Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 142

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Freedom of navigation in ship articles

The undertaking of Freedom of navigation missions, and specifically governmental responses to them, has come up on some US warship pages, like USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). Basically, should the wording be something like 'USS Foo sailed within x-nm of Foo reef. The Chinese government expressed "strong dissatisfaction." The US government stated that USS Foo was operating in international waters.' Or should it be simply 'USS Foo sailed within x-nm of Foo reef.' The latter seems insufficient explanation to me about why being within a certain distance of some marine landmark should be particularly significant. And the fact that the warship's actions cause a response at the highest governmental level is relevant to an article on that ship. But I would like some more input from experts. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I am no "expert" in this context (or many others) but, I make the following observations. For the proposition:'USS Foo sailed within x-nm of Foo reef. The Chinese government expressed "strong dissatisfaction." The US government stated that USS Foo was operating in international waters.' If the statements: 'The Chinese government expressed "strong dissatisfaction"'; and, "The US government stated that USS Foo was operating in international waters"; are both supported by reliable sources, the statement, of itself, is not in question and is reasonable (and perhaps necessary) to add depth and meaning - as you suggest. With this rider, the catch lies in the preamble and post-amble and how the act and response is dealt with in the article. Are these consistant with WP:NPOV and WP:synthesis? IMHO Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "freedom of navigation" - as that is POV stmt regarding the dispute (it would have to be prefixed by so called or "termed by" or something). I would go for something like "USS Bar sailed within X-nm of Foo reef, contesting Y's claim of sovereignty". To that you can hang on responses (such as Y's strong dissatisfaction, or US stmts of international waters) and/or operational details (e.g. warned repeatedly by radio, tailed by Y's ships, warning shots, actual shots, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

To give an actual example, see this diff with the wording "In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed past Mischief Reef in the South China Sea. China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction"." or this on USS William P. Lawrence - "On 10 May 2016, it was reported that William P. Lawrence had tested the People's Republic of China's claim to Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea by navigating within 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) of it, provoking the PRC's official "dissatisfaction and opposition"." (Both are cited in the article with references such as http://www.news.com.au/world/china-protests-challenges-us-warship-near-its-artificial-islands/news-story/43784e65f8ab6461cbfad7d5a748775e . In both cases the parts such as "China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction" and "provoking the PRC's official "dissatisfaction and opposition" were removed as not being relevant to the article. I consider them to be relevant and actually necessary to the context, per the reasoning above. In the example of the John S. McCain article, this leaves it with the rather bare statement "In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed past Mischief Reef in the South China Sea." without any clue as to why navigating past this feature is any more significant than any other feature the ship has ever sailed past. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I would add "contesting PRC's claim of sovereignty" (and not testing - this is not an actual test, as an alleged sovereign may choose not to exercise his alleged right to shoot). The PRC's counter-response to the mission is relevant in my eyes, but could be summarized in this case as "The PRC protested via diplomatic channels".Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a ship person but it seems to me that there has to be something special about navigating within 12 nm of anywhere to be worth noting in anything but the ship's log, let alone a wikipedia article. It is the political context which makes this notable, so should be referenced. Monstrelet (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For 12nm see Territorial waters - that the sole significance (obviously shoals and depth are an issue close to features, but often not an issue 12nm out and sometimes much farther out (South China Sea in particular has various shoals, rocks, and reefs in various spots)).Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps we can find consensus for an addition along these lines, for example 82.39.49.182 (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed within 6 nautical miles of Mischief Reef in the South China Sea, as part of the United States' "Freedom of Navigation" program. China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction". A US Navy representative reported that a Chinese frigate had sent at least ten radio messages warning that the John S. McCain was in Chinese waters, to which the US replied that the warship was "conducting routine operations in international waters."

