This article discussing attitudes to military history in US universities is really quite interesting. The quote by the military historian who suggests that her peers tend to under-estimate the sophistication of their audience is certainly a good thought-starter! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm English and mainly study the Great War so don't know much about US universities, apart from looting shamelessly CARL [1]. I'm frequently minded of the lecturer in the 1980s who said that there was a tendency to deprecate military historians as academically mediocre, morally dubious and apt to tumesce when weapon specifications were mentioned. I have to say that I've found more than a grain of truth in this travesty, considering that 90% of what's been written about the Great War (in English, me being an anglophone monoglot) is crap and much of the other 10% isn't much better, even by people who write in sentences and don't put commas next to conjunctions. Keith-264 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The article states: "From the late 19th century through the 1950s, military history was history — along with diplomatic and political history, it dominated the scholarly study of the past." I think that is complete false re military. The textbooks in those days did NOT feature military history, nor did any of the major journals. Military history courses and dissertations were rare at top graduate schools. I recall my own undergraduate and graduate experience (1958-66). Several professors (like Vann Woodward, Wesley Frank Craven and Samuel Eliot Morison) had written military histories when they were in service in WW2. They never mentioned or cited these books in seminar, and did not include military topics in their graduate seminars. Rjensen (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I think what the author meant was that up to the 1960s, the study of history primarily consisted of wars, politics, and diplomacy (generally through the lens of the "great men"). Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
wars were ignored in 1900 to 1950s--only the political/economic/ diplomatic causes were considered. Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I think at the academic level that's largely true. History for the general reader has always tended to be about wars, battles and famous people. Academic history has tended to be about politics, economics and diplomacy, although there have always been academics who have made reputations investigating the logistical side of armies of bygone eras (medieaval, or sixteenth century Spanish, or whatever). My recollection from reading the Stephen Ambrose biog of Eisenhower about 30 years ago is that, during his brief tenure as President of Columbia University (after his retirement as Chief of Staff, and his decision not to run in 1948, but before his return as Supreme Commander of NATO and his decision to run in 1952 after all) he attracted academic scorn by urging that more military history be included in the curriculum.Paulturtle (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The kids love it. You'll easily fill lecture theatres with courses on military history. But universities don't work that way. There is huge opposition to Military History from Baby Boomers, whose attitudes were formed during the War in Vietnam. Most MilHist PhDs get jobs in International Relations, which is considered more acceptable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It's funny you say that – when I was in the graduate program at Ohio State, the department did a study on enrollment rates, and many professors were chagrined, to put it mildly, that the classes on the World Wars, Vietnam, etc. dominated the list. We had a class on American military policy, which isn't the sexiest of MilHist topics, and even that usually had a wait list. In any event, most of the people I know above graduated from the MilHist program have gotten jobs teaching one of their minors or somewhere in museums. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
A few universities which offer military history qualifications explicitly market them as a form of recreation for people with an interest in the topic. Other than ancient history, literature and film criticism, I can't think of any other branch of academia which would find that to be a successful strategy! Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Request for comment - Soviet-Romanian victory summaries in article infoboxes
Colleagues, some guidance I believe is required here which appears to potentially affect several articles. Briefly, a small edit war appears to have broken out regarding the infobox summary regarding Romanian contribution in article Siege of Budapest. An IP using pretty foul language appears to have added Soviet Romanian victory to said infobox. I reverted said IP and left a note on IP talkpage strongly advising that he/she begin dialogue. Now I notice Battle of Debrecen also states Soviet Romanian victory. Contrast this to First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive which merely states Axis victory in it's infobox. There may be other articles which this effects. Now I am not so sure as to my original revert. The usage of Axis or Soviet Romanian appears somewhat haphazard. Thoughts? Cheers, Irondome (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I looked at pages 299-301 of When Titans Clashed (2015), and the book mentions that Romanian 7th Army Corps participated in the attempts to take Pest in late December, alongside two Soviet Army Corps. They made little progress, the book states. On the next page, when describing the fighting for the city of Pest in January, the book states that "Soviet troops continued to inch forward." These pages mention several Red Army commanders by name, but none from the Romanian side. So Romanian troops did take part in the fighting, but whether this qualifies as a "Soviet-Romanian victory", I'm not sure. In either case, it would be appropriate to report the IP poster for using inappropriate language. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Just like the Battle of Berlin, when there were some Polish forces involved, it should be listed as "Soviet"; they were under the overall command of the Soviet Red Army and subjugated to them; so it was a "Soviet victory". Kierzek (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
That was my gut instinct. These were either Soviet client ethnic army units, (Think the "London Poles" compared to the eastern-oriented Polish government factions), and post August 44 Romania. Client groupings and client states. No disrespect to those who fought and died, but Stalin and the STAVKA never thought im terms of "Allied" unless it seriously suited them. Irondome (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
widespread unreferenced edits to infoboxes of battles
There's a new editor—Rowanis12 (talk·contribs) which corresponds to 109.152.253.188 (talk·contribs)—making widespread edits to the infoboxes of various battles. Many or most of these edits are just made up numbers. Sometimes the editor/IP merely tweaks the infobox to add "Decisive" to the victory. Either way it's a problem to be aware of.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Adding war categories to weapon articles
I've been following an IP, 76.88.98.65 (talk), who's fond of adding Category:Military equipment by war categories to various weapon articles. When those categories don't exist, they use categories for wars themselves, or for units or forces. For example, this diff of Lebel Model 1886 rifle. I'm not a member of this WikiProject and have no idea whether this fits with your project guidelines. Would someone here mind reviewing these edits? They go back several months. Ibadibam (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Can the Coordinators start a backlog reduction drive for the Chronoligal List of Wars articles? They may be fairly important, they are however a complete mess.
What needs to be done?
References, adding new conflicts, fact checking (dates, flags and combatants) and finally assessment.
The articles in question are:
G'day, I'm not sure it is something we could build a full backlog drive around, unfortunately, as they usually need to be quite broad in their scope to gain traction. One suggestion I have for these lists would be to add a lead section to them that provides context to the list. They could also do with an image in the lead, potentially, and referencing as you say. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone help to complete the A-Class review for the 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division article? The division had it's real baptism of fire on the Somme attempting to take Mametz Wood on 7 July, and after various setbacks and changes cleared the area. On the Somme for only six days, it suffered around 4,000 casualties. My intent is for the article to get through the A-Class review, push through FA, and try to get on the front page for the division's 100th anniversary of the assault on Mametz. Please see here for the review page. Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
tbh, for a discussion centered around the Armenian Genocide, that looked like a polite discussion with no flags making me think an admin was needed. Should admins be needed, then WP:AN/I is the place to go. In other news, if you'd be so kind as to review our previous conversation, above, it remains unfinished and the necessary work unactioned. --Tagishsimon(talk)23:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
No, Keith, I'm entirely baffled. Quite why a simple question of "do you want 1) the article renamed or 2) the link in the template renamed", has turned into WW3 is beyond me. I really do urge you to WP:AGF. --Tagishsimon(talk)23:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Attack on the Gommecourt Salient request
I stumbled on this article while searching the interweb so moved it to the title in the Record of Battles and Engagements (1924/1990), then found that the empty page for it was titled Capture of Gommecourt, so I'd moved it to the wrong place. When I tried to move the Capture.... page it wouldn't move and an admin referral was suggested. Could an administrator untangle them so that this article goes where it belongs (Capture of Gommecourt) and that page is renamed Attack on the Gommecourt Salient? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: Years ago someone set up article pages (articles?) for the Battle of the Somme and included a campaignbox Template:Campaignbox Somme 1916. If you look in it there is an entry for Gommecourt which leads to Capture of Gommecourt that you dealt with earlier. Someone who didn't know this, created an article this year [The Engagement at Gommecourt (The Somme WWI)] which I found this week and moved to the proper title Attack on the Gommecourt Salient but I didn't check the campaignbox first. To my surprise it was still red after the move. That was when I found that I couldn't paste the moved page, now titled Attack on the Gommecourt Salient into the vacant Capture of Gommecourt and move that title to Attack on the Gommecourt Salient. What I would like is for the article called Attack on the Gommecourt Salient to be substituted for the vacant one still called Capture of Gommecourt. Had I known what I was doing, I would have pasted The Engagement at Gommecourt (The Somme WWI) into Capture of Gommecourt, moved it to Attack on the Gommecourt Salient and asked for The Engagement at Gommecourt (The Somme WWI) to be deleted. Keith-264 (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you lose us all, Keith with the second part of our request.
So, err, do you in fact want anything more than the first action - the move of Attack on the Gommecourt Salient to Capture of Gommecourt. You seem to have found a source ("Record of Battles and Engagements (1924/1990)") which has the former title, and a template which has the latter title. Clearly we can amend the link anchor in the template, should Attack On be a preferable title. --Tagishsimon(talk)21:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
No. I discussed two possibilities, a move, or a template link rename. You answered "please do". You'll agree, I hope, that your answer does not allow me to know which of these two actions you would like taken. --Tagishsimon(talk)22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
By "empty page" in his first line above, Keith apparently meant the link in the template, which he amended himself after Tagishsimon clarified the possibilities.[3] I've updated the only other incoming link to Capture of Gommecourt. This discussion can now be closed. – FayenaticLondon08:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Military history is not my area so I thought I'd flag this here for others to determine the 'truth' of this situation. I came across some edits of a new user RommelTurk changing figures and removing content in Indian/Pakistan conflicts in what appeared dubious. In each case changing so Pakistan do better and India worse (Note that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has also reverted an edit). The user has come to my talk page here stating that the update come from a "Pakistani Military History book" and they are removing "Indian Propaganda". As I said I really don't know enough to judge apart from seeing claims of propaganda in both directions. Hopefully someone with knowledge of this topic will be able to either assist RommelTurk in fixing 'propaganda' or reverting depending on what reliable sources say. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I have added this project's banner to Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and I am wondering if someone would mind taking a look at the article and assessing it. Much of the content seems to have been added by an editor who is closely connected to Santos, so it may require some cleanup to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's MOS and NPOV. Any suggestions that anyone has on how to improve the article would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I made a few edits and commented on the talk page but do not have much time at the moment. I agree there are issues and still some work needed. Is anybody else available to have a look over this? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw the edits you made and your talk page post. Thank you for taking a look and helping to clean it up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Request regarding Lesley J. McNair
Over at WP:EAR, a descendent of Lesley J. McNair has made a rather impassioned complaint about the content of the article on this WWII US Army general. While that in itself isn't so unusual, I did take a look at the article itself and think the criticism of McNair could probably use a little balancing. In particular, the relative complained that a specific published biography on McNair, General Lesley J. McNair: Unsung Architect of the U. S. Army is listed in the Further reading, but wasn't used anywhere in the article itself. If someone knowledgable on WWII would take a look at this, I think it would helpful. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the article could use a lot of work - especially if it doesn't draw on the major source - but it is fair to say that McNair has received a mixed assessment by historians. A lot of material has been written discussing his role in the Army's tank policies for instance (though the current material is rather simplistic given that it overlooks the valid concerns he raised about the difficulties of shipping heavy tanks to Europe). Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. I do have Calhoun's book here. It's quite good. I used it in the article on Jacob L. Devers. I agree with Nick that McNair has received a mixed assessment, in line with the Army that he created. He's seen a bit of re-evaluation due to the recent effort to rehabilitate the US Army. The article doesn't even cover all the negatives! But I agree that it is unbalanced. More importantly, the evaluation section is the best-written part of the article, which on the whole is sketchy, poorly organised, largely unsourced and thoroughly deserving of its Start class rating. Do we want to organise a project effort to fix it up? I could only do it myself at the expense of articles I am working on. (One thing that really bugs me: His gravestone was not changed to reflect his final rank of general until 11 November 2010, making him the highest-ranking military officer buried at that cemetery. I am certain that this is true but can anyone find a source for the exact date?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Many articles about battles don't have proper category sort keys or defaultsorts, which means that they're sorted under "B" on category pages instead of, say, the Battle of Ab Darrah Pass being sorted under "A". This bot request proposes that a bot add defaultsorts to articles with titles that look like "Battle of X" so that this issue is fixed. I've already written some code; I already make sure that false positives like the Battle of 33rd Street don't have erroneous information added. Would anyone object to the approval of this bot? APerson (talk!) 17:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, APerson, looks good! I am no expert whatsoever on coding or IT, but even I can understand this code. I've been doing some 50+ cases manually. Hope the consensus will work out and this small (and not too important; it's not about content) but useful work can be done by your bot. Thanks again, Tisquesusa (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Re-naming Defence Intelligence and Security Centre
I posted this on the DISC Talk Page with no responses; so I am placing it here to gauge opposition (and hopefully positivity!)
