we just have to work out number AC-5!Nigel Ish (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
On AC5, looking at the wings and tail, it looks like a Fokker. It would be worth considering the Fokker C1, which apparently the US Navy had two of. Engine looks non-standard though, like a Liberty? Monstrelet (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The Fokker CO-4/CO-4A (a Liberty powered Fokker C.IV operated by the USAAC looks likely, with nose, tail, and wing struts matching.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have it. Fokker CO-4A. Quick Image search found this USAF archive photo http://www.aerofiles.com/fok-co4a.jpg , which looks like another frame from the same photoshoot. Monstrelet (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


I did not realize this would start such a discussion. Here is the source of the photos I'm working on File:Brooks Army Air Field 1942 42-I Classbook.pdf You can just download the .pdf file. The photos (and there are many more) begin about page 128. I've uploaded several of these books and put them all in the same category Category:United States Army Air Forces Training Classbooks (that can be found on commons, where I normally am). I hope they are some help to the authors in this group. Connor7617 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I renamed the photos after I saw the first replies. I see there are likely in error. Let me read though the discussion and I can rename them again based on the consensus of the experts replying. From what I gather, these are the correct titles for the photos:

AC-1: Thomas-Morse MB-3A

AC-2: Nieuport 28 (28th Aero Squadron)?

AC-3: SPAD S.XIII

AC-4: SPAD S.XIII

AC-5: Fokker CO-4A

Thank you for your help. I'll check back tomorrow before renaming them Connor7617 (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

AC-2 Yes, the emblem is for the 28th, however neither Maurer nor Haulman list the N.28 as being flown by the 28th -- Spa.VII and Spa.XIII (and it was never at Brooks). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish (and others), on the basis of this I propose changing figures in Orenco D. I also see that AC-3 has been used as a figure in Brooks Air Force Base where the planes have been labeled as Orenco Ds. On the basis of this thread I propose changing the caption IAW this thread to Spad XIIIs. Would somebody else like to change the actual figure info on Wiki commons? Comments/concorrence pls. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Done !! Connor7617 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Started Discussion

Article: Rudolf Abel

I've started a discussion concerning a half of paragraph. I feel my version is enough for the article, while All Hallow's Wraith insists to have their full name and the wife first instead of having Heinrich and Lyubov Fisher. Feel free to have your comments on the subject. It's open to anyone. Adamdaley (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Army–Navy Game

The US Army–Navy Game is coming up this weekend, and it seems to have brought out IP vandals (most from Westpoint or Annapolis) determined to show their team spirit. In addition to a few vandalism edits on the game article, the academy articles have been hit pretty heavy today. It might be a good idea to semi-protect United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy for a week or so till enthusiasm for the game has passed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The academy articles have been semi-protected for a week. - BilCat (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't the articles just be range-filtered out for editing from Annapolis and West Point permanently? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD or no?

Is Charles Rogers Greer notable? Please review and advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say does not meet GNG guidelines. Kierzek (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Concur, Silver Star doesn't make him notable by itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Would any of you WP:MH guys like to nominate the article for AfD? You know your specific notability guidelines better than I do . . . I'm happy to participate if someone pings me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
By that line of reasoning the articles of Georg Thiele, Max Schultz, Richard Beitzen and other namesakes should probably also be deleted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think any of them are notable - the only thing I can find that mentions any of them individually is a brief line about Thiele commanding at the Battle of Texel. Nothing to support a decent biography of any of them. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Included the information in the article on the ship named after him and created a re-direct. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Of course he's notable - they named a ship after him. A ship is a few thousand tons of secondary source. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Not everyone is notable just because they have a ship named after them. And God knows why they did anyway. He seems exceptionally non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Well it was only because of the fact he apparently was the first Marine to be awarded an Army decoration in WWII. With the number of ships being cranked out during WWII, I am not totally surprised one was named for him; with that said, still did not rate a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Can someone take a look at the last three edits made at Timeline of World War I and tell me if there is any reason the changes by Romanian and Proud would be considered acceptable? I'm not sure if the battles were in the wrong theatres or not, but s/he's change the color to reflect different theatres for some of the battles and I'm uncertain if they are still correct or if they need to be reverted back. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Assuming I'm looking at the correct three edits, they seem ok. They could be interpreted as Eastern Front, but as there's a specific Balkan colour/subset, and these battles seem to fall within that narrower scope, it doesn't seem bad to put them in there. Ranger Steve Talk 12:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Military order

The topic and usage of Military order is under discussion, see Talk:Military order (monastic society) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Golden Hill

The page for The Battle of Golden Hill should be under the scope of this wikiproject. Here are some sources to improve it:

  • The Battle of Golden Hill – Six Weeks Before the Boston Massacre
  • THE BATTLE OF GOLDEN HILL.; Fought in John Street in 1770 in Defense of New York's Liberty Poles -- The First Blood Shed in the Revolution.
  • The sources already cited.

JerrySa1 (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This was not part of the AWI. This was an example of civil unrest which indirectly led to the outbreak of conventional hostilities six years later. There were many other factors for the outbreak of war. Irondome (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be categorized though. JerrySa1 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Repetitive linking in list tables

Many aircraft list tables have repetitive linking for some items, for example the role of "Fighter" endlessly linked to Fighter aircraft for each type listed. I have found conflicting MOS guidelines about this, so I have started a discussion about Linking on the AVILIST talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not limited to Milhist. I've seen all manner of lists with every instance of a term, or a name, linked, & I've never been sure if the links should remain or not. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Kinda depends if it's a sortable list, IMO. If it is, then each term needs to be linked every time as you can never predict where the one linked term is once the stable is sorted. If not sortable, then no need to link every use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Bias in Lusitania/Room 40 articles

An editor from the German Wikipedia has suggested that another editor there has an "extreme-right" bias and is editing disruptively here to push their preferred version of certain German military history topics. There is a thread at the admins' noticeboard here discussing it, in case anyone here would like to take a look. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

They are perfectly fine as sources. I have reverted and restored the material. Suggest dialogue as next step. The material is perfectly acceptable in the bibliography. A quick search of google books immediately found them being cited by other naval history works. Irondome (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Avro Vulcan#Which Vulcans should have their own articles?

This isn't not rocket science, so please just take 5 minutes to give an informed opinion, if only because it will actually improve Wikipedia for readers, who seem to be given a very low priority due to Wikipedia's apparently preferred state of indecision and ambiguity. Natural Ratio (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of active Russian Navy ships#Messy

Idea was raised on whether or not to tidy up what looks to be a messy list. It was suggested we use a similar layout as List of current ships of the United States Navy. I personally agree, and believe it would be nice to hear other peoples opinion before a consensus/decision is made. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create an infobox for fictional conflicts

I am proposing that an infobox be created for fictional conflicts, as currently many articles on fictional conflicts, as well as a real-time virtual battle, use Template:Infobox military conflict. To centralize discussion, please reply, if interested, at the infobox talk page I've linked to here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre RfC

Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 18/12/15

See Draft:William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 05:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō ; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Have dropped by as asked. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible problematic article

I recently declined a speedy at List of wars between democracies, where the argument was that it was something someone came up with one day. It doesn't really fit under that criteria since the concept itself isn't exactly new and I don't know of any other guidelines it'd fall under. I've recommended that the article should go through AfD if further deletion is wanted. I haven't really taken an in-depth look at the article, but offhand my biggest concern would be that it may be considered original research. I'm bringing this up here so that someone more familiar with the topic of wars and democracy can take a look at it and see if everything is ship shape. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Political scientists have endless debates about wars between democracies, so it's a major topic. 1) "Wars between democracies: rare, or nonexistent?" International Interactions , 1993 is cited by 160 scholars; 2) "Kant or cant: The myth of the democratic peace" by

C Layne - International security, 1994 - is cited by over 700 scholars. see opening page. Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What democracies? The last one was Weimar Germany and that was assassinated in 1930.Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Assassinated how and by whom? —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

John French, 1st Earl of Ypres

Article: John French, 1st Earl of Ypres

I found this article among the "B class" articles and it's comprehensive and well referenced. Unfortunately, it falls one reference short. It could be a "GA" Assessment if the reference is found by someone who is into these type of articles. Adamdaley (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

HMS templates question

HMS Wolverine how is this formula arrived at? I tried copying the format but kept getting the last bit wrong. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Keith, not totally sure what you are asking here, but have you had a look at the tmeplate documentation page here? Hamish59 (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been polishing the Operation Pedestal page but couldn't work out how to choose the last digit in {{HMS|Wolverine|D78|6}} templates like this.

I have another question: how is it that some pages have italics in the title. How is this accomplished? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ship articles with a ship infobox automagically italicize titles, mostly appropriately. The magic happens in {{Infobox ship begin}} and Module:WPSHIPS utilities. If the magic doesn't work right, tell me.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. And what a beautifully written module. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Jacob L. Devers needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Jacob L. Devers; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

1st Cavalry

Are the 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) page and the 1st Cavalry Regiment (1855) page about the same unit?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. But while looking at this I noticed that the creator of 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) has been permanently blocked since 2009 for copyvio. And this particular article seems to have been mostly a copy and paste from a U.S. Army publication. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
As long as it's attributed, that should be alright - a US Army work would be public domain. (A lot of U.S. Navy ship articles were 'seeded' from DANFS, for instance, being a PD source.) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
As confirmed by http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/armor-cav/004cv003sq.htm, the 1st Cavalry Regiment formed in 1855 became the 4th Cavalry Regiment (United States). The First and Second Dragoons became the present-day 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) and 2nd Cavalry Regiment. In accordance with MILUNIT, 1 Cav Regt (1855) should be merged into 1st Cav Regt. As The Bushranger (even varying in numbers of pings) says, there is no problem with us starting from a PD source and then adopting it to suit WP:ARTICLE etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't therefore 1st Cavalry Regiment (1855) be merged into 4th Cavalry Regiment (United States)? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
When the Army starts re-designating companies/troops/batteries as battalions, it makes my head hurt. I'll add this to my to-do list, but don't let that stop anyone else.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
That's more of a 1960s thing (think CARS). The renaming of cavalry units took place at the start of the Civil War. What drives me nuts is when they start inventing regiments for lineage purposes (which started with the creation of the brigade combat teams). Intothatdarkness 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree there. Anyway, I've put an "agree" on the merger. Is that a technical process? --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, yes. Intothatdarkness 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: - which regiments were invented for lineage purposes as the BCT conversion took place? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Regular Army cavalry regiments only went to 28 (the 26th Cavalry, formed from Philippine Scouts, was the last regiment to see actual combat as cavalry - the 27th and 28th Cavalry didn't form until 1943 and were quickly converted). If you look at the official lineage for any regiment numbered above 28, you start seeing National Guard units, state units (from the period before the National Guard), and so on. The 106th Cavalry Regiment is one example of this. http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/armor-cav/106cvrg.htm shows the unit's recognized lineage. It was either field artillery or ADA for the bulk of its actual existence. Intothatdarkness 22:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Intothatdarkness. Noted some 70-series and 90-series regiments organised to provided BCT cavalry squadrons. Now I intend to merge 1 Cav (1855) into 4th Cavalry Regiment within about 24 hours unless there are any valid objections. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The articles have been merged. There is a discussion section on the talkpage, Talk:4th Cavalry Regiment (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2015 now open!