References

With regard to this issue, Wingwraith (talk · contribs) has been persistently removing information on the reactions to such operations, with the argument that "the article is about the ship and what it/was doing not the reaction of another government to it" - latest edits here and here. At least three users have been adding the mention in various forms, but since I am one of them, I would rather some other eyes looked into this, performed any necessary reverts, and perhaps informed Wingwraith that these edits are now becoming disruptive? 82.39.49.182 (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The edits reverted are with the summary: "the article is about the ship and what it/was doing not the reactions of another government to it". I would disagree to the extent that the consequences of the ship's actions are of as much significance as the actual actions - be they political or military. The sinking of one ship by another can have ramifications beyond the "simple" act of the action that are noteworthy. The sinking of the Bismark comes to mind. It is then a matter of weight and POV - provided that the weight is not undue (ie it does not shift the focus unduly away from the primary subject) and it is presented neutrally, I would consider that the material should be retained and, at face value, these conditions have been met. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and at the moment, while not in breach of WP:3RR - the user does not edit that frequently - Wingwraith is certainly editing warring about this issue on articles like USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and USS William P. Lawrence. I would revert and warn myself, but since I am one of the involved editors, I would ask some members of Milhist to enforce the consensus here. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus regarding article content is reached on the article's talk page. The discussion here is longer than those at the talk pages of Freedom of navigation (none), USS John S. McCain (about half this), and USS William P. Lawrence (none). Also, asking others to revert for you is about as non-neutral as a request can get. Primergrey (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to write about the state reaction(s) to the FONOPS, there are other articles (Freedom of navigation, Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, etc) where it'd be more appropriate to include that kind of material. Amalgamating them with a description of the ships' operations when each and every item of the ships' operational histories hasn't been described in that way on their respective articles before isn't and in any case just has this coatracky feel to it. Bear in mind that the controversy is not about the ships' operational activities, but the overarching US foreign policy objectives in the SCS which govern their content, character and nature. Wingwraith (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The issues are essentially identical in respect to both ship articles so it is appropriate to have a single combined discussion - though not necessarily here. I also suggest that waht has been discussed should be the inital basis of such discussion. Regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Per my immediate previous, I have initiated a discussion at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)#Freedom of navigation in ship articles. I have copied in the discussion to date (save this and my previous post. I have left a notification at Talk:USS William P. Lawrence#Freedom of navigation in ship articles that this is intended as a centralised discussion of the matter in respect to both ships. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

DRN

This is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator election nominations

Hi everyone! This is just a reminder that nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are currently open; if you are interested in running, please sign up by 23:59 UTC on September 16! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day. So far we only have 7 nominations (for up to 11 positions) with only a few more days left. As such if there is anyone that has an any time been interested in joining the co-ordination team now is probably I good time to stick your name in the hat. There really is not much to it and there are no qualifications required other than a desire to further the project and basic competence. I'd be more than happy to try and answer anyone's questions about the position if you are considering nomination etc. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on

at Talk:List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America (RFC: Graph of Monument Construction, sorry I don't know how to link to the specific field) that might interest many here. It is about whether the Southern Poverty Law Center aka "SPLC" data on Civil War memorials and the wikipedia produced graph from that data should be used with the labels "Jim Crowe Era" and "Civil Rights Era" (or something close to that) in the article's lede. It's a sensitive issue but please avoid knee-jerk reactions and consider instead what is history and how do we arrive at it? Thanks Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Regio corpo truppe coloniali d'Eritrea

Does anyone know how I can link to this article on Italian Wiki? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Found it.Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Just in case someone else was wondering, you use {{Interlanguage link}}. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I did [[:it:Regio corpo truppe coloniali d'Eritrea|''Regio corpo truppe coloniali d'Eritrea'']] this but the instructions were as hopeless as ever.Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

That's because you shouldn't really be linking to an article on another wiki within English WP. It's not good practice as it deprives us of a link when an article is created. Better to redlink or create a redirect. Or better yet an article (even if only a stub)! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that is the glory of the {{ill}}. When an English language article is created, it will automatically be used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Until a specific article for the Eritreans is created maybe a link to Royal Corps of Colonial Troops, which already includes the redirect of Regio Corpo Truppe Coloniali, is the better option. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it's an experiment so I'm grateful for the suggestion.Keith-264 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

MfD of possible interest

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:American Military History.