Since 1 January 2015, DISC has been JITG (Joint Intelligence Training Group). I propose to rename this article and fix all redirects. Any opposition? The joy of all things (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made quite a number of updates to the Elyesa Bazna (WWII spy) article and it would be great to have some feedback about the article now. I've also reviewed and made comments to items on the talk page. If someone has the time, that would be great. I would be happy to return the favor if I can.
G'day Carole, thanks for your efforts with this one. A few minor tweaks here and there and I think you could potentially take this to GAN. @ErrantX: this might be up your alley. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
G'day @AustralianRupert:, Thanks for your edits! Ok, I'll do a copy edit review, there's a few places that need citations, and I'll run through the GA checklist before submitting it. Good idea!--CaroleHenson(talk)13:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Gene Arden Vance Jr.
Hi-i am new to Wikipedia and am grateful for your guidance. Below is a message I received in response to my re submission of my draft.
I am not sure i am writing this on the correct page so please forgive me if this lands up in the wrong place but remain hopeful that you can help me.
History 1 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi History 1, I strongly recommend that you take advice from the topic speciatists at the Military history WikiProject. The experienced editors there will be able to assist you to get the draft into shape. It is indeed well sourced, my principal concern is the tone, it "praises" the subject a bit too much. On Wikipedia we try to write as neutrally as possible about all subjects, using the same "dry" neutrally descriptive language in Usama bin Laden, Josef Stalin, George Washington, Mao Zhedong, Winston Churchill or Jeffrey Dahmer. I'm not a specialist as military biography so the WikiProject is the best place to get the help you need. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance as this is my first submission. I have used independent, reliable, published sources to obtain the facts. Please could you show me an example of particular sentences or passages in my submission and how it might be rewritten so that i can use those examples in editing my draft. I would very much appreciate additional guidance. Thank you for your help.
Request on 13:23:00, 27 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by History 1[edit]
G'day, @History 1: thank you for your efforts so far. One of my main concerns with the article is that there are many parts that lack referencing, particularly in the "Early, family and personal life" section. Additionally, it appears to be written in a journalistic fashion rather than an encyclopedic one. What I mean by this is that the language used seems too familiar (close to the subject) and possibly promotional. For instance, "At the time of the tragic September 11 attacks on the United States", should probably just be written as "At the time of the September 11 attacks on the United States...". Likewise, "US led efforts to capture the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, radical Muslim extremist and terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden" could just be written as "US-led efforts to capture Osama Bin Laden". (These are just a couple of examples). Instead of referring to the subject by his first name, I suggest largely using his last name, except where it would be confusing to do so. Likewise, the Legacy section is potentially too detailed giving the impression that the article is a memorial site, which is contrary to site policy (please see WP:NOTMEMORIAL). I would suggest largely just rolling it into the Death section, and summarizing it in a few short sentences. Anyway, good luck with developing the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance and examples-this is most helpful as the bulk of the source material is taken from journalists published news reports. I shall make the appropriate revisions and welcome further examples-respectfully -History1
History 1 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is currently up at FAC, and is tagged as a Milhist article. I'm skeptical (sceptical?). There's no military related content except for the last section, which reads (in full): "Verge was commissioned as a captain in the Australian Army Medical Corps on 2 October 1914, and was attached to the 6th Light Horse Regiment as its medical officer. His regiment embarked on HMAT A29 Suevic on 21 December, reaching Egypt on 1 February 1915, and was then deployed to Gallipoli, attached to the 1st Australian Division, landing on 20 May. He contracted dysentery several months later and was evacuated to No. 17 British General Hospital in Alexandria, Egypt. He died on 8 September 1915, and was buried at the Chatby War Memorial Cemetery (Row Q, Grave No. 523) in Alexandria." - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, while working on "Defense of the Adzhimushkay quarry" I noticed the redlinked category:Subterranean warfare. It made sense to me and I started fleshing it out. In particular, I started the "catmain" article, Subterranean warfare. Being a mil-ignoramus, suddenly I found out that we already have a great-big "Tunnel warfare" page, with category and all. My first thought was to suggest merging of both pairs, the categories and the articles. On the second thought, historically "tunnel warfare" was mostly about mining and penetration, not warfare per se. In other words, "tunnels" are kind of engineering structures, opposite to "fortifications". Hence my question: shall we split the subject of subterranean warfare similarly to the split fortification/defense? And since we are already here, please notice that there is no such article defense (military), neither the subject is covered in the redirect's target. - üser:Altenmann >t02:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, we've been slipping the final edit and despatch of the monthly Bugle to later and later in the month recently, so for instance this month we'd be producing the Bugle at the end of May when it's going to feature April events/articles/awards, i.e. about a month old. Nick and I therefore thought we'd get things back on track by producing a May-June double issue, covering activity from April-May, to be despatched no later than the first week of June, and then go back to one month per issue and aim to get it out early the following month, so the activity we're featuring will be fresher. Doing the double issue means we don't miss out on anything but we also don't end up producing two issues in the space of a week or so (i.e. in the next couple of days for April stuff and then again in early June for May stuff). Hope that makes sense and will be okay with everyone... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tom, yes, that'd be great if you could. From a practical point of view, if you just add June to the existing May timeline page/table, that should work fine. Pls don't feel obliged to create two op-eds unless you particularly wanted to capture something from June 1916 as well as May 1916. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha. As for the Op-Ed, I have good news: if you were going to pick a month to merge two bugle editions May and June works perfectly, the Battle of Jutland is dated May 31 - June 1, so it covers itself :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
In this article on a deceased member of Special Operations Executive, I'm wrestling with what appears to be conflicting information as to whether this person was awarded an MBE. The Special Forces Role of Honor states that he was, and I found this link at the National Archives website in London. However, I note that books on the subject do not mention his being awarded an MBE. Nor can I find a reference to him being awarded an MBE in the Gazette for the date stated. The question is whether the Archives link is dispositive? Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. But if you go to the previous page (4516) you see that he is just mentioned in despatches, if my understanding is correct. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I guess I'll have to go back and take away his MBE. Shame. Interesting if obscure historical figure, like you-know-who. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
That seems to be incorrect as the High Velocity Aircraft Rocket and Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket are two different sizes. The HVAR rocket has a diameter on 5 inches, while the FFA rocket has a 2.75 inch diameter. The Hydra 70 is a descendant of the latter and is used today in launch tubes, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"HVAR rocket" is a tautology, which is probably why it took so long for HVAR rocket to be created as a redirect.
HVAR post-dates the related FFAR and they're quite different in implementation and application although identical in concept. Mostly in age, as once HVAR appeared, the 5 inch FFAR was obsolete.
Note though that the FFAR came in three sizes (in service at least) and the HVAR was only the replacement for one of these. Inspired by the success of the British 60lb rocket, a 5" enlarged head on the body of the earlier 3" 25lb rocket, the US Navy had copied it. They added a similar enlarged head to the previous 3.5" FFAR motor. However this was much less powerful than the British motor, so the velocity was low and the trajectory useless for accurate aiming.
The earlier 3.5" FFAR was an effective weapon although with a smaller warhead. The later 2.75" FFAR was an air-to-air weapon intended for barrage firing against bombers. All three are pretty separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I hopes someone has the competence to check the links, unlink the doubtful, and link correctly where the correct weapon is known. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
From the few sources I've looked at, this guy is amazing. OffbeatOregon.com said about him, McAdams is a legend in the Newport area, and probably the most famous Coast Guard enlisted man ever. He started his career as in 1950, and by the time he retired in 1977 he’d participated in some 5,000 rescues and saved at least 100 people from drowning. He’d survived nine rolls — in which his motor lifeboat was fully capsized by the surf and he had to hold his breath and wait for it to roll back upright.
For being one of the most famous enlisted men in the Cosst Guard, the bio is almost shamefully small. Can someone take a look? And how does one look up and reference service personnel's decorations? Thanks. That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears to me that Wikipedia has two articles on the same unit, under different names. If this is indeed the case, I'd appreciate suggestions on how to handle this situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
That is not correct. A regimental-sized formation can have a separate article on WP. The regiment was a subordinate formation of the division (when it was formed), but had an existence before the formation of the division and during the existence of the division. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz
A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, an article which is in this project's scope. The reassessment page can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I suspect that this is my fault. My understanding is that both World War II and Second World War are correct, though Wikipedia military history articles tend to use World War II for simplicity. However, it's probably best for usage in non-specialised articles to be determined mainly by what's most common in the most relevant country. Australians tend to use Second World War or World War Two, though not exclusively (eg, [4][5][6]). Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
A common assumption, but a wrong one. There are plenty of Commonwealth-published books that use World War I and II, so not even WP:TIES.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
When I was in the RAAF (not all that long ago), the Commonwealth style guide specifically said to use World War I and World War II. I know things change, so it's possible that this has changed, and I was surprised to see the AWM using "Second World War", but that's understandable given the way our language has been changed over the past few years. I expect "Second" is just something that has crept in without any official acknowledgement, like the use of "lts.", "mts." and "kms" as abbreviations for litres, metres and kilometres. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"First" and "Second World War" is definitely the common version used in the UK (although, as noted above, not exclusively). Hchc2009 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps my #1 favorite reference work is MRD Foot and ICB Dear, eds. The Oxford companion to World War II published by Oxford University Press under that title in the United States, and published as The Oxford Companion to the Second World War in Britain. Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I would argue follow the official histories. The British, Canadian, New Zealand, and Australian have all used Second World War since ... well ... the Second World War. Throw on top of that all (if I am not mistaken) the British regimental, divisional, and corps histories use the term too. The Germans too. On the other hand, the yanks use World War II.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
"Second World War" was the official title. Winston Churchill named it. It was itself a bit of an Americanism, because up to that point the First World War had commonly been called the Great War in Britain, whereas the Americans (and Germans) had called it the World War. Some Brits (like Churchill) preferred that too. The term "World War II" appeared immediately after World War I ended, so like "great War" it pre-dates the war itself. (Military historians like to keep ahead of the game.) @AussieLegend: If you could point me to where in the Commonwealth Style Guide it says to use World War I and II in preference, I would be grateful; it must have flipped at one point. The ANU demands First and Second World War [7] whereas other universities demand World War I and II [8] Hansard definitely says either can be used. [9] I haven't seen "lts" but I have seen "ltr"; I can't see the official abbreviations changing, because there is an international agreement. And its dumb. Aussies seem to be holding the line on "metre" and "litre" versus "meter" and "liter" but have gone with "ton" instead of "tonne" (although the style guide still says no). Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for Britain but the recent literature I use for Australian-military-themed articles seems to use World War II (or Two) as much or more than Second World War. Since that suggests either term is fine, I use WWII because I think it's more common (used in the US as well for instance) and because I think it flows better when you say it (one less syllable!), so I also use WWI for consistency. I wouldn't change the terminology in any well-established article from 2WW to WWII or the other way round because I don't think there's a 'right' answer and I'll respect the main editor's preference. The main thing I think is to be consistent within the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Well as far as the "official" name, with due respect, just because Churchill is it was so does not make it so everywhere. There are plenty of memorials and WP:RS publications that have used and do use World War II; including the National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., which speaks for itself as to an "official" title; along with the Monument to the Dead of World War II in Brazil. Frankly, I look for if the article is written in British English or American English, if it is not one I have written or co-written. Kierzek (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate on Raynald's death on the Talk page here. An IP wants to present Ernoul's report of Raynald's death, but he/she has been unable to prove that Ernoul's report has been accepted by specialists. Actually, I am not sure that he/she presents Ernoul's report properly, because he/she made statements during the debate which proved to be wrong. For instance, he wrote that William of Tyre also recorded Raynald's death. I would really be grateful if members of this project could verify his/her claims, because I would like to improve the article, but I do not want to emphasize a POV which is ignored by most specialists. Thank you for your time in advance. Borsoka (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Borsoka is making false allegations that I haven't been able to verify that Ernoul's report is not accepted by specialists. I cited two sources for it yet ye he keeps making one excuse or another instead of reading the sources. In addition also notice that he himself hasn't presented any proof about views of specialists concerning the other version of Raynald's death where he is offered to convert, yet he claims there is a "scholarly consensus" without any proof. This is completely WP:Original research and double standards on his part. In addition, please notice that I mistook from the Edbury source that William of Tyre had mentioned Raynald's death, after I realised it I removed it because it was Ernoul's work not William's. This is another example of Borsoka extending the issue needlessly when it doesn't exist just in order to enforce his POV about which version should remain in the article. Also note that he had deliberately removed Ernoul's version alomg with all the sources I added in this edit. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Military Title Question
Hi,
I'm translating a page from wiki.de, but I'm having real trouble finding a good English translation for the position of "Sammeloffizier" and I was wondering if any of you knew what that would properly be in English. Thank you. Red Fiona (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
G'day, Fiona, I think the term literally translates as "collection/collecting officer", so depending on the context it could possibly be referring to a "requisitions officer". Could you link to the de article you are translating? We might be able to gain some more context from that. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
G'day, Fiona, cheers. I've found a source, which I've used Google Translate on here: [10] which uses the term "collections officer" for his role in World War I. From what I can tell it would be similar to the position filled by writers, artists and historians such as Charles Bean and Alan Moore (war artist) for example. Any other ideas? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Arnold J. Isbell is an example of a C-class article, with a single general reference, and other criteria that surely rates it as a "Start-class", that has been assessed against B-class criteria because it is listed as a "C-class" article. In every instance I have observed this type of assessment the check misses the criteria in only one area. In my opinion this article misses the criteria for "C-class" in more than one area. Otr500 (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Arthur Conan Doyle is a delisted good article rated as "C-class" and a level-4 vital article.