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

Military history newcomer of the year 2015
  • First place
    First place
  • Runners up
    Runners up

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 14 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

  • [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2015. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December 2015.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 15:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. TeriEmbrey TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support as nominator. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Hamish59 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Several good candidates this year, but I've appreciated the way he's learnt during the year. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support. Gavbadger (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Anotherclown (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Hamish59 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support, don't think we've interacted yet but I like the look of the contributions I've seen so far -- good nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2015 now open!

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

Military historian of the year 2015


  • First place
    First place
  • Second place
    Second place
  • Third place
    Third place

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 14 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

  • [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2015. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations

  • Anotherclown: has once again been a stalwart of the project's review processes, as well as finding the time to write several GA-class articles over the year, and pitching in as a co-ord in the current tranche. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Peacemaker67: has continued to be a prolific content contributor writing numerous GA, A, and FA-class articles over the year, as well as being one of our more active coordinators. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • TomStar81: for ongoing contributions as a co-ord, and ongoing op-ed work as part of the team working on The Bugle. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ian Rose: for a great year as lead coordinator, getting stuck in and leading by example in all the back-room work (like passing ACRs, handing out ACMs, checking the monthly contest and re-booting it etc), his ongoing work on The Bugle and still having time to gather three more ACMs with Diamonds with his content work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hawkeye7: prolific contributor of high-quality content. He has also been a long-time servant of the project as a co-ord, where his technical contributions (e.g. MILHIST Bot) have also been significant. Anotherclown (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keith-264: for his tireless contributions to many of our more important, yet often neglected First World War battle articles (not to mention helping out in other areas as well). Anotherclown (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I nominate the usual suspects, we know who you are. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • AustralianRupert: part of the furniture here really, in addition to writing a number of GA, A, and FA articles this year, he has continued to review more articles than nearly anyone else, not to mention helping out as a co-ord, providing well-regarded advice to new and established editors alike, contributing to The Bugle, helping out with drives, and assessing articles (among other things). Anotherclown (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria: for contributions right across the Project via her diligent and highly clueful work reviewing images used in articles at FAC/FLC and ACR/ALR in particular. I've lost track of how many times I've asked her for a second opinion on an image licence, or to jump in with an image review of an ACR she hasn't got to yet, but she is always happy to help out. She is one of the reasons the wheels haven't fallen off our ACR process yet. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December 2015.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 15:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Keith-264 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. TeriEmbrey TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support, especially for his great efforts producing thought-provoking op-eds in every issue of the Bugle during the commemoration period of WWI. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support as nominator. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Hamish59 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support, for his continuing work improving ACR (and FAC) automation, as well as of course content contributions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Hamish59 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "the usual suspects"
  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Keith-264 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. TeriEmbrey TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Hamish59 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. SupportKges1901 (talk)
  1. Support. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. TeriEmbrey TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support, particularly for her unfailing efforts reviewing sources and imagery, without which the process would be sorely lacking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support as nominator. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support for her work on reviewing. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A-Class review for 7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Did a drive-by ce but it's not really my field.Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC for requested page move of United Provinces of the River Plate

The renaming of this page has been discussed for some time, we would appreciate your involvement and voicing your input on the appropriate title for this article. Please see the discussion here. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The FAC nominator on this one is long gone. How does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I added a couple of links and adjusted the licences on one of the images in the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that the "Japanese commander's progress report" quote probably needs to be checked as it doesn't seem clear where it is taken from. Does anyone have Paul Ham's Kokoda? If so, it would be good to add an inline citation that includes the page number. Same same for the other quotes which just seem to include the title of the work without a page number. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan, I've had this on my watchlist since its FAC days and I think it's remained in good shape (even better now with Rupert's and Nick's recent input). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
A couple of the external links appear to be dead, and I haven't yet been able to find archiveurls: [4]. If possible, I think we should replace or update these links. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I've done the dead links now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The description of the battles Kingsbury was involved in are pretty lacking. In particular, the article implies that the Battle of Isurava wad an Australian victory, when it was actually a defeat Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all, I'll keep an eye on changes to the article and modify the TFA accordingly. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick question: I'm assuming what's meant is "the first serviceman to receive the Victoria Cross for actions in Australian territory" ... right? The lead says "to receive the VC in Australian territory". - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

G'day, yes that is the intention, I believe. I've adjusted the article now. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, that looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I sent \/ an email just to see if he'll want to pop in! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2/9th Battalion (Australia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/9th Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

HMS Brilliant (1757)

The HMS Brilliant (1757) article is in need of expansion. Sources available to do this are linked from WT:SHIPS#HMS Brilliant (1757). Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

History of the Great War, 1915-1949 question

I'm adding material to History of the Great War but would like something about histories produced in the C19th like the Crimea and some of the wars in India like the Sikh Wars. Does anyone have sources to suggest for reference please?Keith-264 (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you consulted the historiography on official histories? Robin Higham has written and edited some good stuff on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I've tried but I need money; the local Lloyd's got blagged by some scallies recently so I've had to go on the waiting list. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Foreign language names of fortifications

For fortifications in non-English-speaking countries, on Wikipedia should the name of the fort, castle, tower etc be translated into English, or should the native name be used? For example, should the article on the Castello di Milazzo in Sicily be named as such, or should it be Milazzo Castle?
Note: This is not for fortifications which have a common name in English (eg. Fort Saint Elmo should not be Il-Fortizza ta' Sant'Iermu) or fortifications where the foreign name is commonly used even when writing in English (eg. Torre dello Standardo should not be Tower of the Standard).
Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's no standard usage in English, then the name should be left in its native language.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: First of all, I forgot the word "not" in my original post, which changed the meaning of my sentence (now it's corrected). The issue here is if there is no usage at all in English. For example, I'm thinking of translating it:Torre Cabrera (Pozzallo), and all sources about the tower seem to be in Italian. So what should the article title be - Cabrera Tower (Pozzallo) in English or Torre Cabrera (Pozzallo) in Italian (or possibly Turri Cabrera (Pozzallo) in Sicilian)? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I generally tend to use native names with regards to foreign fortifications (eg. Forte Gonzaga or Fortezza del Tocco). However, sometimes I do use English translations when I find them used in at least one English language source (eg. Fort of San Diego or Ligny Tower). However, I would prefer to have some sort of consistency, which is why I'm asking this question. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about about consistency as plenty of places have common names in English, but article titles in the local tongue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll continue using native names in most cases, or English names if I find them already in use. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Pith image recommendation

I'm looking for a close-up photo of someone (preferably British) wearing a plain pith helmet in a jungle-like area. Anyone have any recommendations? czar 04:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Commons has a large number of images, some of which might do the trick: [5] Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I should add that I didn't see anything quite in the context I'd like at Commons, which is why I was asking. If anyone has ideas even perhaps for other undigitized archives to ask or search czar 08:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Gday @Czar: - the Australian War Memorial has some (but mostly of Diggers) - see here [6]. Fairly sure they are all Public Domain too. In particular perhaps one of these images might come close to meeting your brief [7], [8], [9], [10] (but there are others). I hope this is helpful. Anotherclown (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@Anotherclown, these are pretty great—much obliged czar 05:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Aloysius Stepinac

Your input is requested at Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#RfC:_What_honorific-prefixes_should_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Golden Hill

I have improved the page for the Battle of golden hill, so I think it should be reclassified. I'm not a member of this wikiproject so I haven't done so myself. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Jerry. I'd say it's a reasonable C-class article. It has a structure and some substantive content, but it would need a bit of fleshing out if it's to move higher up the scale. (For some reason the template seems to treat "class=C" as 'start' class, which is odd because I remember the debate about adopting C class within Milhist a few years ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I think, but am not sure, that for the template to recognise assessments higher than start, you need to fill in the B-class 1-5 checklist. -- saberwyn 01:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I think Saberwyn is right. As our C class requires meeting 4 out of 5 B class checks, it needs a B class check list. I think it can assess to C class automatically after the check list is done - can someone confirm? Monstrelet (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"American march"

The usage of American march is under discussion, see talk:American march music; is there a type marching particular to the U.S. services? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Events leading to the Falklands War

Can I ask for an independent review of recent edits to Events leading to the Falklands War‎, I am concerned that there is a certain amount of cherry picking from the sources to reflect the editors POV rather than a neutral reflection of what the source says. WCMemail 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

RM of interest to this project

Talk:Bismarck#Requested move 29 December 2015 BMK (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Stub class articles improved

Hi, I've recently improved some stubs and as a relative newbie who has mainly been contributing new articles I am not sure what I should do regarding their existing TALK page classifications or their footers. I did make occasional changes but stopped in case I was doing wrong. I've improved Adam Wise, John Cook (VC), George M. Cox and George Innes (RAF officer) recently. Thanks for any advice, R44.Researcher1944 (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

G'day R44! I've had a look at a couple and you've done some really good work expanding those articles. Until you develop a clear idea how to self-assess articles up to C-Class, I suggest you post them at WP:MHAR where the Milhist community bring articles for an independent assessment. It's worth reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment too. If you bring articles to MHAR and they are assessed to be at a higher level, you can enter them in our article writing contest. Best of luck with it, keep it up! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

DSO citation.