As near as I can tell this account is unaffiliated with this Wikiproject, but if anyone wants to confirm/weigh in that could be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Federal service academies edit war

Currently there is an edit war going on at Template:United States federal service academies over how the U.S. Military Academy should be listed. The prior version, and the on that the members on the talk page are consenting to is "Military Academy (West Point)", but another user is insisting that this is unacceptable and must be "West Point". He has reverted edits changing this 4 times (a clear violation of the 3RR rule) despite consensus on the talk page and is claiming that the original name amounts to original research, despite the criteria being stated that it is the name of the Academy, with the U.S. subtracted for abbreviation (which it is for all of the other a. What I am asking from you is to give your opinion and help enforce whatever the consensus is. If I'm doing something administratively wrong as well please let me know, I'm always open to learning. Garuda28 (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If someone violates WP:3RR, report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. File a report with diffs showing the reverts, and diffs of the consensus on the talk page as "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". Do not exceed 3RR yourself. An administrator will come along and block them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

thank you. I ensured that I did not and have opened a file. I appreciate your advice. Garuda28 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

High quality photographs of 19th-century British ships, sailors and exploration

Category:Collections of the Royal Museums Greenwich

• Example selection
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Photographs, and early maps and artworks are being steadily released to Commons from the Royal Museums Greenwich over the next few weeks, see the category link above. There's plenty that could be used to illustrate articles, or could become the basis of new articles on military history. If there are any issues, please drop a note on my talk page and I'll investigate. --Fæ (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these, I have used a couple of images in articles already. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Pommy politics

According to the article on Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi, she was Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 2012 to 2014. This is confirmed by the UK.gov website, although it doesn't seem to get updated any more. But our article on Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (United Kingdom) says that the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs was Hugo Swire. I am guessing that there is more than one, but if so, what is the basis on which the list specifies only one? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not my subject but have a look at Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The are a number of ministers of state with different portfolios. I have no idea why the list specifies only one though. Monstrelet (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is the the UK has a team of ministers with responsibility for foreign affairs, with the junior ministers each having responsibility for different chunks of the world and functions. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the cabinet-level position is called the "Secretary of State" and the junior ministers are called "Minister of State". I'm not sure what is Meant by "Senior Minister of State". If so, our list article is both incomplete and misleading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The website shows the incumbents as:

• Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs - The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP
• Minister of State for Europe and the Americas - The Rt Hon Sir Alan Duncan KCMG MP
• Minister of State for the Middle East - The Rt Hon Alistair Burt MP
• Minister of State for Africa - Rory Stewart OBE MP
• Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific - The Rt Hon Mark Field MP
• Minister of State for the Commonwealth - Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

This seems to be in the order of importance. But the list article only shows Duncan.

"Senior Minister" became "Secretary?" Some government reorganization act maybe.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I think in this case it is because of Baroness Warsi's seniority. Immediately before this appointment she was Co-chair of the Conservative Party, with a seat in the cabinet. Demotion to a simple Minister of State would have been seen as a snub. Monstrelet (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of the Hydaspes

The article is missing many references, and in general is in poor shape. It could really use some attention from this project and its track record of excellence. Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

From the looks of things the shape of the article isn't really the primary issue here – there appears to be a major dispute on the talk page between User:Khirurg and User:Lord Aseem. I see the word "Indophobia" being used a lot by someone, but it doesn't help that you are responding to each other within each others signed replies instead of restricting yourselves to seperate paragraphs. Might be best if you both step back for a bit to prevent an edit war from breaking out and ask for members of this project or Wiki admins in general review the dispute and help settle it, rather than expect this project to simply jump in and clean-up the entire article for you, because it doesn't work that way. Given the length of the article, I'd have through that 42 references would be enough, but it seems you two can't argee on them or their relevance and that's why it's in poor shape. Any edit war that involves editors accusing each other of nationalistic viewpoints and racial/phobic bias can't be good... — Marcus^(talk) 19:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well as far as accusations of Indophobia and "replying within each other's signed replies", I don't know if you noticed, but it's exclusively Lord Aseem who is guilty of that. Painting everyone with the same brush is not helpful. Anyway, my bad for posting here, should have known better. Khirurg (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't "painting everyone with the same brush", just didn't have the patience to work out which replies belonged to who, far too many and far too jumbled. Simply an observation. Doesn't help that you go from one polarised view to another either – consider: "this project and its track record of excellence" to "my bad for posting here, should have known better". You change your views quicker than I can change a shirt. If you had a motive when you came here you should have been more open about the ongoing dispute with the article first instead of skirting the matter and looking for someone else to do the dirty work. I'm sure if anyone has time and patience to review the article they will. There may not be a large number of members into that period of history though, so you'll have to wait and see... and try to be a bit more upfront about the problems with Lord Aseem, you'll find it gains you more credit and helps iron out the issues faster. Then you can move on and focus on fixing the article and its content. — Marcus^(talk) 20:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking for ideas of things to work on