I didn't trace out the history but it missed B-class by only one criteria, Referencing and citation: criterion not met. This is without a reference maintenance tag, section tag, or inline "citation needed" tag that I saw, and in fact no maintenance tags at all or talk page discussion concerning any of the above. If the articles I have run across rated a "C-class", many that I wouldn't rate it as such just to give one to the project team, then why in the world would this article not a "B-class"? My point is that a mark for deciding a certain criteria should not be "pushed" to a next level for any reasons other than the article deserving it, just as an article should likewise not be held to a lower classification for unknown reasons. IF this article is a true "C-class" there are a lot of articles, "Start-class" at best, that need to be downgraded. Otr500 (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Compare Andrew Talcott to the above "Arthur Conan Doyle", that is what five times a bigger article, yet Talcott missed "B-class" for the same referencing criteria only. Otr500 (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
G'day Otr500, thank you for your comment. Regarding the Talcott and Doyle articles, I would say that Doyle has the coverage of a GA (or is very close to it), but technically the referencing of a C class article (while it is generally very well cited, there are several sentences/paragraphs that appear to be uncited), while Talcott has the coverage and referencing of a C class article. Hence, they are both C-class. Isbell is Start class IMO (failing on coverage and referencing); indeed I have demoted it myself now. To an extent this discrepancy is caused by the fact that the difference between GA and B class in terms of referencing in Milhist articles is ill defined (i.e. our B class referencing standards are pretty much the same as GA, but our coverage requirements are less the GA. To an extent, our B class is at times B++, and our C class can be C-- (e.g an article with no references at all, but reasonable coverage etc,) or C++ (e.g. like the Conan Doyle article), but these distinctions do not formally exist. Ultimately, though, the ratings are not meant to be comparisons of separate articles, but assessments of how well that topic is covered as a stand alone item. Some articles have a lot of information and references that should be covered, others don't, hence a short 1,000 word article could be a GA if it mentioned everything written about a topic and cited all three books written on an esoteric topic, likewise a similar size article on a very common topic might be start or C class at best. Not sure if this helps or not. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, All I know is that there are problems with the current system. Look at Arthur Laumann for a great example of multiple project super-blunders. This is a C-class article, assessed as such by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military, Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. This project shows it assessed for B-class, passing all except "Referencing and citation: criterion not met". This article has no references. To make it out of stub-class is one feat, to get elevated pass start-class, into C-class by three projects, and even be assessed for B-class in one, could give a headache to a thumb tack. Since this is starting to appear to be wide-spread one might wonder if our classification system is becoming (or already there?) a satirical comedy. Otr500 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You will get more traction for discussing your opinion if you stop using pejorative language. Regarding Laumann, I agree, it is not C class; however, please remember that we are all volunteers. People make mistakes, or interpret things differently. Likewise, standards change. If you wish to discuss redefining what criteria a C-class article should meet, then by all means please do so. The problem that you will face, though, is that the template call does not potentially support what you are wanting (currently it uses either a yes or a no against the B class criteria and then automatically determines start or C based on what is missing from the B class checklist, but what you are wanting, it seems, is a yes or a no against the criteria at each level. I'm not sure the mark-up code is sophisticated enough for this. I could be wrong, though, I am not the most tech savvy of people (I really only know how to break things). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It's never going to be possible, or desirable, to answer the question of exactly how bad an article is. The practical approach is: if an article is bad, and if you care about the article, then work on getting it up to B-class or GA; those are criteria that mean something and that we have some experience with. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
As AustralianRupert points out, the assessment template is doing what it was designed to do in these cases. The military history assessment criteria (WP:MHA#CRIT) for Start-Class, C-Class, and B-Class are all defined in terms of the B-Class checklist; an article that meets all five criteria is defined as B-Class, an article that meets four criteria (including one of B1 and B2 and all of B3, B4, and B5) is defined as C-Class, and an article that meets three or fewer criteria (or fails to meet one of the mandatory criteria for C-Class) is defined as Start-Class.
These criteria aren't necessarily the same as those used by other projects, incidentally; it's quite possible for one project to be more (or less) strict with its assessments than another. That's why each project gets its own assessment template and rating, rather than just having a single rating for each article.
Now, if we want to make the assessment scheme more elaborate (e.g. by adding different checklists at each assessment level) or alter it in some other way (e.g. by changing which combinations of checklist criteria are necessary for a C-Class rating), we can in principle do that; subject to the MediaWiki complexity limits, we can make the template do whatever we want. If I recall correctly, the last time we had this discussion, nobody had an alternative proposal; but if that's changed, then we can certainly discuss it. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
My impression of milhist articles is that they are more likely to be over-graded than under-graded but that assessments have got more stringent. Perhaps old articles are looking more anomalous than they used to. I wouldn't be in favour of making the assessment more elaborate, because I don't think it would make things better, only different. More liaison between assessors wouldn't do any harm and might do some good. Keith-264 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It's years since I did any regular assessment but there is an issue of balance between criteria. Perhaps one area to look at is extent of coverage. An article with a lead, a couple of headed paras, a cite for each para, an info box and written in good English can technically be a B, certainly a C. Should we expect something more substantial to get a C, let alone a B? If yes, what objective criteria might we use? Monstrelet (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Just chimin' in. Full disclosure: I have submitted articles for B Class review in this project that have failed because one sentence in one paragraph did not have a citation, and as a result, have not submitted other articles I have worked on for review because of equivalent problems. Do I find that this sometimes results in superior articles being rated C, while other articles with less coverage pass the B2 criterion and are rated B? Absolutely. The problem (if it exists) is in the subjectivity of criterion B1. I support the project's establishment of defined criteria. There is sometimes a choice. I usually choose to leave accurate information in, even if I know it is accurate from sources considered unreliable generally, but accurate in the specific case, or from primary sources. The opposite choice is to omit information, either because it is not important enough to impact B1, or because no one will notice in a more subjective criterion. In either case, an editor knows what they are getting into because the standards are there. If it were possible to make B1 more objective, I would support that. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Texas in the American Civil War shows that there also is a technical problem in the C-class ratings. Bryanrutherford0 changed the rating from start to C; but it still shows start. I tried to changed it to C, and tried it on several articles (preview of course), and it still displayed start. Class changes of other projects works fine. I tried, for sake of testing, to change a MILHIST C-class into B - and then it showed start, too. Something seems to be broken ... GELongstreet (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The template automatically generates ratings between Start-Class and B-Class based on how many of the B-Class checklist items are set to "yes"; simply changing the rating class will have no effect, by design. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
While I can understand where this is coming from, some other projects have much looser classification schemes than MILHIST (e.g. around C class) and this may cause confusion. Also, assessments are not always upgraded when expansion or improvement is done. Monstrelet (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for letting us know about this, Rob. My personal opinion, though, is that Milhist probably doesn't need this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I'd inform the editors here same as everyone else, but military history is probably one of the few large projects that wouldn't benefit from this. This project is probably the most organized on the site, and you have editors actively assessing articles according to a very detailed classification scheme. This bot task is more helpful to projects like WP:WikiProject Biography or WP:WikiProject Politics, which are mostly decentralized editors who happen to edit in the same topic area. ~ RobTalk12:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing it to our attention in any case, Rob -- it's as well to know this sort of bot task is around. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Bot assessment
I have run across several instances where there is a conflict of class rating across projects. I noticed where in 2012-13 some articles were reassessed, to what I would refer to as premature higher rating (bumped from start to C-class) in this project. Some are clear misinterpretation of the criteria and some are questionable. I do not consider a glorified start article (just enough to break it out of stub class) anywhere near ready for c-class.
Andrew Bickford is an article about a Royal Navy officer who went on to be Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Station. That is the notability for having the article but the content is so low rated I deem it a "Start-class" article. I base this on the multiple many articles covered by this project where a C-class article is far more complete than ones like this. I tried to reassess the article a start-class but it would not allow this showing C-class. The article page does show "start-class. I did not see this section and saw that a bot was assessing articles for B-class that were really only "start" so I made edits that would assist me in looking into this as well as as talk page messages and a message to the bot talk page.
Please overlook an over-zealousness, or attempted preemptive and proactive actions. I just don't want a bot, even with the very best intentions, to upgrade articles prematurely, then just as prematurely automatically check this for a further bump to B-class. Allan Trewby in NOT a C-class article, and I can not imagine Armando Lambruschini would be classified as C-class either.
If some editors could take a few minutes to look at this I would appreciate it, to include why an article would still reflect "C-class" when changed to "Start-class". I do not want to go on some crusade against something that might have been discussed (like this discussion) against any project wishes or practice.
I've responded there. My bot didn't make the problematic assessments that Otr500 found objectionable. Those came from other editors. You can see my full response on the page linked above. ~ RobTalk16:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
And to make sure there is no mistake, as I was somewhat unclear, the problem wasn't "the bot". The edits in 2012-13 were live edits (horrible assessments on some) that created an issue. I totally agree that one project should not have a "start-class" rating while another shows a "C-class". However, there is still problems that needs rectifying, like why I couldn't change an assessment. If I find a glorified stub or a clear "Start-class" article rated as a C-class I am going to 1)- pull the rating off for future work, or 2)- Downgrade the article to an appropriate classification. Otr500 (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I did some digging. The reason those articles show up as C-class is that one of |b1= and |b2= is marked as yes and all of |b3=, |b4=, and |b5= are marked as yes. When that occurs, {{WikiProject Military history}} automatically shows a C rating, even if |class= is set to something other than C. This may or may not be a problem in the eyes of the project, but either way, I could create a tracking category of all articles that are assessed as C-class via those criteria but are labeled "Start" or "Stub" in |class=. Let me know if that category would be useful. ~ RobTalk02:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you are looking at the system working as it is designed to. Really, we don't want a set of assessment criteria that can be overruled on an overall subjective judgement because assessors have different skills and it is purely down to who makes the call. Yes, there is subjectivity in the B class list but it does give some consistency and it does give an idea of where the assessor thinks the weaknesses are. Monstrelet (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Monstrelet: There is no doubt some editors have used subjective judgement, with some lack of understanding (the different skills) on assessing articles. Benjamin T. Brockman has one general source with maybe external links used as a source, no inline references, two unreferenced quotes, no maintenance tags, and is a C-class. Augusto Cicaré is listed in the banner as being a start-class by four projects, as well as listed on the article main page, yet on the face of the banner on two projects it is listed as C-class, and of course checked against B-class criteria. Take a look at it. It is a glorified start that is really an expanded stub. Giving it start-class is one thing but it should not have C-class anywhere on it.
Henry Lindsay Bethune is somewhat bigger, has far more references, even one for a quote, but is lacking structure. It shows C-class for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and start-class for this one. I personally agree it is start-class, but better than the previous article, so I would give it some structure and promote it to C-class. I have been looking at articles, not just to demote, but to mark, with plans for a revisit, improve if I can with time available, or mark or demote if it a clear stub-class tagged as a promoted C-class, checked for B-class or not. Gerald Berragan is an organized stub, that can pass as a start-class, but not a C-class, and I noted the talk page.
Frederick_Banting was rated as start-class, two other projects as C-class, while one has no classification. I promoted it to C-class using the B-class criteria and asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology if someone could make an assessment from their project.