Does anyone have access to New Zealand and the Distinquished Service Order I'm trying to locate a DSO citation for David Cossgrove, the founder of Scouting in New Zealand. There's a lot of issues with his descendant who insists that Cossgrove held the DSO but I can't locate anything for it. The claim seems to be based around this picture File:Lieutenant Colonel David Cossgrove DSO (with his medals) 1910.jpg and the endorsement on it. Nthep (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought all DSOs were in the London Gazette? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Usually they are. However, the LG isn't a 100% infallible source for honours and decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Cant see a DSO in the image is it the one on the wrong side! which doesnt look like a DSO. MilborneOne (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
In the New Zealand Herald in 1912 http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NZH19120525.2.9 he is decribed as Colonel D. Cosgrove, V.D. Chief Commissioner for New Zealand - it would seem strange to mention the V.D and not a DSO he had been awarded only two years before. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: correct, but even with the possible variations in spelling I can't find him, that's why I asked if anyone has the book which is the definitive work on NZ DSO holders or another pair of eyes over the Gazette.
@MilborneOne: it was that citation that started my search. The problem is that the person who uploaded the image is adamant that Cossgrove, who is his gg-grandfather, was awarded the DSO and there has been a lot of disruption and socking over the issue of the article name. The only reference found to a DSO is the message written on the photo and either a reliable source is needed that it was awarded or some pretty strong evidence that he wasn't awarded a DSO. I know that's trying to prove a negative but if he isn't in the Gazette and NZ and the DSO doesn't mention him then the argument for removing any mention of DSO from the article is a lot stronger. Nthep (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
A lot of information appears in searches presumably by the look of it uploaded to various places by the family but none mention the DSO so unless somebody has a reliable source then it cant be mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Necrothesp For most purposes it is safe to say that the LG is 100% infallible source for honours and decorations. The scanning is good but not perfect, the indexes are not infallible, there are typos, honorary awards are not gazetted but by the South African War 1899-1902 all except two DCM were gazetted. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
MilborneOne I agree that the image on the wrong side is not the DSO and it would be strange to mention the VD and not a DSO. Peacemaker67 Creagh and Humphris, The VC and DSO, DSO part 1 1886-1915 which lists every DSO award up until 1915 does not have any Cossgrove or variations listed. There were no DSO awards gazetted between 1908 and 1912. Since it is not listed in the London Gazette or in Creagh and Humphris, the most comprehensive DSO reference for the period or in a contemporary news article I am satisfied, on the information available, that he was not awarded the DSO. Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Probably a moot point in light of Anthony's comment above but I have a copy of the book "New Zealand and the Distinguished Service Order" and having checked it just now, can confirm that there is no entry for a Cossgrove (or indeed a Cosgrove). Zawed (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Anthony Staunton: If you think the LG lists all honours and decorations I suggest you try searching for something awarded in WWII; you'll soon realise it's very far from being complete. Other wars are certainly better covered, but it's still not perfect. I've found plenty of omissions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: That is not my experience but I would be interested in examples. All WW2 awards to Australian forces were listed with the exception of some MIDs and most foreign awards. The Governor General of Australia had the authority for these which were published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette with most MIDs but only 35 of 401 foreign awards republished in the London Gazette. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the additional research. Nthep (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:U.S. Prisoners of War during the Vietnam War. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Soviet 51st Army

G'day, our article on the Soviet 51st Army is currently missing a few citations. I have listed the sentences/paragraphs that need refs on the article's talk page. If anyone is able to help, I would be much obliged. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Dog tag

Is Dog tag the best name for this page or is it too U.S.-centric? I call them dog tags, btw, but I'm pretty sure the U.S. Army doesn't, at least officially. The original page was kind of a disambig page without links. Since we have an international flavor here, what do other nations/services call the items? Is there a better (page) name?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Identity discs is another term for them, I believe. See here: [11]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if its a term actually used, but if you're looking for something generic you could use something like "military identity tag". -- saberwyn 02:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
A joint U.S. regulation, which only addresses "identification tags" for the Army.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that their official name notwithstanding, the WP:COMMONNAME is "dog tags". - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
To clarify my point, I agree that dog tag is the common name, although it might be a good idea to reference alternate names in the article (if this hasn't already been done). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Rupert. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization of the Military history WikiProject task forces

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

 

Recently, the Coordinators for the XIV tranche have discussed the matter of introducing a new continental based task force system intended to allow the project to cover by proxy all nations and regions on the Earth. The new system proposed would see the nations and regions task force section reorganized with the introduction of a North American, European, and Asian task forces, a reclassification of the current Latin American task force into a dedicated South American task force, and the retention of the currently used African and Australian, New Zealand, and South Pacific task force (ANZSP).

The proposal for reorganization is based in part on a desire to better addressed perceived gaps in the coverage of national and regional task forces so as to allow for us to cover military forces in areas that presently have no specific coverage. Additionally, as has been observed by others in the project, the task forces run by the Military history Project have at this point evolved into a means of organizing project pages as opposed to being dedicated sub-sections of the project where interested editors work exclusively. It is believed that reorganizing the project's national and regional task forces in this way will benefit the project in the long run by allowing us to retain the current national and regional task forces while placing a moratorium of sorts on the creation of additional national and regional task forces while simultaneously allowing us a safe haven to catch national or regional task forces that have failed or disbanded. Creation of the currently proposed continental task forces would be followed up by the creation of certain regional task forces as judged to be necessary for the project to operate efficiently.

Because the coordinators require community input on this matter in order to move forward we are placing this here for discussion and to solicit feedback from the community on this proposal. If you have any comments, questions, concerns, or suggestions feel free to raise them here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think, rather than placing a moratorium on the creation of new project-based national or regional task forces, it would be better to simply have them redirect to the continental task force. Additionally, if a particular task force is pretty active, I recommend letting that one continue as it is. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
In the long term that is one of the possible outcomes of this process, however there was disagreement on directly disbanding the task forces because a number of them are thought to be active enough to warrant a national or regional specific task force. For that reason we decided to go with a moratorium as a middle ground approach in order to research the subject to best determine which task forces could be consolidated and which can still stand on there own. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Will the implementation of this proposal involve reactivating the task force talk pages? I'd be in favour of doing so, for the ANZSP task force at least, to provide a forum for topic-specific discussions and take a bit of traffic off this busy page. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of activating all the continental taskforce talkpages (at least initially), to see if there is merit in the terms Nick suggests. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
We can give that a try. No harm is trying something new since we already contemplating a major overhaul here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy to give this a go, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me as well. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I've made a few tweaks regarding some countries/empires which are obviously covered by two continental task forces (Turkey, Ottoman, Russia, USSR), and clarifying a few things like where Central American states (North America) and PNG (ANZSP) fit. We should discuss if anyone has a different view. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

How about a Post-Cold War taskforce that will cover ongoing conflicts and everything that happened after 1991?--Catlemur (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That's been suggested before, but perhaps we could look at it as part of the next step once the continental TFs are in place. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, I have in my mind's eye an entire overhaul of the current task forces operating for the Military history Project. I simply started with the continental task force idea cause I have had that one loaded up for some time now, and it unexpected gained traction with the coordinators. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirects and Category Page Task Forces

Happy New Year everyone! I see redirects and categories have now started populating the "Military history articles with no associated task force" backlog. Do they now need to be assigned task forces or is there something wrong with the script that used to filter them out? --Molestash (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

We've (finally) enabled the task force versions of all of the new assessment classes that have been added to the project banner over the past year (AL/BL/CL as well as the various non-article classes), so these articles are now going through all the task force checks in the template (and getting assigned to the "no associated task force" category as a result). In principle, we should be assigning task forces to them now, so that task forces that want those assessment statistics will have them available, but it's by no means an urgent backlog. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Expanding Mudaysis article (Iraq airbase frequently used as a point of reference)

I wrote the article Mudaysis a number of years ago since I've personally been there and have some photos I need to eventually add. I touched it up a little with an infobox with the ICAO code and a link to GlobalSecurity.org today, but it's still pretty sparse.

I thought about expanding it, and it has a number of hits on GoogleBooks, but it's all aviation stuff about "bogies" and the like that's frankly beyond me since I don't know the airframes, terms, etc. Not at all to impose, but if anyone is a fan of the 1991 Gulf War, or Middle Eastern aviation in general, you could probably have a fun five minutes tracing the air combat history of that installation. Just wanted to bring it to your task force's attention. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

World War I casualties

World War I casualties Would some kind soul look at footnote 17 as it's got red on it Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "World_War_I_Databook" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).. I had a try to sort it out but no luck. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)

I've got rid of that particular issue although there are a couple of other citation errors -- let me know if you need more eyes on those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know that notation system so assumed that copying ones which were all right would do the trick but sadly not. I tend to leave alone but if you've got time to do the others I'd be grateful.Keith-264 (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I've had a look and I think I've fixed the last one; hope it's all right. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks ok thanks, I'm creep-checking all of the articles on my watch list and that one tripped me up.Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks Keith. If there's anything else you spot feel free to drop me a note. Hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

So, I kinda burned out for the end of 2015 - I often do, mind ye; Christmas is a busy time if you sing. I'm back now, though, and am happy to help out as best as I can.

Currently working on a selection of recruitment posters. Found some decent ones for Canada, the United Kingdom, United States (may finally have a good copy of "I Want You for U.S. Army"), and New Zealand, mostly WWI, but Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa has a WWII New Zealand poster they assure us is out of copyright. I presume due to Crown Copyright. Terribly mangled at the bottom, but in surprisingly good condition overall, and probably should clean up well. Internet searches assure me that the damaged section is flat coloured, and that there is apparently no missing text - not even fine print text stuck up against the bottom of it, so the reconstruction shouldn't mislead.

But I digress. Currently completed poster restorations from this period include (and, in fact, are strictly limited to at this time):

And while I by no means promise to do all of these, images I'm eyeing include:

Those five are probably happening; I already know there's obvious places for them in articles, etc. The latter ones will depend a bit on what looks useful when I double-check.