Hey there military history folks. I am fairly new to actual editing here on Wikipedia and not really sure where to start. I asked at the teahouse as well but thought I might ask here as well as something of a military history buff myself. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Billbo, welcome! The project maintains several lists of open tasks, for instance here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks. Also, if you are interested in a specific subset of military history, you might look at the individual lists maintained on our constituent task forces. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much. I'll check those out. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What topics are you interested in? There's always lots which can be done to both improve articles on 'big picture' topics or fill more specialised gaps. Once you've been editing for a while, User:SuggestBot is quite useful BTW. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. With those excellent suggestions as well as the ones on the Teahouse I should be able to figure something out now. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Race to the Sea

Does anyone know how to devise better coords for this article, considering that the action straggles all over the place? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of infobox at Cold-Weather warfare

User:Gaioa and I are in disagreement over whether Template:Infobox military conflict is appropriate for the article at Cold-weather warfare. Please advise us at Talk:Cold-weather warfare#Infobox. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Maneuver warfare

Maneuver warfare is probably the worst Wikipeia article that falls under the auspices of this project I have read this year. Not only is most of it unreferenced,^{(still far too common a problem and that is not the main issue)}it is in places embarrassing.

The lead currently states

Maneuver warfare, or manoeuvre warfare, is a military strategy that advocates attempting to defeat the enemy by incapacitating their decision-making through shock and disruption.

One can incapacitate decision-making through a heavy bombardment (as happened at the start of the First Gulf War the war of manoeuvre came later in the campaign. That is not embarrassing it is just lead that does not meet the lead guideline. This paragraph is embarrassing:

For the majority of history, armies were limited in their speed to that of the marching soldier, about equal for everyone involved. ... In prehistoric times, that began to change with the domestication of the horse

From the Wikipedia leads on history and prehistoric articles:

• History "is the study of the past as it is described in written documents"
• Prehistoric "is the period of human activity between the use of the first stone tools c. 3.3 million years ago and the invention of writing systems,"

In the same section the editor who arranged the text does not seem to realise that the smaller the date in BC the more modern it is hence it has these examples in this order:

One of the most famous early maneuver tactics was the double envelopment, used by Hannibal against the Romans, at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC ...

The retreat of the center of the Athenian and Platean Hoplites at the battle of Marathon against the forces of Datis in 490 BC and the subsequent pincer movement by the Athenian forces on the flanks used a similar tactic....

Khalid's invasion of Roman Syria in July 634, by invading Syria from the most unexpected direction, ...

The section on Napoleon is not much better eg "Napoleon also arranged his forces into what today would be called 'Battle Groups' of combined arms"!

Can someone who know something about the subject please give the article some TLC. -- PBS (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thought I was experiencing déjà vu. Seems not. I raised similar concerns about this article and another article (Attrition warfare) just a short while ago, back in April. Not much resulted from it, I gather. Still full of badly-written OR and SYNTH crap? WT:WikiProject Military history/Archive 139#Maneuver warfare article — Marcus^(talk) 20:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day, gents, thank you for the feedback. If you don't get any interest, my advice would be to cross post your concerns on the various talk pages. Eventually, someone will be interested in working on them. Additionally, putting them up for peer review might help, but again that runs the risk that there might not currently be people interested or able to work on these articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Could just be me, but I think the article suffers from modern Ameri-centric bias and reasoning whilst failing to source and reference a broad range of global military history texts, since war is as old as humanity itself, as are many basic tactics. You'd think there'd be room for some The Art of War in there too, but it all appears to have been written from the top of someone's head without any detailed research or referencing whatsoever. IMO, it's due a top-down rewrite rather than a clean-up, along with Attrition warfare, which is equally as bad. — Marcus^(talk) 12:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at the pre-modern bit. There was a reference to the Agincourt campaign which was so wrong it was misleading, so I'm afraid I cut it rather than fixed it (I wouldn't have used it as an example).