@Rob: I like your suggestion. It will also help other projects in the long run. It surely can not hurt if a bot records things like this when it runs across them? Otr500 (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Otr500: I see where you are coming from with these and I can also see (because our project uses B-class criteria in assessment) where the problems come from. One is assessing completeness of coverage - I would have difficulty with all of these because none are in my area. Gut feeling, they are thin and I would not give them B2 but I've seen that challenged by editors on the grounds they'd searched and that was all they could find in English, therefore it was comprehensive. B1 is a problem with these super-stubs because, with only a few sentences, it is hard not to cover the in-line cite criteria. Its much harder in a more extensive article, many of which remain complex starts because of it. As I've said below, we could do with a better "substance" measure than B3. Is one paragraph really enough for B class? Obviously, you don't want a criterion for substance that could be got by separating a three sentence para into three sections but it shouldn't be beyond our combined wit and intellect to get a better measure.Monstrelet (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I like your terminology--complex starts is exactly what I would call it. For the record; I am talking about non-living biographies. Bio-articles like Austin Tice are more complicated. I also agree with the B-class issues you mentioned. Here are some issues I have run across;
1)- At least one editor went around from 2012-2013 (at least) prematurely raising start class articles, some that were sectioned stubs, to C-class. This has created several problems. Six projects cover Benjamin Grierson. Five rate it a start-class and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history rated it a C-class, failing B-class assessment by only B1. It has a single paragraph lead, only three references, and seven External links just to start. It is really a good start-class and I tagged it for the issues, which I feel should bring it up to C-class, Augustus Hervey, 3rd Earl of Bristol
2)- The problems are exasperated when a bot seeks to level the many project classification fields (of projects it covers) and automatically promotes an article to match one we have rated that is substandard. To me it just doesn't look good if two projects have an article assessed at C-class (ours and a bot assessment or two live assessments) and two projects correctly showing a start-class. If I see any such action now, of premature assessments, I will call attention to it.
3)- Before raising a start class the criteria for C-class, especially: A)- "The article is substantial", that is the first sentence of the criteria for C-class, as well as "It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.", should be followed. This will exclude many substandard or "complex starts", B)- There has to be enough references. Articles like Axel Eggebrecht with a single source, a couple of references, or external links posing as references, should not be elevated to C-class, C)- The lead should be more than one sentence and really should be at least two paragraphs, D)- If possible and practical an article should have supporting material to be C-class.
Even if an article has some substantial coverage, like Albert C. Baker, when there is no style, customary of a good start-class before promotion to C-class, this should be considered before promotion. In the case of this article four projects have promoted to C-class and this project maintains a start-class. I feel this is a correct rating per WikiProject Military history/AssessmentCriteria for C-class (expanded) B3, "It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.". The main thing is that editors should review and assess articles to comply with our criteria with minimum deviation. If in doubt it is not hard to seek comments from others right?
Note: There will always be exceptions, like when there is not a lot of coverage by reliable resources, yet one or two found are considered reliable and non-biased, but this usually means more than one editor will be involved thus consensus comes into play versus one editor. Otr500 (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on this TFA text. It would be nice to include something about Patton's reputation being largely rehabilitated by his later success as a commander, but this one is already longer than most. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I might be inclined to say in the last sentence that "Patton was removed from combat command for almost a year but later used as a decoy in...". As it currently is, it almost seems as if he was withdrawn from command so that he could be used as a decoy. I appreciate that the preceding paragraph clarifies matters somewhat, but it might help a little. Ranger SteveTalk15:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
My reading is that the operation overlapped with his period of inactivity as a commander, but I could be wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. My thought was more on the 'and' bit, not the for 'for almost a year'. The 'later' in my own amendment is not necessary. Ranger SteveTalk17:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I just adjusted the wording to "Patton was removed from combat command for almost a year before being used as a decoy...". Adjust this more if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
On the other point, I just made some room and added "Patton's later successes largely rehabilitated his reputation as a commander." I don't want to be unfair, and I don't have room to detail his later successes, but maybe I'm being too vague. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The FAC nominator, Ed!, just said on his talk page that he'd like to remove all the following text from the TFA: "On 3 August 1943, during the Sicily Campaign of World War II, Patton struck, kicked and berated a soldier he found at an evacuation hospital with no apparent injuries, for being "gutless"; in fact, the soldier had malaria with a temperature of 102.2 °F (39.0 °C). Patton struck another soldier complaining of "nerves" at another hospital seven days later and threatened him with a pistol for being a "whimpering coward"; in fact, the soldier had been begging to rejoin his unit. Both soldiers suffered from what is now known as post-traumatic stress disorder." I disagree, because this article is specifically about the slapping incidents, and because some of the mythology about the incidents (then and now) is different from what actually happened. But the man was much more than these two incidents, of course ... Patton is also a Featured Article, and if you guys like, we could nominate that at WP:TFAR to show Main Page readers the bigger picture. I'm trying to be neutral here. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If there's a concern that the TFA text is too negative, I could ask at WT:MAIN for permission to run long with this TFA, so that we can talk a little bit about the happy ending. (The deception worked: the German 15th Army remained at Pas de Calais even after the Normandy landings, and Patton's successes with the 3rd Army have been described as legendary.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd be concerned about attaching too much weight to that though. Simply put I'd be wary of describing the deception as a happy ending to the slapping incidents - they weren't directly related to the extent that the slaps were planned with that outcome in mind after all. I feel the main part of the main page text should be the specifics of the events themselves. Patton's subsequent sanction is obviously relevant. After that his new command and the results of that command obviously deserve a mention in the article, but that should be all. They are subsequent to these events and not a part of them. Essentially I'm concerned about over emphasising a link between the primary subject of this article with the successful deceptions around D-Day in a single paragraph for the main page. Ranger SteveTalk21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I am! Also, if anyone's going from Milan Centrale to Esino Lario by train/bus on Tuesday, PLEASE let me know; I'm a little terrified of getting there alone, with my very poor Italian. Adam Cuerden(talk)09:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I have examined this article today and it appears that any questionable edits have been reverted. If you have specific questions about the content in the article, would you mind pointing them out either here or on the article's talk page? Exemplo347 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
History of aviation in New Zealand
G'day all, I have moved the History of aviation in New Zealand article from user space into article space on behalf of its author Huttoldboys. It is partly within this project's scope, but it isn't really a topic I'm familiar with, so if anyone here is keen to help improve the article further I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As you may have noticed there is some sort of tumult surrounding WWI due to the upcoming release of Battlefield 1 and rise of the The Great War Youtube channel. Perhaps we should exploit this fact by recruiting among those two interconnected communities. Games like Eve Online have already directly rewarded community input into scientific research.--Catlemur (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've forgotten who I asked for help or where. I discovered this article was a red link a few weeks ago and asked what should be done. I thought I had access to some really good resources and then, when I had the chance, I just forgot. I worked with what I could find and got my draft into good enough shape to move to article space, or at least I believe I did. The sources may not be the best but they're what I had access to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please someone take care of this article, Military globalization. It is nicely written, but it looks like it is an original essay. I started chopping off unreferenced pieces, but soon I started suspecting that the whole thing is one big WP:SYNTH. Even the definition is unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll second this - It's a mix of original research & statements from classical texts that bear no relevance to the subject at hand and while I'll admit that I'm no expert on the specifics, I doubt anyone else would be after reading the article. It needs a complete overhaul. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there any restrictions on withdrawing an article for A-Class re iew, and nominating it for FA instead? Usually,i would not be fussed by the A Class review process, but I was aiming to give the 38th Div article a shot at the front page for its 100th anniversary on the Somme. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Though not ideal, but an A-class review does not have to be completed to nominate it for FA. It would greatly help the review process to pass A class review with improvements incorporated when the review for FA starts. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The improvements suggested during the current review were implemented. Just with the lack of reviewers, I fear that the chance to get try and get the article on the frontpage is slipping away. Good to hear there is no protocol issues. Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc: G'day, yes, there is no dramas with this. If you wish for the review to be closed, I can do that for you (or any other co-ord can also). Please just confirm that is what you are wanting to do, and I will trigger the bot. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Napoleon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightblueowl (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 June 2016
I'm working on this particular article (as well as Hikari Naval Arsenal), but even Japanese WP has very little on them, as they weren't in operation as long as say, Kure. There's material from the US Navy from after the Japanese surrender, but I don't know how to get access to material like that, as it appears to be on microfilm at the NDL. Any ideas on other possible sources for material? MSJapan (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That may not be much more than is contained here. There is also this in the diet though. I lived in Suzuka for nearly 4 years and I don't recall seeing anything about it locally in any museums I'm afraid. Ranger SteveTalk06:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This, this, this, thisand this may provide some help, if you use Google Translate on the pages. I can't comment on the reliability, but at least the first link provides sources. In the last link, if you do use Google translate, the dates translate badly. I think the original Japanese version is using the Japanese calendar, which incorrectly translates to 2000s.
The Japanese isn't a problem for me, but the problem with the NDL is yes, there's free registration, but that all the material is physical microfiche, and I don't know how to get a copy of that offhand (but I might have an idea....). The Mie site should be RS, so I will start with that. MSJapan (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The title "Bengal Regiment" and the first sentence in the article appear to be the result of some confusion. There was never a "Bengal Regiment" according to The Quarterly Army List of Her Majesty's British Forces on the Bengal Establishment (1859).
The second and third sentences partially describe the history of the Bengal Native Infantry.
The second paragraph also describes part of the history of the Bengal Native Infantry.
The mixture of information about a non-existent regiment and information about the Bengal Native Infantry may mislead readers.
I am aware that the article entitled Bengal Regiment has been present on Wikipedia for a number of years and attracts more page visits than Bengal Native Infantry. This does not, however, excuse the fact that the article is inaccurate in every detail from its title onwards. Therefore I propose that these two pages should be merged as described with inaccurate content removed and Bengal Regiment possibly becoming a redirect page linking to Bengal Native Infantry. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Does it matter? I might make such a change myself, not on its own but if I was editing an article anyway, because I'd think that the purpose of {{Main article|... would be clearer to other editors than {{main|.... — Stanning (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This article needs a revision, because the details it quotes appear to be apocyrphal, looks like an attempt to find more contemporary sources was made back in 2014 (see the articles talk page), but it didn't result in a overhaul of the text to clarify what acually appears to have happened. Graham1973 (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm requesting help at this article. It's been the target of edit warring in the recent past and the main participants seem incapable of requesting input on their own. I'm on the verge of handing out blocks to editors that may, in the long run, prove useful to the project. I'd rather not have to do that. Also, if my intervention is harming rather than helping, please advise. Thanks Tiderolls12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment I am currently working on a draft for this at Draft:Charles Kettles. I am still rewriting the text from the White House announcement and it still needs secondary sourcing before it goes live. Safiel (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment Will pick up on this tomorrow and try to have it ready for article space by tomorrow. Right now, it needs secondary sourcing, more details on the actual Medal of Honor incident and its infobox filled out before it can go live. Safiel (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Do we have a standard for how someone qualifies as a notable member of a military unit? A recent edit to 91st Division (United States) added Richard L. Nader, who won a bronze star while a PFC; Nader doesn't have a page and Googling him returned no recognizable results. I don't think it's a bogus entry; the text has the feel of having come from a citation. I'm not denigrating Nader's military service, but it wouldn't get him a page. Does it earn him a mention at all?--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk15:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I am working through astronaut articles, and would like some help implementing ribbon devices. Some articles, like Alan Shepard, have the box implemented effectively. Other astronauts, like Roger B. Chaffee, don't have the ribbon template at all.
I am not confident I can put the ribbons in the correct order (does the order matter?) and can't find any help topics on the matter.
Would anyone like to volunteer to work through the articles in the Adopt an Astronaut project and apply the ribbon device template correctly throughout?
If not, I'll settle for someone explaining to me how to properly do it myself, and I'll work through them as I have time. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, the rack builder is there to sell you crap, but it does correctly place the ribbons in order of precedence. So that's good. TimothyJosephWood22:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Bacule?