If anyone has suggestions, do speak up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France article size

The Battle of France article is currently at 99K of readable prose, about double than it should be according to WP:SIZE. I invite discussion about the best ways to shorten it, although trimming the details in individual battle sections seems a natural way to start.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Are there thematic articles about some of the technicalities that can accommodate detailed material from the article and be linked? There's a big Blitzkrieg article that's already linked for example and some of the background items like the state of the armies in 1939-1940 might be treated the same. Keith-264 (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I've had another look and suggest that where an item has a link to a page (like Mechelen Incident) we could try to limit that section to 10–12 lines and a map/picture/diagram, so that the intrepid reader can follow the link for more detail. Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Had a quick look at it. I appreciate that that some parsing could be done to trim details but not certain if they could produce a significant decrease in size while still maintaining continuity. I suggest a "proof of concept" exercise in a sandbox. I did something like this for Buna-Gona - see [19]. It is just a pretty rough cut and hack just to see what the resultant size might be if each section were reduced to an estimate of what it might appear as. If the proof of concept indicates a sufficient reduction in size to justify the effort, then, it might be worth pursuing. Hope this helps. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Why does it need to be trimmed? There are thousands of articles that are much, much more big in size. Kind regards, Coldbolt (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that. Got any examples?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Prose can always be made more succinct.Keith-264 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 - World War II; 226K, Dinosaur; 176K, Frank Sinatra; 205K, War in Donbass; 364K, Domestic violence; 294K... Do you want me to continue? :) Kind regards Coldbolt (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Coldbolt. The *readable prose* size of the articles you just mentioned are actually - 78 kB, 64 kB, 89 kB, 116 kB, 94 kB, respectively. (Using Prosesize). The relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:SIZERULE. (Hohum @) 16:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
the "Wikipedia rule" --actually an informal guideline--makes two assumptions that make it much less useful for us: a) people read the whole thing straight thru and do not focus on the topics that interest them. b) people have a fixed attention span and will not take a pause & return to the article later. My experience from teaching dozens of university courses on military history is that military history readers have a longer attention span than most university students--as you can confirm by the lines at the bookstores at the military history section. Rjensen (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Not entirely sure if rjensen is replying to me specifically, by indent it seems so. First - I said "guideline" quite clearly; get it changed if you don't like it. Second - this is an encyclopedia for general use, not specifically for people who are already students of military history - as they will tend to buy the books, as you allude to. As I see it, wikipedia should provide the fairly bare facts, and hopefully encourage more in-depth reading - perhaps using the sources and reading lists provided.
All of that said, this article isn't *huge*. However, if a massive subject like WWII can adequately be covered in fewer words, there is probably scope to make this one more concise and accessible. (Hohum @) 17:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:SIZE is a guideline, but the numbers are just a "rule of thumb". I don't like losing information by trimming articles. Usually what is actually required first is work on the sub-articles, so everything gets adequately covered. Sometimes a suite of articles gets written top down, and sometimes bottom up. I generally pitch the articles at high school level, but the sub-articles higher, meaning that some background reading (the main article at least) is assumed. (Where do they teach dozens of courses on military history? Do they need anyone?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Trimming isn't cutting; altering a discursive style to a laconic one gets maximum value from each word.Keith-264 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the "Blitzkreig" section as it was totally unneeded impart because of "Army tactics". Prose size is now 96kB. Though, due to the nature of how large the topic is, I don't think that much else should be removed. It's just a large topic, and it requires a large article. KevinNinja (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Peter Ronald Davies. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that the article has now been created in mainspace (but it still needs some smartening up, e.g. titles of references rather than bare URLs). Stanning (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Missing Attributes in WikiProject Military History

I would like to bring to attention some members that they are not fully filling out the WikiProject Military History template to articles. Since we do a lot of Biographies as well, numerous members in the last few days also fail to do this template as well. Unfortunately, it's left upto me to cleanup and make certain that these templates reflect the articles 100%. Adamdaley (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Adam, you and I have had interaction about this before. You choose to do this work. Not everyone wants to or is confident in filling out other WPs banners. So stop badgering people. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. Then how about the WikiProject Military History template? Adamdaley (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
What have people been missing? Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
As an example... It is a Biography who was with the RAAF during the Cold War. They left out "Aviation", "World War II", or "Cold War". But they managed to everything else, such as assess, country, etc. People have also been missing out on if Biographies if they had been in World War I and World War II, some only have either World War I or World War II ... Not both, even though stated in the article as being in both. Some of those even go into the Cold War period, so there would be the Cold War, would be applicable as well in some cases. Another example, for me to get the template(s) right, I leave the article open in one tab, open the talkpage in another tab and edit the talkpage and template(s). Adamdaley (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And we thank you for filling those out. But filling them out is not mandatory, nor should it be. There is no deadline, after all. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we not strive for being accurate with Wikipedia? Adamdaley (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Not having all of the applicable boxes checked in a maintinance template that 98+% of Wikipedia readers will never see is not an issue of accuracy. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Bushranger. We all appreciate what you do, Adam. But few will appreciate being badgered about missing a field here or there. It's a big project. You do your thing, we'll do ours. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It is also a statistical. If we want the articles to be accurate and take the time to make them perfect (or at least 100% right) and then turn around and be not perfect (or at least 100% right) with assessing them as "FA class", "A class", "GA class", "B class" etc. and don't forget the "Lists classes" as well. Then we are letting ourselves down. Besides Peacemaker67... I thought you had enough of me last year? Adamdaley (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I have had, Adam. Without putting too fine a point on it, you do a lot of work fixing these "problems", and I mostly develop content for people to read. Do I post on your talk page badgering you about when you are going to develop an article to FA? No. So stop badgering people about what you think they should be doing. Enough said. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Peacemaker. Adam, please remember that we're all volunteers here, and people choose to focus on different things. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that our efforts complement those of other editors. Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 – Yes you were nowhere when I did my "A/GA-class" article, if you want to know. When I did I "badger" you on your talkpage? Adamdaley (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 – If and when I really need your comment on a particular matter/or subject. I'll ask politely for it, otherwise, I think it's better that we don't communicate. Adamdaley (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this conversation has gotten a bit far afield. To bring us back to the original question:

  1. There is absolutely no requirement that anyone using our project banner fill out all (or any) of the optional fields. Partially completing the template is perfectly permissible; so long as someone isn't deliberately putting in wrong information, they're welcome to help out to whatever degree they find comfortable.
  2. Having said that, filling in all of the optional fields obviously helps us to get better statistics, so we're very grateful to everyone who takes the time to do so (and to help out with our tagging and assessment backlogs in general).

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin – You’ve nailed it! Statistics is the key for our WikiProject. Unfortunately, I'm the only one who is actually finding that the majority of already assessed articles have major flaws in its assessment. While other contributors seem to think, I've done the article reasonably good, why should I bother with the assessment? The assessment is almost 100% done! It just needs a tweak and it'll be right at 100%. Yes, I have used some contributors' names in edit summaries only for them to take responsibilities for their actions. But refuse they've missed anything. Why can’t anyone take responsibility for missing anything? I do not mean it in a bad way. Just to acknowledge it. If I missed something I would be willing to fix something I missed with WikiProject Military History. I admit, I won't write an FA-class article. Yes, "A/GA-class" yes, done completed, but has to be redone somewhat. But I am going through over 500 articles maybe 1,000 already. With no complaints. I know I won’t win any awards in contests, or win Historian of the Year. There are no awards for cleaning up backlogs. It'll be something that I'll always get nothing for and go unacknowledged for. Not even make me the centre of attention for a few minutes for doing such a good job that nobody else is willing to do, because they are too busy with content. Adamdaley (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass--Molestash (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
No dead horses here, nor any alive ones, my friend. Adamdaley (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In defense of those who don't assess (of which I am one), let me say this. I don't, because I don't feel qualified to judge if something I've done (necessarily) meets the standards (beyond identifying a stub or start). I'd sooner leave the field(s) empty than mis-assign. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

US Navy Cruiser Articles - Inconsistent

In reading a number of articles related to US Navy Cruisers of the WWII era I have noticed many inconsistencies among the articles often creating contradictions from one article to the next. And the displacements are inconsistently reported in tons, long-tons, or short-tons -- it would be great if we could have a consistent standard. It seems that US ships might follow a US convention of short-ton, but that makes comparisons among navies more difficult.

I've also noticed that a number of lists of ships or classes at WP use class names which are not consistent with the class names at the articles and that the dates of ships are sometimes commission dates and other times launch date. For the most part this is unimportant, but in some cases lists or articles use the original name of the ship as the title, even though the name was reassigned even prior to launch date or commission date, so dating becomes more critical.

I wonder whether a group might review these articles from time to time to provide continuity? --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Long tons should be the default, since that was the standardized unit of measure set by the Washington Naval Treaty. Can you give some examples of inconsistent class names? Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes good sense! I noticed it among the last 10 or so classes of US Navy gun-cruisers (heavy and light). Kevin Murray (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting that some of those late cruisers had their class designations changed at points in their careers, when they were rebuilt as guided-missile cruisers (the 'new' class name for converted ships becoming that of the first conversion) - is this the source of the 'inconsistency' perhaps? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

On reviewing, I only see one article/chart specifying short-tons: Des Moines-class cruiser. Others use tons or long-tons, perhaps not so much inconsistency as ambiguity? Perhaps we could assume that "tons" means "long-tons" but.... Kevin Murray (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I updated Des Moines-class cruiser to clarify LT and converted numbers. Thanks for your advice and assistance.Kevin Murray (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I updated all the US cruiser-class articles for post WWI vessels to relfect long-tons as either the articles on the ships and/or source materials indicated long-tons. Also tried to make the displacements constistent between the ship articles and the class articles. Kevin Murray (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for Nike-X needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Nike-X; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

TCG Anatolia

An article on TCG Anatolia was created a few days ago, and appears to have been created from material taken from the Turkish Naval Forces article, per this diff. It needs attention, including rewriting the prose, adding cats, source checking, etc. I've removed a {{good article}} tag and photo of Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61), but these will probably come back again. Creating warship articles is out of my area of wiki-expertise, so any attention from someone more familiar with these types of articles would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I gave the prose a quick once over, but it's not my usual area either. Gecko G (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. A few other editors have dropped by there also, so thanks too. - BilCat (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It was starting to look like an edit war over the F-35B thing, hopefully the source I just gave can settle things down. All the other numbers (ie troops, complement, etc.) could still use some sourcing.Gecko G (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The source given, which has numerous English-competence issues, really does not state that the F-35B will be deployed, only that the ship may have that capability. However, I'll leave that to others, as I have difficulty interacting with incompetent users (English language or otherwise). Note that the name of the article may also be incorrect, as we normally don't translate names. - BilCat (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
wow, you're fast. I had an alert about your thank-you before my browser had even finished loading the updated page. .
Considering that it is still only in the planning stage, I don't see how any source can say what is, or will be, deployed, but a source stating a planned capability seems like an excellent source to use (obviously, until and unless things change as the planning and construction progresses).
I was wondering about the article name, as it seemed wrong to me, but as I stated above ship articles are not my area of expertise.
What English-competence issues are you refering to in the source? It's a news blog so yes the grammer is not perfect, but it's an english language source (Plymouth University), not a translation.
cheers, Gecko G (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Further, to my knowledge, Turkey isn't ordering the F-35B STOVL model, but the F-35A CTOL version only. Again, the source doesn't address that. - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect that particular source to address that, since that's a different topic. It is a point to consider for the article, but I'm not sure how best to address it. Gecko G (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I misread the ref in the article. The source you added appears fine. Yeah the grammar isn't perfect, such a sky jump" and aircrafts". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I also want to add that the user repeatedly added the highly dubious , unsourced claim that TAI TFX was to be operated from the ship. This is poppycock as there is nothing published about the TFX being designed in a STOVL variant, which is why I have questions regarding the user's competence beyond just the English language. - BilCat (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Bruce Campbell Hopper. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in the military article