Overall, the article struggles to separate a strategic doctrine from just manoeuvering on the battlefield. Cannae is not an example of manouever warfare, its an example of a tactical double envelopment. I could easily reorder this section chronologically but I can't check its accuracy. Monstrelet (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War bias question

Can anyone remember that a while back, several of us went through a lot of Western Desert Campaign articles removing interpolations by an Italian chauvinist? There was a list of articles to check and I wonder if the Second Italo-Ethiopian War was one? The Analysis section of this article looks a bit dodgy, could he have had a hand in it? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Was that User:AnnalesSchool or one of his socks you're thinking of? I don't see anything from him in the edit history (but I didn't check all of the IPs he used, so he might have added things that way). Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That's him, there's a whiff of apologetics over gas warfare too. Just wondered. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

US National Archives images of World War I

Hi all,

At the US National Archives, we've been uploading images from our holdings to Wikimedia Commons. In August, I started uploading a major collection of World War I photos, and now we have done about 50,000 of over 100,000, so I really want to let you all know about it. You can find all of these at Category:US National Archives series: Photographs of American Military Activities, Category:US_National_Archives_series:_American_Unofficial_Collection_of_World_War_I_Photographs, and Category:US_National_Archives_series:_German_Military_Activities_and_Personnel. Or, you can also peruse our bot's uploads. You can learn more about this collection here.

I would love to see these images put to use on Wikipedia, because there is a lot of really great material that could go in articles. Aside from locations, equipment and weaponry, daily life, and so on, there are also pictures of notable people. In addition, help with categorizing on Commons would be very welcome. As you can see, many of the images may need cropping before placement in articles—but they should be high-resolution enough that it's not a problem—and for anyone who is good at working with images, that is a great way to help as well (please upload new files when doing so, so the original isn't lost). Files are still being uploaded right now, as this batch is only about half done, but there is a lot to look at already. Let me know if you have any questions. Dominic·t 19:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is fascinating. Loading a torpedo tube from the outside with a few kicks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure this has to be a Nevada-class battleship. I can't think of any other US WWI vessels with that 2 over 3 gun arrangement. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Partly mistaken name, the description makes it clear that this is Pensacola, not Jahncke. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll see you and I'll raise you. Consider File:"Somewhere in England, Maj. Charity E. Adams,...and Capt. Abbie N. Campbell,...inspect the first contingent of Negro members of the Women's Army Corps assigned to overseas service." - NARA - 531249.gif It is of course an image from World War II, not World War I. The people at Commons need to do some work properly categorising the images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I can definitely look into reporting errors. We had a process for that a while back, as you know, but it went defunct, and I don't have the power to change catalog records. Dominic·t 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Dominic:. These have been uploaded as jpeg, though I'm presuming the originals are not in a compressed format. Would you consider swapping to uploading the original uncompressed files in TIFF or PNG format? Using PNG would be a good choice as thumbnails on Wikipedia would work well, and Croptool would be usable. --Fæ (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross

Is the abovementioned medal sufficient to make this recipient notable enough for an article here? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

By itself, per a recent RFC, no. It does contribute towads notability, but is not enough by itself.Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Icewhiz, could you post a link to the RFC so that I can cite it when declining the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