We have an extremely thin fortification stub article called Bacule which is apparently a type of portcullis, although the description is very brief and not entirely clear and has been lifted almost verbatim from Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1728). I have tracked it down to Volume I, page 77 which says: "In Fortification, a Kind of Portcullis or Gate, made like a Pit-fall, with a Counter-Poise, and supported by two great Stakes: it is usually made before the Corps-de-Garde advancing near the Gates". Other than that, I can't find a single reference in English which supports this, and I am still a bit mystified about what it actually is. I suspect that it warrants a brief mention in either our Portcullis or Draw bridge articles and a redirect. I tried asking at the Language Reference Desk, who were able to confirm that bacule is a variant of bascule, French for "see-saw", but I'm still in the dark about what this thing is. Please help. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the old OED lists “bacule” as a variant spelling of “bascule“. Note that we have a separate article on bascule bridges, but Drawbridge seems a better place to merge the content, based on the explanation in the lead. The body of the article describes a somewhat more elaborate arrangement, with counterweighted lifting arms rather than a single see-saw. I guess the similarity with a portcullis would be that the retracted bridge-deck would act as an additional barrier in front of the gateway, but from being tilted into that position instead of dropped from above.—Odysseus147923:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. My guess was that it is a drawbridge lifted by two counterpoised arms, but somebody at the Language RefDesk has since come up with an even earlier ref from 1611 that muddies the waters somewhat: "A square, and beauie dore (commonly) hanging, and held up by chaynes, a pretie distance without the maine gate of a fortresse, and let fal (as a Portcullis) in a trice, with a whurrie, and to the confusion of them it reaches, or lights on; also, as Bascule". [11] This sounds rather like a door that swings down from above, but I can't really tell. It's worrying me that there is no modern reference for this. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The Fortress Study Group's Illustrated Glossary of Military Architecture Terms lists a bascule as "a counterbalanced drawbridge of which there are two main types, the drawbridge levered by pole-arms (eg. St Lucian's Tower) or a counter-balanced gangway (eg. Mdina)." It does also provide some illustrations; a counterbalanced gangway has a second pit inside the fortification for the drawbridge to tip into as it's raised. A pole-arm moves the counterbalance above the drawbridge onto long arms. Hope this helps. Ranger SteveTalk06:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose to replace the current Victoria Cross opening paragraph with the following. 'The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest award of the United Kingdom honours system. It is awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of the British armed forces. It was previously awarded to Commonwealth countries, most of which have established their own honours systems and no longer recommend British honours. It may be awarded to a person of any military rank in any service and to civilians under military command although no civilian has received the award since 1879. Since the first awards were personally presented by Queen Victoria in 1856, two thirds of all awards have been personally presented by the British monarch. These investitures are usually held at Buckingham Palace.' Unlike the US where the phrase 'highest military decoration' is appropriate, Britain and most Commonwealth countries have both military and civilian awards in one order of wear. Both British military and civilians are eligible to receive the VC and other gallantry awards and the GC and other bravery awards although the last civilian to receive the VC was in 1879 and the last British civilian to receive the GC was in 1976. So I have suggest for 'highest award' for the VC would be more helpful. I would welcome any comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victoria_Cross before I amend the article. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and it is listed over on the right. Only certain components participated. These include the HQ and HQ Company, the Band, MP Company, HQ and HQ Company Divisional Artillery and the HQ and HQ Company Special Troops. They participated in the fighting in Alsace. Most of the division was in reserve. For that reason, some sources do not give it credit for the campaign. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The puppeteer Gordon Murray (he of Pippin Fort fame) died today. He served in the British Army during WWII, so the infobox could possibly be expanded to accommodate his military career. Referencing needs a little more polishing and the article needs assessment for MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Now we are nearly at the halfway point of the centenary years of the First World War (August 1914/2014 to November 1918/2018), and the centenary of battles such as Verdun and Jutland have also been marked, how should the commemorations be covered in Wikipedia? Might a timeline article on the commemorations by battles or campaigns (rather than divided by nationality as at First World War centenary) be a good way to organise a rather diverse topic? Does anyone here have any advice on that? Is it best to have bits added to individual articles where needed, plus an overview article of some kind? Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Announcement of 2016 Pritzker Literature Award for Lifetime Achievement in Military Writing
Apologies for popping up and asking about this again. I haven't been very active recently, so may have missed something. Is there any co-ordination being done on WWI topics, or disseminating news on what people are working on in relation to First World War topics?
Back in April, I found a couple of projects (such as this Wikipedian in Residence), and wondered if more were out there or if there is a list somewhere? Some searches throw up more results. Would there be interest in a directory of past and present pages relating to the topic? Editathons (e.g this one), MilHist Bugle articles (that will be a long list, an example) and so on? Or does such a directory or category already exist? Another example is this meetup which is related to this overview. Another example, were people here aware of Wikipedia:World War I Centenary/DYK? It can be difficult to find these, as they don't tend to be all listed in one place, or categorised.
Thank you! If you are interested in helping out, please add yourself to the talk page. One thing I hope to do is get a feel for where most of the editing activity is occurring in this topic area (there is a lot of activity, and some great Bugle articles, but no real overview). I plan to contact the people listed at the 'Participants' section of the task force page. The task force and special project should be where this eventually goes, but I am keeping this informal for now. Carcharoth (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Some advice on H2S article
I'm trying to put the finishing touches on the H2S (radar) article, but I have a funny feeling about the layout and I'm looking for advice...
1) Rotterdam happened almost immediately, but it is physically placed near the end. That's because it spans the entire rest of the war. Should I put that at the very end? What about the post-war developments?
2) Should post-war, which is really about Mk. IX, be its own two-equals section?
Hi all, I've logged last month's entries, if we can start verifying with a view to completing that in the next few days so we can keep to our new schedule of despatching the Bugle in the first week or so of the new month, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
All done but it's been a while since I tallied the monthly figures so I wouldn't mind someone checking my arithmetic... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Does anyone out there know if this is an actual machine, or if it even existed at all? The article got tagged as a copyright violation, but given the preponderance of the world of tanks information that comes up I have a hunch that this could be a hoax article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Could some Milhisters take a look at this AfD of a Coast Guard Captain? There is a disagreement over whether his commands make him notable under WP:SOLDIER 5 & 6. Thanks. Gbawden (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the use of the term "Soviets" in WWII Eastern Front articles
I have noted the widespread use of the term "Soviets" or "Soviet" in Easten front articles referring to the Red Army. I would suggest this is no more acceptable than using the term "Nazis" or "Nazi" in all articles referring to the Wehrmacht. I propose this term be replaced by Red Army, VVS for Red Army airforce units and VMF For the Red Navy. I would suggest we create a redirect for the VMF as it presently goes to the article Soviet Navy which has already been tagged for weasel words. I suggest a rephrasing of all such terms where encountered. Soviet is a political-civilian-ideological term, as is Nazi, and I would suggest it has no place in military articles. I intend replacing the terms where I encounter them, as they are POV, And I would welcome comments on this, leading to a consensus. Many would be seriously pissed off if we referred to a Nazi army, airforce or navy, and I strongly believe the same NPOV logic should apply to the terminology of the Red Army, navy and airforce here. Cheers Irondome (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
No. "soviet" is the standard non-controversial term in the RS. Nazi is a reference to the political party that ruled Germany. There is no controversy about "Soviet" -- it is the standard short version of the formal name of the country Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), used by scholars and diplomats at the time and since (and by the Soviets and their opponents). As for Nazi army--let's see why is it problematic: because the term was not used then or now-- it had a special relationship and was NOT ruled by the Nazi Party (it was ruled directly by Hitler). Rjensen (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree with Irondome's proposal. The appellation of Nazi or Soviet of course refers back to the regime the military served, although you could argue about the ideological purity of the force. One does not, for example, call the Iraqi Army under Saddam the "Baathist Army" although that would in many ways be accurate. I'm not opposed to the term Red Army as it's been synonymously used. I don't think VVS and VMF makes sense because, while perhaps technically correct, most source material doesn't use those terms. I more strenuously oppose the claim the term Soviet is POV because those units not only served the Soviet order they had organic political officers to enforce same. I'd be more willing to accept this proposal for a non-partisan military regardless of what regime they served. That's not the case here. Chris Troutman (talk)02:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I partially agree with Irondome -- using Soviets to refer to the military of the Soviet Union sounds a bit colloquial. As an adjective, I don't find it problematic -- opening on a random page of When Titans Clashed by Glantz & House, your get "Soviet formations", "Soviet offensive practice", "Soviet success", etc. Glantz & House predominantly use "Red Army" and "Soviet [noun]" throughout the book, so I tend to go with that.
What I find more problematic than Soviets is "the Russians" when used as a weird ethno-political term, alongside with "Russia", whereas Operation Barbarossa becomes "Invasion of Russia". Coincidentally, I just came across a passage in David Stahel where he states: "As a matter of principle I have rejected the all too common inaccuracy of referring to the 'Russians' as if the Soviet Union consisted of a generic, singular national group". For such usage, please see Panzerschlachten. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The "Russians" would indeed be totally unacceptable and unencyclopedic, while the term "Soviets" can be used same as "Americans" or "Germans". FkpCascais (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I can see the point that some terms are more than descriptions, having ideological connotations which can apply or not according to context and that using them can be controversial. Perhaps what we need is to remember this and avoid casual usage so that a challenge is refutable. That said, try using the term zionist occupation and see what happens. Keith-264 (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Per Fkp, Soviets is an appellation regarding the nation state whose armed forces they belonged to, akin to Americans or Australians or Germans. Not all Wehrmacht troops were German by nationality, some were Croatian, others Ukrainian, others Latvian etc. That is why "Russian" isn't appropriate, it wasn't the nation state to which those troops belonged. Some Soviet troops were Siberian or Ukrainian, Uzbek or Tajik. No-one expects "members of the armed forces of the Commonwealth of Australia" every time Australian forces are mentioned in WWII. I've never even heard of the suggested initialisations VVS and VMF, BTW. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Which is why it's appropriate to say "Wehrmacht" rather than "Germans" when speaking of that armed force. Similarly, IMHO it's more appropriate to say "Red Army" than "Soviets" when speaking of that army, since "Red Army" is what it was called at the time. — Stanning (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree completely with Peacemaker. "Soviet" is routinely used to refer to the military forces, and pretty much everything really, associated with the former USSR in serious works of history. I'm certain that there's lots of scope for different use of the terms on a case by case basis and precision is always good, but the term is fine. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Good feedback there. I just propose to vary Red Army with Soviet more, to stop it becoming a boring read. I do think VVS should be linked in articles when it is the first mention, then "Red Airforce", "Soviet Airforce" etc Irondome (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
But shouldn't terminology be driven by the source material, rather than what is technically correct? If VVS was prevalent in the source material I could agree but doesn't COMMONNAME sort of imply that within articles you'd use the common albeit less correct term rather than an obscure but correct term? Again, I'm fine with Red Army although I think Soviet is correct since it refers to the union of councils in the USSR. If we had a bunch of sources that say ChiComs referring to Mao's army, do we perform OR and say PLA instead, since that's correct? Chris Troutman (talk)14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I think a short mention in the Marmon-Herrington CTLS article would probably be sufficient. You could potentially then create redirects to that article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Qays and Yaman discussion
There is currently a discussion regarding the name, and perhaps scope, of the Qays and Yaman tribes article. The Qays and Yaman played a critical role during the Umayyad era and the factional feud was one of the chief factors of the Umayyad state's collapse. The feud persisted to varying degrees for centuries and had a resurgence in Ottoman Lebanon and Palestine, finally diminishing in the mid-19th century. For those interested, particularly from the Early Muslim history taskforce, your participation is welcome. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Your progression/list of what percent of your articles are what quality and importance.
Could someone provide with me the code neccesary to make one? Would like to put a similar one in the Rome wiki project. Thanks to all Iazyges (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Need help making a template for my roman military history task force, currently in the incubator.
I need help making the template for my task force that's currently in incubation, so that I can put it on the talk page, and assess it. If anyone could help me I would be grateful.
I'm guessing that it's basically intended to be a "nations and regions"-type task force rather than a "periods and conflicts" one? Looking at the listed scope, it wouldn't really be a subset of Classical warfare, since it aims to include Byzantine military history (while Classical warfare basically cuts off at c. 500). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
A quick clarification regarding templates: military history task forces don't require a new tagging template to be created; instead, they use tag parameters in {{WikiProject Military history}}, which allows them to inherit all of the assessment infrastructure already set up for the rest of the project.
We seem to have nav templates as well as individual articles for several classes of submarines where there are only a few subs in the class, and articles on the subs themselves are minimal. Is there any problem with full-merging the constituent subs in the classes into their respective class articles as follows:
They're notable enough to deserve their own articles; if they're merely stubs right now, that's fine. Somebody will come along at some point and expand them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am currently working on a small (I am the only active member as of now) task force within the military history WP, I would like to invite anyone interested in either Roman or Byzantine Military History, to work on the project with me. Here is the Link Incase you are interested, thank you. Iazyges (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I've had a nose round and doubt that there's much I can do to help but I'll look through my stash of Roman and Byzantine books just in case. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone care about copyediting a bunch of Hero of the Soviet Union substubs?
A newbie has created a bunch of tiny, unreferenced articles about Heroes of Soviet Union like Samad Abdullayev, then went inactive: [12]. Does anyone feel like fixing them? They are hovering around WP:TNT, INHO, through one survived AfD (because another editor did expand it with a ref). They are probably not hoaxes, but, sigh... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here19:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Piotrus: It looks as if they can all be referenced from the Russian-language site for Heroes of the Soviet Union, and that award passes the bar for Notability as "country's highest honour". But the images all look to be copyright violations, and the pretty little medal beside the reference is non-standard and excessive decoration. ... Ah, now discovered that it's put there by template {{Ruheroes}}, as in Shirin Shukurov: surely this isn't appropriate for references, as it generates a line including the medal icon, in contrast to every other reference I've seen. It's difficult to learn much about the template as the documentation is in Russian. Not my area of expertise (though I was pinged because I'd tried to reason with the creating editor and encourage them to stop) - I leave it to you milhistorians. Curiously, although the editor stopped creating these stubs on June 16th, they did a few edits on 17th ... and came back to add a minimal user page on June 29th. Makes you wonder whether they might possibly still be around here somewhere under another name - or just enjoying watching other people work to tidy up their work? Some of the images have been deleted, leaving articles with ugly redlinks (see Shirin Shukurov again). PamD15:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Recently consensus was reached in this discussion to restructure the Iraq War article into an broader article for the entire war from 2003 to the present and to move Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) to Iraq War (2003–11) so that page can serve as the article for the 2003–11 phase of the war.