I've started a discussion concerning the suitability of some content in this article at Talk:Women in the military#US centric material. Comments from other editors would be great. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Battle of the River Forth ‎

I reviewed Draft:The Battle of the River Forth at Articles for Creation and declined it. Since it describes an air conflict between Germany and the United Kingdom in 1939, before the 1940 fall of France led to the Battle of Britain, it appeared to me to be some sort of WP:HOAX or alternate history. However, since this is a very active WikiProject, I was wondering if some experienced editor could take another look at it and see if my first thought (that it isn't true) is correct. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this happened (though I can't assess the details, I know the basic story). I was concerned by the style (non-encyclopedic)and also the editor could do with some advice on how to handle citations. Can anyone with a WWII specialism offer a bit of mentoring? Monstrelet (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
And, as a PS, given the heavy reliance on one source, maybe do a copyvio check? Monstrelet (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. I wouldn't have thought that this would have happened just as the Polish blitzkrieg was being wrapped up, but this was just another case of Hitler dividing his forces unwisely. (He should never have divided his forces against Great Britain and Russia. Neither should Napoleon have done so. Napoleon didn't have Hitler to learn from, and Hitler, unlike Napoleon, was no student of history.) I agree as to your comments on the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The strategic motivation was trying to damage the British fleet using air power I think. There were raids on Scapa Flow at a similar time. Monstrelet (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I would question the title: "battle" seems a little grandiose. Is there a RS to say that is the correct designation? I note one of the sources calls it "Air attack in the Firth of Forth" which seems more appropriate. Hamish59 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There are no sources in google books that mention it as a battle. The action is usually described as an air raid or an air attack. Kges1901 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree battle seems odd given the scale of the action. However, in the Phoney War, the press came up with all manner of overblown phrases because of the slow pace of the war - could this be an example? There is a similarly scaled set of roughly contemporary air actions covered in the article Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939) which may give a precedent. Monstrelet (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Quick check reveals that though raid or attack seem the most common, there are examples of battle e.g. http://www.eliehistory.com/explore/battle-forth-16-oct-1939/ and http://www.fifeserve.com/battle-of-the-forth-bridge.html Monstrelet (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Battle of Barking Creek here's another contemporary hyperbolic name.Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Unas Article

Article: Unas.

What Task forces (periods and conflicts) is this article under so I can add it to the talkpage? Adamdaley (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Biography and Middle-Eastern are the only applicable taskforces by the look of it. Too old for Classical. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Merging articles for multilateral Angolan/Namibian conflict

Howzit all, under the advice of User:Dodger67 I decided to take this topic here for discussion, as it may set a precedent for the coverage of other multilateral conflicts. There are two closely related articles: South African Border War and Namibian War of Independence, which ostensibly cover separate but closely intertwined conflicts. At least, I would argue that they are separate. In South Africa, the "border war" is a very general term that covers both the South African counter-insurgency campaign in Namibia (the independence war) and its intervention in the Angolan Civil War. As there has been some recent confusion over the two - on which I have elaborated more on here I'd wonder if we should merge both of the articles into one as they deal with some of the same topic matter. On the other hand, keeping the articles separate would mean splitting the general conflict into two phases, one which could be covered adequately with its own article. What's the consensus here? Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Another article is also relevant - Angolan War of Independence.
A brief summary of the conflict(s) for folks not familiar with the history:
Mid 1960s - Three mutually hostile Angolan independence movements start guerrilla campaigns against the Portuguese colonial government, fighting between the three movements also occurs. The Namibian independence movement (SWAPO) use the opportunity created by the loss of border control by the Portuguese to start cross-border attacks against the South African authorities in South West Africa (Namibia).
1975 - The Portuguese abruptly leave Angola (and their other African colonial possessions) due to their domestic political situation. Consequently the largest of the three independence movements (MPLA) seize control of the capital and most of the country's territory. Meanwhile the United States has covertly been supporting the smallest of the movements (FNLA) from neighbouring Zaire. The South Africans enter Angola in force and penetrate almost to the capital. They support the pro-Western/anti-Communist UNITA movement which has established control over part of Southern Angola (along the SWA/Namibian border).
The Soviet Union and other Sovbloc states provide limited support to the MPLA - which later expands to a large Cuban expeditionary force, which is mainly Soviet sponsored. The anti-communist South African government justify their intervention in Angola (and alliance with UNITA) as "keeping the Red-peril" out of their sphere of influence while also attacking the SWAPO/PLAN "rebel" bases in Angola - SWAPO is aligned with the MPLA. Communist/socialist hegemony in Southern Africa is basically complete except for South Africa and SWA/Namibia - and until 1980 also Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.
Throughout the late 1970s and 80s South Africa engages in various raids/invasions into southern Angola - to aid their UNITA allies and inhibit the cross-border guerrilla insurgency of SWAPO/PLAN. The Angolan civil war between MPLA and UNITA continues - the FNLA disappears from the scene with some of their remnants joining South Africa as a "foreign legion" type of unit.
In 1987-88 the MPLA/Cuban forces start a major offensive aimed at unseating UNITA from their control of south-eastern Angola. The South Africans respond with their biggest intervention since 1975. The South African/Unita force manage to stop the MPLA/Cuban advance and a fairly static situation is established. Meanwhile in Eastern Europe various communist regimes are crumbling and even the Soviet Union is under stress. Consequently the Soviets no longer sponsor the Cubans. In South Africa internal and external pressure sees the Apartheid system starting to unravel and economic and political realities make it impossible for the government to escalate their Angolan intervention force to break the stalemate. Likewise the Cubans having lost the financial and materiel backing of the Soviets are also unable to expand their expeditionary forces. Multilateral peace negotiations result in the exit of Cuba and South Africa from Angola and independence for Namibia under a democratic parliamentary system of government. SWAPO, having been largely ineffective in battle, nevertheless win the election. In Angola however the UNITA movement breaks the brief peace and continue their insurgency against the ruling MPLA for several years.
I hope this is a satisfactory summary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Judging by the complexity of the situation, & as someone with only casual familiarity, can I suggest an alternative? Namely, create a "master page" covering the whole situation with some (but not a lot of?) detail, to give an overview for those unfamiliar (& I'd include myself), while leaving the two existing pages as "daughter" pages, for those wanting more. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps South African Border War could fill the role of a "master page", with the daughter pages being Namibian War of Independence and a new "South African intervention in the Angolan Civil War" to differentiate between the two? --Katangais (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
But the South African Border War and "South African intervention in the Angolan Civil War" are one and the same thing. As I see it the issue here is basically that the Namibian War of Independence is relegated to the status of a minor sideshow, and Namibian editors simply don't like it. Unfortunately the numbers and scale of events plainly confirm that the activities of SWAPO/PLAN really were a minor sideshow - a meercat pretending to participate in a clash between bull elephants. SWAPO only very rarely even managed to put a battalion-sized unit in the field, the vast majority of their combat actions were sub-platoon sized. Half a dozen men crossing the border on foot, laying a few landmines, then shooting up a civilian farmstead and subsequently getting hunted down by airborne or motorised South African forces. PLAN was quite simply the most unsuccessful "rebel" army of the 20th century. They literally never won a single contact with South African forces - at any scale. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
(Coming from Wikipedia:WikiProject Namibia) I don't see the horse you intend to beat. Who but Namibian government argues that Namibian independence was brought about by successful PLAN military action? However, HIST≠MILHIST, and Namibian independence should be explained somewhere, in its context of three dependent developments: political, economical, and military. I have an age-old laundry list of events here: User:Pgallert/Independence of Namibia that could maybe become such an article, occupying Independence of Namibia which is currently a redirect. From my point of view, Namibian War of Independence can be a redirect to South African Border War with the Namibian skirmishes described somewhere in a subsection there. That would entail, though, that the outcome of the border war is not flatly stated as "Namibia became independent" because that event was more influenced by economical and political events than by military action, sources in my user space. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been asked by Katangais to express my opinion here. I support a merging, as the Namibian War of Independence article is currently misleading as far as combatants are concerned. That being said, some users will probably not appreciate such a move and call POV, which admittedly is a bit hard to argue. Perhaps some Namibian users should be invited to state their opinion? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mikro. While contension from editors in Namibia (other than User:Pgallert obviously) is a worrying issue in case of a merge, I haven't seen any editor calling WP:POVFORK on this one yet, and those two articles have been separate for a long time. I'll link to this discussion on the South African and Namibian WikiProjects and see what comes up. --Katangais (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Editors from Namibia? Lol, there is Namiba, there is Chtrede, and there is Enots86. No idea what their stand on the topic is, but that's about all we've got down here. --Pgallert (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion these two articles should remain separate as they fundamentally cover different events. The Border War was an extensive and complex military operation and can't be relegated to few paragraphs in a merged article. The use of the word war in the title of Namibian War of Independence should be discussed - Did it ever get big enough to be called a War? Personally I think History of Namibia#The struggle for independence tells the story far better than Namibian War of Independence. Why not just call it that? Gbawden (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Gbawden that the Border War is a topic large and complex enough to merit it's own page and that the issue of independence is a sub-page/paragraph of the History of Namibia. BoonDock (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
What about - as Pgallert and Mikro suggested - simply redirecting NWOI to the Border War instead of creating a merged article? The latter could stay the same. That would put to bed the initial concern about whether the two were in fact separate conflicts, which I'm increasingly inclined to believe they're not. If Gbawden or yourself thinks they are, by all means elaborate here. --Katangais (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A huge overlooked news

People's Republic of China military reform - I nanostubed it and wikilinked into several articles, merely to bring attention to the topic. A have neither expertise nor interest in the subject; only surprised how Wikipedia missed it. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be news (there's a wiki for that), but is it an article? I've tagged it as stub and for notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Iran seizes two American boats & crew

Heads up, breaking on BBC News. Iran has seized two American boats and their crew. It is possible that there could be an article about this incident, and said article would be of interest to this WP. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program

Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.--Jahaza (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion is requested

Thank you for your opinion ([20]) about this issue Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Texas Revolution help

The Texas Revolution article is under attack from unregistered users. Maybe the same one under different names. I've input a request for page protection. However, this is pernicious. I've already reverted twice. You may know that @Karanacs: has not been around for a while. She wrote this, and it's her sources, but she's not here. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I notified the nominator on this one, but they may be gone. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

1st United States Sharpshooters

I came across this while browsing. Not my period of interest but it was a mess, so I gave it a tidy. I feel there is work to be done, though, that needs an ACW specialist. This is an interesting unit, so it would be a worthwhile project.Monstrelet (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger RfC

A formal request has been received to merge: Malchow concentration camp to Ravensbrück concentration camp; >>>Discussion is Here<<<; dated November 2015. Your input is needed and welcome. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 10:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Military History Journal vs. The Journal of Military History

A redirect seems to be conflating these two journals, only one of which currently has an article. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 18#Military History Journal. At RfD, turning redirects into articles is encouraged, so if you can do that, great. We welcome any other contributions you can make to the discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian Navy ships

List of ships of the Egyptian Navy - has two tables, one titled "Current" and the other "Future". Largely edited by a single, 'new-ish' user. The "future" table lists ships that the Egyptian Navy "might buy" or are "in talks to buy". The "current" table lists ships that are still under construction, in another country, and yet to be delivered. I've tried addressing this on the talk page, but to no avail. People are editing other ship-related pages based on this incorrect info. Any assistance here would be appreciated. - theWOLFchild 11:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved. - theWOLFchild 01:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

New Guinea battle articles

G'day all, for a change from my usual infantry battalion articles, I spent the weekend creating a few short entries to kill a few red links in the Salamaua-Lae campaign and Finisterre Range campaign articles. Overall, they are not very good, but I don't have a lot of sources to work with at the moment, and they were really only intended to provide a start in order to potentially encourage others to build on them. Anyway, I will post the links here in case anyone is keen to help out:

Thanks, all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting these, and it's an interesting example of there still being lots of opportunities for everyone to create articles on significant battles. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
If the references aren't under a 2nd level heading, do we still add refbegin and refend? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I'm not aware of a rule either way, but I'd probably lead towards consistency as a rule. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Rotterdam Blitz

We have an IP user removing sourced information at Rotterdam Blitz and edit warring on the British change to target all of Germany after the Rotterdam attack by the Germans, the IP has not provided anything more than a claim it is all lies but if anybody else can pop in and have a look it would be appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The official RAF records show the British began bombing German cities on 11 May 1940, three days before the Rotterdam Blitz. See this article by Dominic Selwood: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11410633/Dresden-was-a-civilian-town-with-no-military-significance.-Why-did-we-burn-its-people.html (79.67.102.69 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC))
Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring - let me know when it resumes and I'll re-apply as necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Taskforce assessment - help needed

I have found Talk:Naval Enlisted Reserve Association unassessed and tried to add it to MILHIST (assuming reserve organizations are within scope to begin with?). But I fail miserably to assign taskforces ("US" and "Maritime") in the template, even though I compared the parameters with other articles, and they seem to be OK. The added taskforces are not shown in the banner's box, nor are their categories added to the talkpage. Help the noob please :). GermanJoe (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This was actually caused by an error in the template code, which I've now fixed. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. GermanJoe (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good article nominees

G'day all, the backlog of Milhist GAN nominees has been creeping up significantly since November/December last year, and there are now over 40 nominations that no-one has yet put their hand up for (as well as 12 currently under review). If you have a chance, please have a look at the list at WP:GAN#WAR and pick one to review. It won't take long to put a dent in it if we all have a go. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC) for the @WP:MILHIST coordinators:

Heroism

The usage of "heroism" is under discussion, see talk:hero -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

potential fake

See Talk:Battle of Nambanje. If nobody can confirm/verify the claimed source in the article maybe an AfD might be advisable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, the issue got resolved. So this section can be closed/archived or however that's handled here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

War of the First Coalition

Was the Kingdom of Ireland a participant in the War of the First Coalition? Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Still no answer?
I think that the KoI should be listed in the infobox for the WotFC (and maybe also the WotSC too). The French certainly had no compunction in sinking Irish ships, as reported in contemporary editions of Lloyd's List. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Kerlés

All comments are highly appreciated here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Battle of Kerlés. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wanted - a topic specialist for a FAC review

Imperial Gift is currently under review as a Featured Article Candidate. The two reviewers who have weighed in so far are not topic specialists on military or aviation topics. The article covers events in a number of British Empire countries in the immediate post First World War period. The British government donated large numbers of aircraft and related equipment to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and India. The donations led to the foundation of four national Air Forces. I am the nominator of the FAC and the major contributor to the article. (This request for assistance has also been posted to WikiProject Aviation.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Nick-D or Ian Rose ...? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Tks Ed. Yes, it's on my list and I hope to get to it before long. Note however, Roger, that Rupert and Nikki are both highly experienced members of the MilHist project, if admittedly not steeped in aviation (though Rupert has done quite a bit in that area of late, working on the Australian Flying Corps article among many others). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I have added some comments about the Australian section of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor recipients has been nominated for discussion

Category:Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor recipients, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for M3 Gun Motor Carriage needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for M3 Gun Motor Carriage; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for Gordon Gollob needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Gordon Gollob; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No. 209 Staging Post

Good Evening,

Has anyone heard of No. 209 Staging Post?

I'm trying to find out information about it so I can find what happened to No. 14 Ferry Unit RAF, it was absorbed by No. 209 on 13 July 1945 at Hathazari Airfield (More info here List of Royal Air Force Ferry units).

I've checked "Lake, A (1999). Flying units of the RAF. Shrewsbury: Airlife. ISBN 1-84037-086-6." but I've found no mention of it.

Gavbadger (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • According to the website rafweb.org, No. 209 staging post existed from 12 August 1945 to 4 March 1946. According to British National Archives website, the archives have a collection of materials from the staging post. Archive description says 209 Stating Post was based at Arkonam, India from October 1945 to January 1946. That's all I could find online. Kges1901 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Kges1901, I wanted to see how far the trail went to see if it deserved it's own article with it's predecessors in it but No. 14 Ferry Unit can stay in the list now. Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sturtivant's Flying Training and Support Units has 209 forming on 12 August 1945 at Akronam, 28 October 1945 to No. 228 Group, by 14 November 1945 at Agartala and disbanded on 4 March 1946. Some connection when it formed from a detachment of No 154 Staging Post at Agartala. The entry for 14 Ferry Unit says it was disbanded into 209 Staging Post on 13 July 1945. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Honours lists - question on sorting - alphabetical or by rank?

I'm doing all the missing British New Year/Birthday Honours Lists and have hit World War I. The way they used to list the names in the London Gazette was unfortunately completely illogical for our purposes and it's extremely time consuming. It's usually manageable but the 1916 Birthday Honours has 2,000+ names and it's a headache. I'm still of course linking names and finding mistakes. But my issues is with how they ordered the names. Particularly annoying is the military listings of the Order of the Bath and Order of St Michael and St George. Normally, we sort the honors alphabetically by last name, divided by military/civilian:

  • Military
    • Royal Navy
    • Army
    • Air Force (after it was established)
  • Civilian
    • UK
    • Commonwealth

And then of course by precedence of the honour. I've compiled them as the Gazette listed them (this is the source I had to work with) and unfortunately I'm guessing they do it by batches of recommendations and which campaign they earned the honor, which for us is useless, since nothing is named. Some are ordered by military rank and some are ordered alphabetically. I've really worked hard on this (expanding all the abbreviations and fixing the OCR mess from the old PDFs) and would like to get these military honours right. So which is better for the military awards - ordering by rank first or last name? Thanks!

Wow. That's a massive job! I'd suggest by last name would be best. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, it's a massive job! I'm a WWI buff so it's very interesting for me. It's pretty sad though, searching to confirm spelling of names etc and see that so many did not survive the war, and in fact a few had already been killed by the time the list came out. But it's cool when you find someone of a lower rank or a chaplain who went on to do something great later in life and already has a Wiki profile. Alphabetical is how they do it now, I noticed, so it seems a good way to go. Thanks. Though Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, will have to stay on top of the list for the MC, since he had no last name! —МандичкаYO 😜 05:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: - The British Royal Family had the surname Saxe-Coburg-Gotha at the time. It was changed to Windsor in July 1917. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was actually the royal house they belonged to and not technically a surname. In 1917 they ditched it in favor of Windsor. However the main royals don't really use surnames and when it's required they they go by their titles, thus Prince William was Williams Wales at school and Captain Wales in the navy, not William Windsor. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
In which case, he would list under "W" for Wales. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Alphabetical order in preference to rank order since someone looking for an individual is more likely to look for a name. The title Honours List really should be British (Imperial) Honours Lists since Commonwealth countries were full participants until most created their own systems. Honours by nations were part of the New Year and Birthday honours. The last Australian Honours was in the Queen’s Birthday 1989 List although it was not until 5 October 1992 that British honours to Australians after that date became foreign honours. The link to Australia on the last line is a link to the Australian Honours System and not to lists of Australian honours. Sadly, Australia no longer gazettes Australia Day and Queens’s Birthday Honours in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Anthony Staunton (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a WP or a convention for recording distances and speeds? I assume "miles" means nautical ones but is that enough? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For naval articles assume nautical miles unless specified otherwise (usually statute miles [sm]). Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, should we add another measure like miles &/or km? Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
IDK what the guideline is, but I prefer to use nm, sm, & km, to avoid any confusion on the subject, & to be sure every reader gets it. BTW, beware assuming nm as a default in ship-related articles; not all editors, or sources, will be using them... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Like this {{convert|nm|sm|km}}?Keith-264 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessary, the default conversion for nautical miles (nmi) outputs as ordinary miles and kilometers. So {{convert|31|nmi}}, forex.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's just come in handy.Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

38th (Welsh) Division's VCs

Hi guys, I am hoping someone will be able to help.

The 38th's divisional history notes that there was five Victoria Cross awarded for actions undertaken during the First World War. I have been able to find four of those men: James Llewellyn Davies, Ivor Rees, Henry Weale, and Jack Williams.

Does anyone know who the fifth man is, or a way we could find out? I have used the various lists available here on the wiki, but was unable to find this elusive fifth man. If our lists are complete, the man was apparently not part of any of the Welsh regiments that made up the division. So medical services? Machine gun corps? etc?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Could also be someone (usually officers) seconded from another regiment? Hamish59 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Hamish, although as of yet I have not been able to nail down who it could have been.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
According to Brig E.A. James, RWF won 8 VCs (1 while attached to another regiment), SWB 6 (1) and Welch 3. I have been through List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients, and other than the four you listed, none of the other men were with 38th (Welsh) Division. Leaves the RFA, RE, MGC, etc. I surprised that the Divisional History does not name the VC winners. Sorry I cannot be any more help. Hamish59 (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
William Allison White for gallantry in France on 18 Sep 1918, gazetted 15 Nov 1918, served with the 38th MG Battalion, the MG battalion of the 38th Division. Anthony Staunton (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I was just about to report my success in locating Mr White VC, thanks to the divisional history (it was buried in there, although I will be honest I do not recall it mentioning the other four chaps - maybe I overlooked them since I already knew their names.). Alas, you beat me to it. Thanks to both of you for the assist on this one.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Fictional Distinguished Service Cross recipients has been nominated for discussion

Category:Fictional Distinguished Service Cross recipients, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:Fictional American military personnel. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A blizzard of 30,000 military costumes in 17th to 19th century illustrations

Example cutting showing German calvary and a lady, neatly labeled, costumes c.1550s.
Vinkhuijzen collection

As part of the New York Public Library batch upload project, there are tens of thousands of public domain images being gradually added to the Vinkhuijzen collection on Commons. Vinkhuijzen was a amateur military buff, and put together an astonishing 762 scrapbooks of cuttings and prints, that were donated to the NYPL shortly after his death in 1910.