Hello, there is a category at Category:United States military images and it states that Images taken or made by US military are Under United States copyright law, such images are public domain. I've just written this article here: Wilhelm Tranow, and on the off chance I searched Google images for a picture of the man, and came across a picture of him, here @: [[13]]. Is that image copyright under US law? Its obviously a image take sometime before or during the second world war. It has obviously been taken from some archive, originally by TICOM who were US and British military searching the continent for military assets they could filch but these folk who are now selling it. What I'm fundamentally asking, is there a process which I can do through to get hold of this image? Can an argument be made that it is in the public domain? Thanks. scope_creep14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The image's record on that database says it's from the "Jay Robert Nash Collection". Googling the term returns this page on the same database which says that "The Jay Robert Nash Collection, exclusively distributed by CRIA, consists of more than six million (6,000,000) historical images in the public domain which Nash collected over a four-decade period" but then goes on to claim that the company is being very noble about selling the images at a low price. If in fact the image is PD, it's free to use for any purpose and the company has no way to make you pay for it. The database doesn't say that the image is PD US military though - this looks like an ID photo or mugshot, so it could have been created during his employment by the German government or by an Allied intelligence/POW processing unit after the war. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Disagreement of use of establishment date/disestablishment date categories for USAF articles
@Lineagegeek: and I have behaved a bit badly and conducted a bit of a slow-motion edit war on the date categories attached to United States Air Force units and formations. Briefly, I want to, and have, been putting the estab/disestab dates in that match the years that the article subject unit - like Air Rescue Service was active, formed c. 1944 and disestablished 1966. I argue that doing that is the only way they will show up properly in the year/date categories. If one doesn't do this, the disestablishment date category doesn't work properly.
Lineagegeek's view is that when a unit is redesignated, eg. the Air Rescue Service became the Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service in 1966, it has not been disestablished, only redesignated, so he removes the disestablishment date categories. You will see from the edit history of Air Rescue Service that that is what he's just done.
He argues that because the unit has a continuing history, under a different name, the disestablishment categories should not be added to the former names under which the unit has served. We need some third opinions here to make a decision, because we both think that we're right.
Lineagegeek, I've tried to put this as objectively and hopefully as fairly as possible, but please feel free to add your side of the story. Regards to all, Buckshot06(talk)14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I've waited nearly a week to respond and it's beginning to appear that we're the only interested parties. I think you could have found better examples, though. The change from Air Rescue Service to Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service in 1966 was entirely cosmetic. The same units were assigned (although they changed their names from "Air Rescue" or "Air Recovery" to "Aerospace Rescue and Recovery". The same people went to work in the same red brick building at Scott Air Force Base and did the same things they did the day before the name change. Aerospace was a big buzz word in the USAF in the 1960s, and the capsule recovery mission gave ARS the opportunity to put that word in its name. I think its a stretch to make this an establishment of a unit or formation."
For lack of a better guideline, I use the criteria used by the United States Air Force and its predecessors. [14], [15] and [16] all have appendices that go into more detail, but USAF units and their predecessors are "established" according to these parameters if they are constituted (or in some cases reconstituted), designated (for MAJCON units) or authorized (for really old units). I don't think changes of name count as establishments, though. Otherwise, the categories for unit establishment would pile up with all the wings, groups and squadrons that went from "troop carrier" to "tactical airlift" in 1967, from "air transport" to "military airlift" in 1966, from "bombardment" to "bomb" in 1991, etc. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, although... I think that from the wiki's perspective, they no longer hold the copyright on which to issue a Share Alike licence. I think from a wiki perspective you'd want a Crown Copyright expired licence tag (to cover the underlying Ordnance Survey copyright), a US pre-1924 publication tag and a author life+70 tag, since Colonel Stewart died in 1934, and then give a link to the Creative Commons release in case someone is using it in NZ, the UK or somewhere else that follows a non-US interpretation of reproducing 2D works. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Front line Menin road, Polderhoek, Reutel, 5 December 1917
I have recently created this article - Siege of Arrah - and I have submitted a request for peer review here. I would appreciate feedback from the Military History Wikiproject (preferring this to feedback from unrelated history projects) so if you have time, please feel free to have a look. Thanks! Exemplo347 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Otto Kittel
Hey folks, I would welcome WW2 buff input for the above article in making it ship shape.
Otto Kittel, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Standardization of Civil War Regiment article names?
Hello all - Do we have a preferred set of naming conventions for individual regiments' articles, and also for defaultsorting them in categories? For instance, I am looking at Category:New York Civil War regiments and there are different naming conventions for like articles - In other words, should "75th New York Volunteer Infantry" be "75th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment"? Or, should "74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment" be "74th New York Volunteer Infantry"? Also, things like the 7th whatever being sorted below the 70th whatever can cause confusion to users.
70th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment
71st New York Infantry
72nd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment
73rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment
74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment
75th New York Volunteer Infantry
76th New York Volunteer Infantry
77th New York Volunteer Infantry
78th New York Volunteer Infantry
79th New York Volunteer Infantry
7th New York Heavy Artillery Regiment
7th New York Militia
7th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment
7th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry
If no specific thoughts on this, then I might try experimenting with the naming and sorting of the New York regiments to start with, and see if any solutions strike me. Any thoughts on this, please let me know. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I know WP:COMMONNAME applies, but I'm a big fan of consistency. The sorting problem can be solved by using {{DEFAULTSORT:07}} or {{DEFAULTSORT:007}} (if there are "century" numbered unites involved) on the unit page for the 7th.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk22:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I am good on how to make the Defaultsorting happen, but I wasn't sure if there had been discussions elsewhere already on the specifics. Let me leave this out here for others to comment on if they like. KConWiki (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I ask why we want the article names standardized? Certainly we might want some standardization, especially for sorting, but the regiment names were not, I think, perfectly standardized historically. For instance, searching newspapers.com, it seems the 74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was much more commonly known as the "Fifth Excelsior". On fold3 records, I also see "74th New York infantry" and "74th New York State Volunteer Infantry". A New York Adjutant General volume calls it the "74th New York State Volunteer Infantry" and the "5th Regiment (Excelsior Brigade)" [18]. The Dyer compendium uses "74th Regiment Infantry" and "5th Excelsior" [19]. Also, by the way, the 74th New York State Militia is a different organization which contributed men to other NY Volunteer Infantry units, mostly the 21st. Historians today, as evidenced by google books and google scholar, don't seem to feel the need to standardize either. Smmurphy(Talk)06:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe there are minor differences in the official designations of Civil War units that really shouldn't matter. Taking your first exemplar, I think you will find that the most common reference to the unit will be to the "74th New York". Mostly because of lower numbered units, I believe that the branch needs to be added, and because of the existence of numbered battalions as well, my preferred usage would be "74th New York Infantry Regiment", with the addition of "Volunteer" only when needed as a discriminator.
I am also a big unfan of the use of default sorting. My experience is that when an article has multiple categories, the default sort only works well for one of them. I much prefer using something like [[74th New York Infanry Regiment|074 New York Infantry]]. The 5th Regiment issue with this unit can be easily solved by a redirect. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this person? I found it classified as General George Patton, which seems strange to me, since he doesn't look anything like him, and he seems to be wearing a British/Commonwealth Brigadier insignia. He looks irritatingly familiar though (Hohum@) 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It is by an artist called Leo Arthur Robitschek. A somewhat obscure artist who appears to have lived in Mandatory Palestine. He has several works that I could find by googling. His works have Jerusalem or TransJordan inscribed on them. Interesting. This would indicate an officer in a Middle East formation or command. Irondome (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This uploader has uploaded nothing but Robitschek drawings, there seems to have been a prior issue at Commons with these, so I've raised the concern at OTRS over there, pointing out the fact that there is no way this is Patton. MSJapan (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The uploader is apparently the painter’s son; could be worth trying to contact directly for background & to find out how the error may have occurred.—Odysseus147900:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That is a good plan. Actually Mr. Robitschek's work seems very accomplished. Having had Tedder's attention he was evidently well-regarded locally. The subject could well have been one of 8th Army's more notable brigadiers. Starting to have a trawl through them. It seriously needs re-titling though. Irondome (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Nah. Gen Peyton had gone to the great officers mess in the sky way before then. He died in '31. Peyton was already a General in 1914. Irondome (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've looked at countless pictures of Battens, Peytons etc.; British, Australian, New Zealander and Canadian brigadiers, officers in Palestine, and come up with diddly squat. (Hohum@) 18:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
There was a James Ronald Patten, who held the rank of brigadier serving in the Mediterranean at about the time [20]. No images available online, I am afraid. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Obvious military portraits and the Wikimedia Commons
I notice there are obvious military portraits of the victim (Tracie McBride) and the perpetrator (Louis Jones) of the Murder of Tracie McBride: Both of them were soldiers. What info needs to be gathered to confirm this so I can put the portraits on the Wikimedia Commons?
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Clear evidence that the photo was taken by a US government employee as part of their official duties, or has been released under a Commons-friendly license. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. Would anybody here be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.20:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Passchendaele Does anyone object to me altering the title of the campaignbox to The Flanders Offensive 1917 so that the contents can be labelled The Battle of Messines and The Battles of Ypres (with or without ", 1917")? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Went ahead, does anyone know why the changes show on some article pages and not others; have I missed something? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
it's a function of the way templates are transcluded, the old template will be stored in the cache. A WP:Purge or null edit to the articles should do the trick, I think - Dumelow (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix.
Thus "PCU" Is not an actual part of the vessel's name. I cannot find a single reliable source to suggest that "PCU" should be included in the ship's name. The Navy itself uses "pre-commissioning unit" as a descriptor, rather than as part of the ship title. It's not even consistently capitalized when the Navy uses it:
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (NNS) -- Sixty new crew members checked aboard pre-commissioning unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), April 30, joining the first of the newest class of aircraft carrier.
And the subject of the article on the Gerald R. Ford is the vessel which will be known as USS Gerald R. Ford. There are a number of other pages I've worked on which use this convention without issue (see USS Manchester and the other not-yet-commissioned littoral combat ships for examples). The Manchester article currently uses future tense phrasing to line up the bolded article title with the current vessel status:
Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, the title of the article (which is "USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)" should be used and bolded. Thus, the bolded title should be either USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (going by the page title) or Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (going by the vessel's current name), and the use of "PCU" in the bold ship title is inappropriate.
However, I was reverted when I removed "PCU", and told to seek consensus here. I'm certainly against adding "PCU" to the bold title on other pages where it's not already added, and I don't see why it should be included in the bolded title for the Gerald R. Ford page when doing so violates MOS:BOLDTITLE. If people insist on keeping the description of the ship as a pre-commissioning unit, then the lead-in could be phrased as:
I would accept this as a matter of lead paragraph phrasing, since it does not violate MOS:BOLDTITLE or falsely imply that "PCU" is part of the ship name. However, regardless of how the article is phrased, PCU should not be bolded. Please let me know whether you disagree with this, and if so, why. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree, and would be surprised if calling new ships "pre-commissioning unit X" is in line with WP:COMMONNAME given that news stories and other works written for a non-specialist audience tend to use either the ship name, or preemptively add the "USS" or similar. The Royal Australian Navy calls its ships NUSHIP X before they are commissioned (Eg, NUSHIP Canberra became HMAS Canberra), but I've never seen this terminology used by non-government writers. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick-D, for pointing out the WP:COMMONNAME issue, which is a concern. I've discovered that "PCU" is being used in a few places on Wikipedia in ways that imply "PCU" is part of the official or common name for pre-commissioned vessels. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - I think there's a tendency among some of our edits to treat articles like they're part of the USNpedia instead of an encyclopedia written for a general audience. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth I agree, bolding it implies that it is part of the proper or common name rather than it's current temporary status/designation and neither is it needed for disambiguation. Gecko G (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Subjects fails WP:SOLDIER per article text: "No evidence of the award can be found in the German Federal Archives. Albrecht's case was never processed by the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR). It is incomprehensible what evidence exists and who accepted him as a Knight's Cross recipient." The subject does not have a German wiki article. No significant coverage in RS can be found.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I often view the Fringe Theories noticeboard and I saw something about Knight's Cross holders, which is being discussed here: [21]. The discussion focuses on WP:SOLDIER and the deletion of a number of articles about Knight's Cross holders (Ritterkreuztraeger, RKT) has been justified by the argument that the Knight's Cross was not necessarily the "highest award for valor" mentioned in WP:SOLDIER. There is a legitimate case (Peter Arent) of a person who was never awarded the RK. The other cases appear to be ones where removal of one or two specific sources as "unreliable" results in an apparent absence of sources supporting the RK award. I noted that new RKTs were listed in German daily newspapers, often on the front pages. Newspapers even mentioned when an RKT was going to be present at a public event.