As well as the normal issues of categorization, there may be mass housekeeping changes possible, such as normalizing the colour of scans, identifying faulty images or inconsistent metadata. Drop a note on my talk page if you spot patterns of errors or have some ideas for future improvement. Technical notes about the upload are being kept on the central project page. The upload process has started today, and is deliberately slow rather than big bang, so there will be several weeks to tweak the way the upload works and take advantage of the metadata that the NYPL makes available. If it seems too slow after that, the upload may be pushed through the GLAMwiki toolset to finish it off at express speeds rather than through my home broadband.

These images represent a top quality research resource for military costume and could be used to illustrate a huge number of military history articles on Wikipedia. I hope that some of the experts here will enjoy lending a hand in making good use of this gift to open knowledge by the NYPL.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

North Sea 1914–1918

Template talk:Campaignbox North Sea 1914–1918 I've been dabbling with these while I'm off sick and not really in the mood for the longer articles. I'm minded to sfn all of them as they seem to be relatively dormant and I want to move the lesser efforts to B class. I wonder if anyone already involved with them minds? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about the articles in the campaign box? I would not change the citation format, even if nobody's currently working on them. And I also don't understand you what you mean about the "lesser efforts to B class"? A couple that I looked at were start, so I'm not sure what the issue is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm canvassing opinion about the articles in the box like you inferred. Some are B class or higher, some not so I'm minded to improve them. Is the question that cryptic?Keith-264 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Like this Action of 29 February 1916? Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Civil War

Can someone please take a look at this page? It was started as a redirect in 2010 but from 19 January 2016 a new user has been editing this page and making claims like "Turkish Military forces are responsible for the death of hundreds". A more knowledgeable pair of eyes would be appreciated. Gbawden (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A quick google search to see if the phrase pops up in contemporary news or commentary suggests the term is actually only in use as predictions of a possible thing or by some "Oh noes, the Armageddon is upon us. repent now!" groups. The referencing of the article as it stands is rubbish. Suggest redirect and invite the authoring editor to work on it in draft space until something usable can be considered for movement to article space. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The article seems to cover the same subject matter as the PKK rebellion (2015–present). Kges1901 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Finisterre Range campaign

G'day, I'm trying to establish some consensus on the parent/child article structure of the Finisterre Range campaign. I have started a discussion on Talk:Finisterre Range campaign. Anyone who is interested, please drop by and offer your opinion. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"German Air Force" or "Bundeswehr Luftwaffe"

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 20 for a discussion on the naming and scoping of the units and formations category. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I created the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe category to distinguish everything from 1955ish onwards from the Luftwaffe of the Second World War. I believe the Category:German Air Force, without any further description, is thoroughly confusing. It probably needs, as a minimum, to be retitled something like 'Category:Air Force of the Federal Republic of Germany (1955-present). At the same time, if the majority still wants to use the German term for the Second World War force, that at the minimum needs to become 'Category:Luftwaffe (1933-1946)' or, far better, Luftwaffe of (Nazi?) Germany 1933-1946. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
And we want to do this why? (I note that Category:Units and formations of the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe -> Category:Air force commands of Germany -> Category:Luftwaffe Luftflotten Ooops!) My strong preference would be to follow the naming convention used on the German language Wikipedia, calling the articles (and categories) Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr) and Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht). Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Fully agree to Hawkey! MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Short sharp and to the point, like all good titles. Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be great Hawkeye!! This whole thing started because I created Category:Wehrmacht Luftwaffe and then a user who for now will remain nameless emptied it out of process, resulting in its deletion, because it became empty. It would be great to have Wehrmacht Luftwaffe and Bw Luftwaffe, which would be far more consistent than 'Luftwaffe' for one time period and 'German Air Force' for another. But because of that anticipated resistance, I came up with the solution I proposed about above. However, it might be worth having a discussion about appending time periods to the end of the categories, because we are writing for generalists, not specialists. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
+1 to Buckshot06. I'm a military history buff and barely understood what Bundeswehr vs Wehrmacht was supposed to mean until I clicked. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I was trying to figure out over the weekend what happened and came to the following conclusion:

Firstly, the articles and categories on active air forces are named on the principle of Fooian Air Force (Foo standing for the country in question). Thus it is 'German Air Force' not 'Luftwaffe' and Category:German Air Force. This is perfectly in line with WP:MOS and WP:NC.
Secondly, disbanded air forces are in principle not grouped in Category:Air forces by country, but in Category:Disbanded air forces and then in the Category:Military aviation of Foo.
Thirdly, a user confusing Category:Luftwaffe with Category:German Air Force found the later sadly missing and tried to diffuse the former by creating new categories such as Category:Wehrmacht Luftwaffe.
In the process of me weeding through the units and formations of Germany, I accidentally emptied out above mentioned category for the obvious reason of it being redundant. It subsequently got deleted by a observant admin.

Now, as 'German Air Force' and the related category can not be renamed without breaking pattern and violating custom and practice in the air forces category tree, the question is, whether it is really necessary to rename 'Luftwaffe' etc. in order to avoid confusion. Interestingly, there seems to be no problem with confusing GAF with 'Luftwaffe', at least I did not find any evidence of that in the articles linked there. There is some evidence, however, that users mistake 'Luftwaffe' for GAF on occasion, mostly where they are unaware of there being two organizations with that name.

I don't think that there is a real problem here as the head notes are crystal clear, but if there should be a consensus on renaming the former, it should be German Air Force (Wehrmacht), avoiding ambiguous date ranges as MisterBee1966 pointed out above. In a second step some of the units and formations categories for the GAF could be date ranged (1956–) in order to avoid mix-ups, which is exactly what I proposed in above CfD entries. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Weapons articles naming

Good day. I'm trying to achieve some uniformity in the currently motley naming of Italian WW2 weapons articles. Since I could not find any naming conventions for military firearms (and indeed there is no consistency across the Wiki), I'm here to ask some opinions before starting moving pages around.

I'll use as example Breda M37, currently named with a completely made up US-style designation. Official name of the weapon in the Italian Army was Mitragliatrice Breda calibro 8 modello 1937, often shortened to Mitragliatrice Breda cal. 8 mod. 37. In my view, these are the possible alternatives:

  1. Full Italian designation: Mitragliatrice Breda calibro 8 modello 1937
  2. Full Italian designation, w/ abbreviations: Mitragliatrice Breda cal. 8 mod. 37
  3. Shortened (common) designation: Breda mod. 37
  4. Shortened, w/ type designator: Breda mod. 37 machine gun

—Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we develop a "general use" practice to follow when a particular national use doesn't apply? In a world where M=model, and usually followed by an abbreviated year... wouldn't it make sense to include that in the name? How do other nations refer to their weaponry? auntieruth (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
M for model is pretty standard. Eg, M2 Browning and M1894 210mm Belgian mortar although it is sometimes used for Mountain (in French guns). In this case, wouldn't Breda M1937 machine gun do the trick? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I notice we have existing Breda 30 and Breda 38 articles. And also recently created Breda Mod. 35 and Breda Mod. 42 grenade articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

UAV revamp

Hello,

I am rewriting the UAV article that I think needs better treatment. This is not fully related to military history, but it yet contains fairly various military references, and links directly towards Unmanned combat aerial vehicle.

After raising my concerns on the system, robotics, and aviation project pages, without much answer, I feel somewhat left alone about how to handle structure. I was told that this page was more active and give it a try.

For example I got wonders about what enters in the scope of UAV : uses, reglementation, and related events vs techology and structure of systems ; wether it should be a "Unmanned aircraft system" article dealing with the most technical part. Second, I wonder how much of military content I should keep there, or transferring to the combatting article. I have not written any article yet, just a poor and purposely-declined draft, and could use a hand about the article layout, or even English prose since I am a native-French speaker.

I am currently considering keeping the "use" section, and splitting the "event-related" sections to a new article first. I am also writing a whole new section about UAV control systems where I could deal with both conceptual and practical system notions.

Best regards, Maxorazon (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow! The contest has just gone boonta this month!

The amount of content creation work being submitted for the contest this month is crazy. It is really good to see. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hyphens for compound adjectives in article titles

I moved the article Fuze Keeping Clock to Fuze-Keeping Clock in keeping with English grammar for compound adjectives, but Damwiki1 (talk) has objected, saying that the British didn't use the hyphen in its name. He linked to a gunnery manual which confirms the usage, which also shows that they didn't use it for their High Angle Control System. So it appears to be a general stylistic choice by the Admiralty.

Since Wiki has only been able to use hyphens in article titles for the last few years, many articles still don't use them, despite being grammatically incorrect. I move them to a new title with the hyphen as the inclination strikes me, as it did with the article in question.

Now you could make a good case that the article shouldn't be hyphenated, despite any grammar issues, because the formal names for those pieces of kit didn't include hyphens, and the articles are specific to the British systems. I'm not sure that I agree, but what are y'all's thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

One main point is that "fuze" is not necessarily an adjective. A shell fuze is a noun. To "fuze a shell" implies an adjective, however the Fuze Keeping Clock doesn't fuze the shell, as that is done by the fuze setter or fuze setting machine but even here the Gunnery Pocket Book doesn't use hyphens which implies that fuze is a noun in each case.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Fuze Keeping Clock is correct, per COMMONNAME and per sources. Fuze-Keeping Clock is nonsense: it applies one simplistic grammatical rule, yet ignores another one of capitalisation. Perhaps "Fuze-keeping clock" fits in better with Wikipedia's policy of inventing its own idea of what names ought to be. Maybe even "Fuse-keeping clock", per the arbitration of the self-appointed experts at Talk:Plasticine. But if we are capitalising the words as a proper noun phrase (as every naval gunnery source I have shows it), then there should be no hyphen. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree about the lack of the hyphen (no need for it). I didn't know that the American spelling of fuse was different from the British one of fuze. I'd never look for it by spelling it with the z. auntieruth (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we have a consensus here so the article should be reverted to the original spelling.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence (Queensland in World War 1)

From start of February to mid April, I will be a Wikipedian in Residence at the State Library of Queensland for 1 day per week. The subject matter will be Queensland in World War I as part of the State Library's commemoration of the centenary of World War I. My role will be to:

  1. advise and assist staff and volunteers at the State Library of Queensland and their affiliated GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) and heritage organisations to contribute content to Wikipedia relating to Queensland in WW1 drawing on the material in their collections as sources
  2. personally contribute content to Wikipedia in relation to Queensland in WW1 drawing on those same collections as sources

The role has been designed to align with the Wikimedia Foundation's strategic plan to "improve quality ... via partnerships with universities, cultural institutions and other groups who align with our mission".