I do not like the way old essays and "what Wikipedia is not" guidelines are used; they were written for a time when, I guess, Wikipedia was at real risk of becoming a repository for random facts about Star Trek and Pokemon. The spirit of WP:SOLDIER appears to be "you can't create an article about your soldier relative," and the only statement about a non-notable soldier is precisely that: one who can only be traced with genealogical documents. Now we are at a point where most of the extremely important articles exist and are in need of improvement, and new articles must be drawn from a pool of less notable subjects that are nevertheless notable.
It's interesting that searching for the subjects of the deleted articles (like Alois Kalss) locates a) evidence that the individual existed and was a RKT, b) mirrors of deleted articles from Wikipedia, and c) articles on right-wing wikis. Not allowing the article to exist on English Wikipedia contributes to the illusion of bias in this encyclopedia. And it unfairly creates a higher standard for German soldiers than for American and British (but not Russian) ones, in that multiple secondary sources (read: Google-searchable books in English) can be called for in order to satisfy WP:SOLDIER and the equally unrealistic WP:GNG. (I've also patrolled new articles fairly often, and lots of utterly un-notable ones get created, while nomination for deletion seems to require an article running afoul of an editor willing to nominate.)
Note that accepting Knight's Cross holders as inherently notable actually creates a lower standard of notability for German soldiers than for British or American soldiers, since the Knight's Cross was often awarded for actions that would have resulted in a second-level decoration in Britain or the USA as opposed to the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor (if you read the circumstances, many of these men would have clearly received a DSO or DCM in Britain, not a VC - the ubiquitous Knight's Cross received by so many U-boat captains being a perfect case in point). That's why so many more were awarded. This is the problem with regarding recipients of a country's "highest" decoration as inherently notable; it favours countries that do not have a defined three-level decoration system as Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA do. Most countries, in fact, do not (hence the debate we have had as to whether the Legion d'honneur is France's highest decoration; it is and it isn't!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It would probably be better to have this conversation in one place rather than several at the same time. I suggest there are more participants already engaged over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), so it should proceed there. Once that discussion has closed, we can look at any consequential amendments to SOLDIER. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Since WP:SOLDIER is at the center of this, and this is the talk page for that essay, I wanted to describe the issue here. This is also not the only time I've seen discussions based on WP:SOLDIER, so the scope is broader than just Knight's Cross holder.
Roches made a point that seems to have been missed - that about recipients receiving coverage in daily newspapers. There is a significant bias towards British military officers simply because their obituary makes the Telegraph. I have seen Majors with an MC survive AfD just because of getting a Telegraph obituary published. Why can't German newspapers be given the same level of credibility that the Telegraph enjoys? Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If someone has an obituary in a major national newspaper then of course they should be considered notable, no matter what nationality they are. However, that's not really the issue here. The issue is whether Knight's Cross holders should be considered inherently notable just because they won the Knight's Cross. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Historic spelling of ranks
A slight dispute has arisen over James Whiteside McCay. McCay, who died in 1930, was an Australian officer who held the rank of Lieutenant-General. At the time this rank (as with other similar ranks such as Major-General and Lieutenant-Colonel that use a modifier to lower the main rank) was always spelled in British and Commonwealth English with a hyphen, and indeed was until relatively recently. I therefore altered his rank to the spelling with the hyphen. Another editor has altered it back with the argument that the article is written in Australian English, and Australia now does not use the hyphen in such ranks (neither, incidentally, does Britain). I would argue that since the rank was spelled with a hyphen at the time it should be spelled with a hyphen on Wikipedia, as his rank was actually Lieutenant-General and not Lieutenant General. Anything else would be revisionism. A minor point, but opinions would be welcome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, having had a similar issue in the past regarding "Sergeant" and "Serjeant", that the spelling at the time the subject held the rank is the most appropriate. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
If anyone here has any knowledge of writing about Napoleonic-era battlefield prints, could they take a look at Talk:The siege of San Sebastian (1813)#About deletion proposal? This is obviously the work of a well-intentioned newcomer, and I feel like I'm kicking a puppy nominating it for deletion two weeks after creation, but to me this looks like a generic souvenir print of the type that flooded Europe during the French Revolutionary Wars. I find it very unlikely that enough has been written about it to remotely scrape notability, but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. ‑ Iridescent09:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Donated photos on history.navy.mil are all public domain, US Navy-taken or not
Hey all, the US Naval History and Heritage Command has uploaded a veritable treasure trove of images to their new website, many of which are of non-US ships and are available in highish-quality TIFF files. However, many of these were not taken by US Navy employees, meaning that they are not automatically placed in the public domain; they were instead donated in the past and are marked on the website with "Copyright Owner: Naval History and Heritage Command" (example).
I'm happy to report that they've told me in an email that "... much of our collection here is donated material. Once those materials are signed over to us, they become property of the U.S. Navy. At that time, our position is that they enter the public domain. Thus, you are allowed to use them." If anyone needs me to forward this to OTRS, I or Parsecboy have copies of the email. Ed[talk][majestic titan]22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know how they've determined copyright though; the example you've linked is an anonymous photograph with no evidence of prior publication: who's actually signed the copyright across to them? Hchc2009 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but donated from who? I'm trying to imagine how I could donate the copyright from a photograph under US law if I don't know who the photographer was...? Hchc2009 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not always indicated online but I imagine that it's listed in their paper records; they're a professional museum with a proper accession process, and they're pretty clearly certain that they hold any copyright. Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
How do I upload these? Should I download the photo in high def, then upload to wikimedia? Or is there a quicker way? Llammakey (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Ed, I'd recommend double-checking, or perhaps getting a second opinion from some one with an image-checking background like User talk:Nikkimaria. Looking through the site, they are claiming copyright over some images where they were published in the US pre-1923, so are now definitely out of copyright in the US - they shouldn't be claiming copyright over these, therefore; in other cases, they are claiming copyright over anonymous, unpublished photographs from "unknown donors" - I wouldn't want to guess the correct Commons tag for that one! :) I'm also uncertain how they claim to own the copyright over images that they simultaneously state are in the public domain. In short, I wouldn't be personally very confident, on the basis of the records being presented on the website, that they're meeting the standard for the Commons. I'd recommend getting a decent set of eyes looking over them, and to suggest the right tagging regime, before going for a large scale upload. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Ownership of the physical photograph does not automatically mean that ownership of the copyright has changed hands. In fact, in a lot of cases, it does not mean that at all. Just because they are a museum, does not mean they have a clue on copyright. Look at Getty Images - they make their business dealing with copyright and they've had some serious blunders recently. Ealdgyth - Talk12:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Already talking with MRG, and she's advised me to forward the email to OTRS in case of future challenges; once that is processed, I'll make a template similar to Commons:Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy. @Hchc regardless of the standard templates they use on their image pages (I agree that using "copyright holder" is confusing; that's why I emailed them in the first place), they have the authority to release their images into the public domain. As they have done so (plainly stated in response to my specific copyright question on their donated works), I believe we should be safe here in uploading them—donations are different than purchasing photo reproductions, Ealdgyth. ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
You can only give/donate something you own - so if the person donating the pictures did not actually take them and merely purchased the photo later .. .no, they probably don't have copyright and thus can't donate them. Generally copyright has to be explicitly transferred - it is not assumed to be transferred with the transfer of the physical photograph. Granted, the chances of a photo from the early 1900s actually causing an issue now is slim, but it's really a minefield and blithely assuming that because the museum tells us something that they are correct ... well... from my understanding of things (and this is not just as someone who is disposing of a photo collection but as a photographer AND as a writer who's published stuff and also republished public domain works) this is a gray area. If the images were never published, it becomes quite difficult to figure out if they are still in copyright. Looking at your example above - it says "taken in a Brazilian port circa 1940". Who donated the image, was it the photographer? Or was it someone else? Which copyright law applies in this case - Brazil or the country of the photographer? All these are important questions, plus there are many many more. Like I said - it's probably not going to result in trouble, but .. it can. And the museum's word can't really absolve anyone else from trouble if it arrises. Ealdgyth - Talk22:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey. :) So, Ealdgyth is of course quite right, and it wouldn't be the first time a site has offered us permission for images they didn't actually own. What OTRS is likely to do is to look at the specific language of the release to determine if the question of how the donation is processed will reassure the legitimacy of the license. If not, they may ask for details - if there's a form, for instance, that image donors are asked to sign which releases copyright. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The photography page says: "Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description)." Some pages do not have any copyright section at all, so I think it is safe to say that these can be used freely. However, I do not see how an image can possibly be in the public domain while still having a copyright owner—by definition, public domain means "not subject to copyright." I agree that this is a difficult case, and I would be reluctant to take the email at face value. How do we have any way of being certain that the help team there is familiar with the intricacies of copyright law? Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia.22:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER: significant RS coverage cannot be found, and the award of the Knight's Cross is in dispute. Pls see Talk page for more details.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Notability WP:GNG & WP:SOLDIER: RS coverage cannot be found and, according to the article, the award of the Knight's Cross is in question: "German Federal Archives stated on 20 July 2004 that it cannot be verified that Hans Havik (Johann Havik according to Scherzer) received the Knight's Cross"
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Came across the above article, which is largely uncited and tagged refimprove since 2008. I'm not sure if this is fact or not. I am wondering if someone more knowledgeable would be interested in having a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
A simple Google Books search (here) would have shown that it was the name of a Luftwaffe tactic developed by the chap who is credited with it in the article. I'm sure there is more than enough there to write a comprehensive article and closely cited article on it, without resorting to Kurowski. Why don't you give it a whirl? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe some outside opinions are required on the talkpage for the above article in regards to the drafting of a revised lede. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG: significant RS coverage cannot be found; also fails WP:SOLDIER as the award is in dispute: "nomination never signed" and "presentation lacks legal justification".
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
An editor has recently been deleting RAF categories from individuals who served in the RAF in the war but were not regular RAF personnel. See for instance [22] and [23]. I believe this is against the spirit of categorisation and should be reverted. Military service is usually very defining for those who served, even if they only served for a few years, and especially if they served in a world war. Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Military service categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
@K.e.coffman: Why are you leaving all these messages about AfD's on the Military History talk page? I don't think this is a good idea because you are overwhelming the page. And for example, my discussion, which is important got sandwiched in between these. I can see one AfD in a day but not ten or more. This is not what this project discussion page is for. So, I am going to ask you to please stop. This is disrupting the page. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I think WP:DTTR applies. Nothing wrong with posting occasionally saying "BTW, these articles have been nomd", but if you're around enough to be active in a WikiProject, you probably don't need to be reminded about the minutiae of the deletion process, much less several times. TimothyJosephWood18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I think they could be similar to summary-style ship-class articles rather than lists, so long as they actually say something about each person who held the position (ie are a summary of the articles on each holder of the office and pertinent facts about their tenure, rather than just a table with the start and finish dates). If they were the latter, I'd say they are more like a list. It is a bit of a grey area. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) List-class, The articles appear to be formatted to list the people who have held the position. Not all list articles begin with "list of" but they're generally identifiable by the formatting. WP:List article gives a relatively clear guideline as to what does or doesn't constitute a list. In the cases of the articles you have mentioned above I would point to;
1. "are articles composed of one or more embedded lists" - the first sentence of the lede of the guideline I have linked. Each article above has a sortable table covering all of the notable people who have held these positions and this table is a key focal point taking most of the space on the page.
2. "or series of items formatted into a list" - again, much like the above, there is a table and list of the people who have held the position.
3. "There are a number of formats, both generalized and specialized, that are currently used on Wikipedia, for list articles." alongside subpoint 4 "Sortable lists, which are formatted as tables..." all of the articles have a large sortable table that is a key to the article.
The guideline goes into far more depth but as a general overview this should do. The subject of the article is discussed in some depth, but, the largest section is given to the sortable list format wikitable that identifies the relevant subjects to which the article pertains. As such, I would identify each of the articles that you have linked as being of the list-class variety. Normally, non-list articles won't include large sortable tables (there are exceptions to this generality of course, such as sporting tournaments and discography articles), it may include images and diagrams, but these sorts of tables are more or less, most often used in list articles. Hopefully that answers your question. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude:, @Peacemaker67: Thanks for taking time to answer my query. But now the problem, as you've mentioned all there type of articles must be assessed as list-class, but currently not only the articles I have mentioned as examples, but also many other articles have been assessed wrong. What would you suggest me to do? Should we reassess all the articles to list-class? I would suggest moving this discussion to coordinators noticeboard as this would require an official confirmation before the articles as reassessed. Regards, KC Velaga✉12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Eh, to be honest I wouldn't be worried so much about it. The correct assessment will be made either by someone who comes across it randomly or if the article is put up for B-class. We have thousands of unassessed articles, a few more isn't really harming anyone. Further, myself and Peacemaker had slightly differing opinions, Peacemaker noted that the articles could be article class or list class depending on how they are written. In which case, a change from one assessment type to the other might have negative consequences on certain articles. They'll have to be decided on a case by case basis. To be honest, I'm not the best person to defer the question to, I'd wait for Peacemaker to respond with his thoughts as well. I think they may be better qualified to make any sort of decision on what should actually be done, if anything is to be done at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd say it should be a case-by-case basis, because I think there is a reasonable argument that some of these should be articles rather than lists (depending on the way in which they are written/formatted. Also, there is no GA for lists, and if one of them was a GA now, you might basically be downgrading it to re-assess it as BL. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Requesting eyes on Military history of France
A six year old quote on Yahoo Answers [24] was placed in the lead of Military history of France first by an anonymous IP [[25] with BBC History in parenthesis. I reverted due to inaccurate - imprecise attribution [26], This was reverted again by a red-linked user [27]. I have reverted again [28], emphasizing to not revert again without engaging in the discussion already begun on the talk page: [29], [30].
I would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this situation in case the red-linked user decides to be uncooperative. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I also previously left a message on the red linked user's talk page [31]. It could be a BBC History quote on Yahoo Answers - but how are editors supposed to know this without correct attribution? I don't have all day to search out and verify content that might be challenged. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I've commented on the article page but it would appear the quote traces back to Professor Niall Fergusson- a much firmer source than yahoo answers Monstrelet (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see discussion on Scherzer vs Fellgiebel in MilHist archives. Short version (my interpretation): Scherzer superseded Fellgiebel as the current authority on the KC recipients.
This adjustment will resolve the following concerns:
Non-independent sourcing: Fellgiebel’s work reflects the position of the Association of Knight’s Cross Recipients (ACKR), which is a private entity not authorised to adjudicate the awards. In addition, ACKR/Fellgiebel is a source that is not independent of the subject (awarding of the KC)
Inclusion of individuals whose KC awards are in doubt: The articles currently include individuals who, according to ACKR/Fellgiebel, were recipients but for whom Scherzer was not able to confirm the award using the materials from the Federal Archives. This results in entries with question marks that include notes such as “nomination not processed”; “the award was unlawfully presented"; etc.
G'day, IMO, it seems fair enough to use Scherzer as the main source; however, remember that our job as Wikipedians it simply to report what others say about something, not to interpret it. As such, some contrast with Fellgiebel seems required, IMO. This will inevitably mean that a discussion of disputed awards is required, IMO, although the way in which they are presented seems open to discussion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that perhaps we should try to get Attack on Pearl Harbor to at least GA status, for its 75th anniversary this year. I might start working on it in the coming days, but seeing that it will be a rather large task I invite anyone interested to help out. Biblio (talk) Reform project.18:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting, thanks. The photos of the ruins of Caen are rather sobering. It's also interesting to see the extent of the bomb craters at Pointe du Hoc - they remain striking, but it appears that only a fraction of the World War II era craters remain. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Seeking advice on copyright
Wonder if someone can help. In my sandbox I've created a list of the vessels of Task Force O, the naval component of the landings at Omaha Beach. I've used Badsey & Bean's "Omaha Beach" as a source, but I don't see how such a list can be compiled without basically just lifting the info from that book (or indeed, any other published source). Is this a copyright violation? Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The intellectual property in a list consists in the selection and arrangement of the items included, but the bare facts themselves are not copyrightable. Did B&B exercise significant editorial judgment in compiling the list? Or would anyone else, given the same primary sources (and the necessary background knowledge), produce essentially the same thing? Likewise for the groupings by command structure and type of vessel: are these standard or obvious enough that there’s little latitude for original thought, or do they reflect a creative or innovative approach on the authors’ part? Another consideration is the sequence, which doesn’t seem to apply in this case—alphabetical & numerical ordering is pretty obvious—but a ranking by importance, relevance, quality, or other such subjective criteria could also accrue copyright.—Odysseus147922:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I will like to request the creation of a separate infobox specifically for militants. As you might know the military person infobox is the one that is used to show activities of a militant. While most of it is okay, there are a few problems with it which can cause confusion among some readers and editors. First is of course that a military person is someone who serves in a country's armed forces. Therefore I highly doubt a military person infobox should be used for militants.
Another problem is the "Service years" section in the infobox. Service years is the time someone serves for in an armed force, using it on militants might cause confusion as it might read like an army description. This has also led to disputes and edit-warring, see for example
history of the article about militant Burhan Wani where some sections of the infobox have been removed because of confusion about the infobox. Also see Talk:Burhan Muzaffar Wani#Removal of service years, battles/wars and rank.
In addition to the above mentioned problems, some sections of the infobox like "Awards" aren't ever even used in case of militants. The "military person infobox" is clearly not suited for militants. I will therefore based on all these grounds like to request creation of a separate infobox type for militants. I hope you will find all the reasons I gave as satisfactory. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Proposed additions
I propose these additions to the new infobox is "Active years" or "Activity years" instead of "Service years" to show years during which they have been in militancy. A "Position/rank" section instead of just "Rank". Say for example a militant is appointed a War Minister/Information Minister by a militant group, it can't be called a "rank". In addition sections typical of military persons shouldn't be there in a militant infobox, example "Service/branch", "Service number", "Commands held", "Awards" and "Memorials". DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So, essentially, we need to add two label overrides, once for "Service years" and one for "Rank"; that's easy enough to do. Are there other fields that are missing, or whose labels would need to be adjusted? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should also add a separate section for what they are wanted by a state for. For example, a infobox of a militant can say they were wanted for terrorist activities, involvement in attacks, funding terror groups etc. I am not too sure about it though. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
DinoBambinoNFS, I've added two new parameters ("serviceyears_label" and "rank_label") to the template; setting them will allow you to replace the displayed labels on those fields with text of your choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
Why discriminate between agents of the state and agents of any other kind? Will George Washington become a militant? Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Keith-264 Washington became leader of a free country and his revolution was organised and had support of a large number of people unlike modern-day militancy which are carried out by armed organised groups who usually don't have broad support for either their methods or even their cause. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So some militants become respectable? What about Menachem Begin, Polish deserter, terrorist and mass murderer or Yitzhak Shamir, terrorist, mass murderer and nazi collaborator to boot? You could be setting yourself up for a Judgement of Solomon. Keith-264 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I see no reason why we would need or want to create an entirely new template to maintain when we could achieve the same result by improving an existing template. If there are parameters that we need to add to {{infobox military person}} to better cater to non-uniformed personnel, that's easy enough to do; but the purpose of that template is to be used for everyone who acted in a military capacity, not just for uniformed personnel.
I should add that the notion of a clear distinction between "militant" and "person serving in the armed forces" is a very modern concept. Consider, for example, that the same infobox is used for military figures during antiquity and the middle ages, where the concept of "armed forces" is much less clearly defined than it is in the modern era. Is a feudal baron besieging his neighbor's castle a "person serving in the armed forces" or a "militant"? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say Washington was respected militant. American revolution was not an insurgency or a militancy. The word "military" is always used in relation to armed forces of a country not militant groups. A feudal baron cannot be considered "serving in the armed forces" or a "militant". He's not technically serving in an army, he owns the army. And unlike militants he is not mounting an insurgency and he is not breaking the law. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I think you're looking at this from an exclusively modern standpoint. In numerous places and periods, the "armed forces of a country" didn't exist as a clearly-defined, uniformed service (to the degree that they existed at all); instead, the military forces we have to deal with were groups like feudal levies, mercenary companies, nobles' private armies, and so forth. We shouldn't base our template designs exclusively around a 20th-century distinction between "military" versus "militant" when the same templates need to be useful for the rest of military history as well. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
No I am not. You are confusing military and armed forces with non-state actors. A feudal baron sieging his neighbour will not be a militant, an organised rebellion with support of the population and a vast fighting force is not a militancy. Militancy is not equal to military. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you using "militant" as a euphemism for "terrorist" or "insurgent"? Historical "militant" groups cover a broader spectrum than modern ones; consider, for example, groups like the ikkō-ikki, the Freikorps, the Black Guards and White Guards, and so forth. All of these were non-state actors, in the modern meaning of that term, but had a distinctly different structure and form than the modern insurgencies you seem to have in mind. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
No I didn't, but every terrorist is a militant. And you are again confusing what militancy is. Ikko-ikki was a popular revolutionary group. Freikorps were mercenaries. White guards and Black Guards were part of armed forces of popular anti-Communist movements and hence were militias just like the ones that exist in Libya who oppose the rival government. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Oxford. But why are we arguing about definition of militants anyway? I was here for a separate infobox. Non-state armed groups cannot be clubbed together to an armed force of a nation. I believe militancy is significant enough to have its own infobox. The term "military person" cannot be used for their members. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that definition accurately reflects the usage of the term in modern historiography, as I've seen it applied to the groups you dismiss above. Consequently, I think the proposed distinction between "military" and "militant" doesn't make sense when applied across the board.
Having said that, to return to the infobox question in particular: {{infobox military person}} is meant to be usable for any person who has engaged in some form of military activity that's within the scope of this project, whether they did so as part of a government-sanctioned armed service, a paramilitary group, an insurgency, or anything in between. Of course, if there are improvements that need to be made to make the template more useful for particular categories of individuals, we can certainly make them. (If the name of the template bothers you, incidentally, it would be easy enough to create {{infobox militant}} as a redirect to it.)
Conversely, if what you're really looking for is a template that can be used for individuals that did not engage in military activities, then this isn't the best project to approach to about it; WikiProject Terrorism is probably a better forum for such a discussion. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you read Template:Infobox military person. Here's what it says about its usage: "A military person infobox may be used to summarize information about an individual military person, such as a soldier or military leader." Insurgents and/or militants are not listed. The template's page clearly says the infobox is for those serving in government-sanctioned armed forces. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of what "military person" means; this project has always applied that term in its broadest sense, to cover both state and non-state actors engaged in military activity. However, let's set that aside for the moment: if you believe that the people you have in mind aren't "military people", then they're not within the scope of this project, and this discussion should take place with a more appropriate one (such as WikiProject Terrorism, which I suggested above). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You should look up the definition of "military person". The definition only refers to someone serving in the armed forces. In addition, even the template itself says that it is meant for a soldier or a military leader. In addition, the people I have in mind are any non-sanctioned groups involved in armed struggle which includes more than just terrorists. Not every armed group is a terrorist, I know that already. I'm not here for an infobox on terrorists, but on all armed non-state groups not sanctioned by the government. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I had listed this PRODed article on WPMIL article alerts yesterday. It's no longer listed there, so I'm mentioning here. I don't know if Hired armed tender Elizabeth is a viable article or not, but with a PROD on it, there is limited time to decide either direction. — Maile (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Both vessels fall under WP:SHIPS remit, being over 100 tons (b.o.m, GRT, GT) / 100' long. There's a fair chance that both should be capable of sustaining articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Separate infobox for military commanders
I propose for the creation of a separate infobox template for military commanders. The proposed infobox is expected to contain parameters form {{Infobox military person}} and {{Infobox officeholder}}. I mean mostly some four to five parameters from Infobox officeholder are to be added to Infobox military person. For example, the parameters such as order, office, term_start, term_end, alongside, predecessor, successor, president, prime minister etc. Additionally parameters such as chief of the staff, defence_minister and required label can be added. This type of infobox will be useful for usage in the article of military commanders such as the articles of commanders of United States Unified Combatant Commands, the chiefs of the staff, flag officers and other three-star rank officers. The present code of Infobox military person doesn't have any option for mentioning the pivotal offices held by the subject. Although Infobox officeholder has a section for military service, many of the parameters that are required for a article presenting a military biography or subject were dropped. Please share your opinion accordingly. Regards, KC Velaga✉14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see my comments in the related discussion above. If we need to add functionality to {{infobox military person}}, we can certainly do that, but there is no reason to create entirely new infobox templates, considering how much time and energy we spent consolidating everything to a single infobox in the first place. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Resolved
Front line Menin road, Polderhoek, Reutel, 5 December 1917
![[20]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r243/spoons34/Dean/Dean_Patten800x600.jpg){kind=link}