Note. This is paid employment. The State Library of Queensland understand the concerns about paid editing and conflict of interest on Wikipedia. I will not be expected to edit content relating to the State Library of Queensland or any topic that I believe would constitute a conflict of interest. The State Library of Queensland has a long history of being a supporter of Wikipedia, having contributed tens of thousands of out-of-copyright images to Wikimedia Commons and collaborated with Wikimedia Australia on providing Wikipedia edit training throughout Queensland. I will be the first Wikipedian in Residence at the State Library of Queensland with others to follow later in 2016.

I am not someone who is a military historian. I'm more of Queensland historian. So I might be asking here for advice on military matters from time to time. Kerry (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not intended in any way as personal criticism, but I have to express my concern about excessive granularity here. The page Military history of Australia during World War I already exists, so I would be interested to know what Queensland in World War I is expected to entail. This also opens the door for other contributors to create pages for every other Australian state, every US state etc. is there sufficient verifiable information to justify this and is it even desirable? Regards Mztourist (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
There is plenty of room for military related topic expansion. Queensland in WWI could flesh out biographies of significant people from the time period, for example. If you need ideas, check out what GLAM Pritzker is doing with US regiments, WWI music, and biographies. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I probably should have been clearer. The focus will be more on the Queensland homefront, e.g.
  1. organisations formed (e.g. Qld War Council, Qld Recruiting Committee, Qld Comfort Fund)
  2. the recruitment of soldiers, the conscription debate and the pacifist movement
  3. patriotic concerts, music, etc
  4. the role of women in WW1
  5. repatriation, soldier settlement schemes, the war memorials, Anzac Day ceremonies
  6. significant people involved in the above

Queensland was somewhat unusual among the Australian states. It declared war on Germany independent to the rest of Australia and before the Australian Government did (the concern was that the then relatively new Australian constitution did not appear to allow the Commonwealth the power to declare war). Although Queensland was initially very vigorous in recruitment, the tide of public opinion influenced by a strong Labor state Premier turned very strongly against conscription (Qld had the highest No vote in the referendums). Women were only accepted by the Australian army as nurses, but Queensland women travelled to Britain and Europe to serve as doctors, ambulance drivers, hospital orderlies and other roles in initiatives funded by philanthropic organisations and their own funds; none of these women appear in the military records of course. Whether or not this kind of content constitutes "military history" is a matter of opinion (personally I would call it the history of the war time rather than miltary history) but I note that "homefront" articles are regularly tagged by this project as being within its scope. Kerry (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Gday Kerry. As a Queensland-based editor who has often used the SLQ for research this sounds like an excellent initiative to me and I wish you luck with it. My understanding from involvement with MILHIST is that there is general consensus for a wide interpretation of "military history" in terms of what we consider to be within scope, regardless though I'd say home front topics would definitely be included. By all means if you have any questions please feel free to ask either here or directly. There are a number of reasonably active Australian editors involved in World War I topics that I imagine would probably have a reasonable chance of knowing the answer to most general queries - for instance AustralianRupert, Nick-D, Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7, Ian Rose, and myself. Of cse there are others but these are the ones that quickly come to mind. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2/17th Battalion (Australia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/17th Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2/48th Battalion (Australia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/48th Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Miramar Ship Index

Editors can apply for free access to the Miramar Ship Index at WP:Miramar - you need only have 500 edits and 6 months of editing experience. Would love to see some project members taking advantage of this. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Flags in lists of shipwrecks

A discussion is being held at WT:SHIPS#Flags in lists of shipwrecks re the use of ship registry flags in the various lists of shipwrecks (some of which come under the remit of this WP). Please join in the discussion over there. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Germany, Nazi Germany and the Third Reich on Military articles - Oh my!

See this RfC on which name to use in the infoboxes of military unit's active only during the Third Reich/Nazi Germany and leave a well-considered !Vote. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Israel Palestine - A plea for a 100 year narrative

Given the importance of the conflict articles to WP:IPCOLL, I had hoped for more feedback at this RFC, but I think I overcomplicated the description. Some editors may also be thinking "we've been just fine for 10 years so is there really a problem here that needs solving"? I would like to encourage more editors to contribute.

The core issue behind the RFC question is that most readers know very little about the conflict and therefore need one single summary article to read and begin their journey, and we need that single summary article to broadly match the picture that the 1,000s of books summarizing this conflict take. Instead we have sat for many years with three primary articles (IPC since 48, AIC since 48 and ICMP 20-48) which are fine but are missing something above them to thread them together into the 100-year-narrative of the conflict presented by the vast majority of books on the topic.

I recognize that many editors may find the question is a little more dry and boring than many of the debates around the IP space, but its importance to the average Wikipedia reader can hardly be overstated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right but an article like that will be sabotaged, because it will inevitably demonstrate that the zionist occupation has no legitimacy.Keith-264 (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Geez.. don't hold back. Tell us all how you really feel... - theWOLFchild 17:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I would kindly request all editors interested in this initiative to avoid inflammatory remarks. Wars often don't happen when right meets wrong, but when right meets right, and there are significant elements of that in the Israeli-Palestine conflict (1917: Israel: we were here 2000 years ago; Arabs: we're here *now!*). @Oncenawhile:, I wish you every success. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. This is not the place for any inflammatory or anti-Semitic comments. - theWOLFchild 05:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
See what I mean? Please keep it civil.Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Is that supposed to be funny? - theWOLFchild 18:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Far be it for me to try to do this, but I have to call both of you, Keith-264 and WOLFchild, out. Keith: commission. The first thing you said was inflammatory. User:Oncenawhile and his collaborators are going to try to walk a very fine line, and using inflammatory language immediately was not helpful. If you wish to use this language in regard to this conflict, stay off this site!! WOLFchild, less severe, but omission: anti-Palestinian or anti-Arabic language is just as damaging to the prospects of either creating this projected article, or in the halls of diplomacy, moving to Final Status negotiations. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That's an opinion, not a fact and my comment was a fact, not an opinion. I commend Wikipedia:Civility Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think what Keith is getting at is that anti-Zionism != anti-Semitism, and it's not civil to use the latter as a cudgel against those who take the latter position in the argument highlighted by Buckshot above. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Antizionism is the opposite of antisemitism but as I pointed out, bad faith will out. I've had my say but will reply with Wikipedia:Civility to any more false allegations.Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
As we have ably demonstrated in a few short exchanges, this is not an area to be trodden lightly. If there is a stable consensus which allows the situation to be covered at all, is it wise to destabilise it? Also, is this the place to discuss it? While the Israel/Palestine issue has generated lots of military activity, it is much wider than military history. Monstrelet (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Aren't these topics effectively being controlled by Arbcom anyway? - theWOLFchild 18:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Restraining the behavior of editors, perhaps, but Arbcom does not directly control the content. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
My apologies to @Thewolfchild:. It seems finger trouble on my part inadvertently removed an earlier comment of his, which I was responding to even as I accidentally deleted it!! I'm sorry. I would continue to encourage editors, including User:Keith-264, to avoid saying things that are inflammatory regarding this topic. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem-o Buckshot, I agree with you, I found Keith's comment disconcerting. - theWOLFchild 21:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility Try owning your opinionKeith-264 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep quoting WP:Civil all you like, but maybe you should have a look at WP:INDENT. And MOS:TALK while you're at it. - theWOLFchild 00:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(←) Thanks very much, I wondered why some comments crabbed back to the margin like that. Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see now... it's deliberate. - theWOLFchild 16:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian American Veterans has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ukrainian American Veterans, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Military insignia project

A few years ago I embarked on a goal to organize and improve Department of the Navy graphics (mainly medals, ribbons, and decorations for now) on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, school and life got in the way so the project was put on hold. I now have some free time to attempt to start this up again and I was wondering if this project would fall under the realm of this WikiProject. If not, do you have any recommendations on where a better place would be? Evan.oltmanns (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This would be within our scope, although I do not think that we have a dedicated task force for this...yet. That having been said, the project would also probably be of interest to the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, so you make wanna work with them if you are going to start up on this again. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, it might worth hooking up with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals too. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I wish you luck with it Evan, I'll be looking forward to whatever you're able to produce. Wish I had the time (and graphical capabilities) to contribute. Any plans to produce a graphic of the lapel pin versions for civil service members of units awarded unit awards (ie the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation lapel pin). Gecko G (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Imported scripts for bespoked-up edit functions question

User:Keith-264/common.js

  • importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
  • importScript('User:Frietjes/findargdups.js');
  • importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js');
  • importScript('Wikipedia:AutoEd/complete.js');
  • importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js');

I have these but wonder if anyone knows of others that might be useful? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"No." column in lists of military aircraft

The distinction between the column headings "In service" and "No." is not clear, as both are numbers. I have restarted the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#No. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliability

How reliable is Warfare History Network? DS (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I welcome other input but based on a quick look I'd say not very. I didn't see anything that suggested peer-reviewed or cited content. My quick search of WP turned up only one occurrence, so it doesn't have much of a track record here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Pity - they've got a rather detailed article about Oreste Pinto. Think it's usable as a source anyway, or better not? DS (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Try WP:RSN. - theWOLFchild 01:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran a war crime?

This is the claim currently being made on the Allied war crimes during World War II article. The change was reverted yesterday with a request to come back with sources. The user has, although a quick glance at the sources used does not immediately seem to support the edits. Requesting a second set of eyes to vet this. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't a Crime against peace become one under the UN Charter after the war?Keith-264 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors do not decide that such and such action in 1940s was a war crime. Only solid RS do that and in this case there were none, so I deleted the passage. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment at Dunkirk evacuation

Hi all. I have opened a request for comment at Talk:Dunkirk evacuation, as to whether additional background information should be added to the article. Interested users are invited to participate. — Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_133&oldid=1232551822"