See [1]. In the past it was different. Becker, dying in 2016, might meet GNG, but not with the sourced provided. There would have to be some more significant sourcing, with a bio based on something more than a listing in a knight cross book.Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've declined it with a suitable explanation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if this was already covered elsewhere but as a newby I don't know. Would the same argument extend to other top awards for countries such as the Victoria Cross, Medal of Honor and others? It seems to me that a lot the articles for these would also not meet GNG as I understand it but I could be misreading it. I guess I am wondering if they are different, what makes them different just so I understand? Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The Victoria Cross and Medal of Honor are considered to inherently convey notability. The situation with the Knights Cross is a little more complex. The RfC referred to is perhaps something of a political decision (my personal observation). It has to do with the large number of recipients, that it was awarded fairly liberally and multiple times to individual recipients (ie higher grades) and that it was often awarded for service and not just valour (even though the last is also true of the Medal of Honor). This is probably as clear as mud but reading through the RfC will clarify some of the issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There are some politics involved, but also other issues. KC was awarded not just for valor, but also for leadership, and as the war progressed there was an "inflation" of this award. Finally SOLDIER, while highly regarded, is not policy, but an essay - it establishes presumed notability under GNG, but you still have to meet GNG, and for some of these KC recipients sourcing is quite scant (an incident description often in a hagiographical psuedo-history which is borderline reliable and in works cataloging KC recipients in a scant fashion). The same could apply to medals of other nations for subjects with a similar sourcing level - while the RFC cited was on KC, the principles would be the same for other medals.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem is what is effectively systemic bias against articles about Knight's Cross recipients, due to the fact that there are probably reliable sources like newspapers, books etc in German that are not as easily accessible as those in English for VC and MoH recipients, and the fact that few highly decorated Germans were lauded after WWII because Germany lost the war and committed horrific crimes against humanity. The reality is that, for a private soldier, the KC was all he was ever going to get, regardless of how many levels there were above the base KC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I just invited Pintere to add those Iron Cross recipient articles to the Military wiki over at Wikia here. I would like to extend that invitation to you all as well if any of you are interested. I sometimes edit there and it doesn't have the same notability criteria as Wikipedia and is a good place to defer people in situations like this when the articles have value but just don't meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. PS, as I told Pintere, it is best viewed in none wikia skin format. I hate the Wikia skin personally and try to avoid using it whenever possible. I hope to see at least some of you there. 138.162.0.42 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is anything systemic, then it is the lack of reliable sources on Knight's Cross recipients, many of whom therefore fail WP:GNG. This has nothing to do with accessibility of sources. If there is a bias then it rather seems to result from the willingness of the English Wikipedia to accept sources which are not easily accessible even in Germany, mainly because these sources have been published by special interest publishers with little or no reputation for reliability and are thus not held by many libraries. Given the lack of RS the number of articles on KC recipients in the English Wikipedia is astonishingly high. It is higher than in the German Wikipedia. German military historiography has seldom used a prosopographical approach to "highly decorated soldiers". This is not a post-WW II development, but even after WW I biographical dictionaries of Pour le Mérite-recipients have been written and published in close connection with or even by the Ritterschaft des Ordens Pour le Mérite, just like after WW II the Ordensgemeinschaft der Ritterkreuzträger was instrumental in producing biographies of their revered members. Only few private soldiers received a KC, because to get one you needed to be recommended and supported by your superior officer and it is well known that such recommendations were subject of favoritism. The Nazi primary sources on which most of the KC recipients' literature is based, are inherently unreliable and thus this literature suffers from its uncritical approach.--Assayer (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair point but I feel like this argument could also be extended to other awards as well. For example, the majority of the Medal of Honor recipients were pre World War I and often just say things like Captured the flag with very few references available other than primary sources from the US military. So, although many would certainly easily pass WP:GNG, a lot of these early recipients, such as those during the American Civil War, probably wouldn't other than the generic statement that any recipient is notable. Whichever is the case, I really think this project and Wikipedia should do it consistently and evenly for all awards. If the requirement is they are considered notable because the received the award then great, if not then that's ok, but it should be consistent IMO. 138.162.0.41 (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

GA reassess

Rommel myth, 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. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Guerilla/guerrilla

I've just unmoved a move because I found that guerrilla is the common spelling in wiki; is guerilla not the usual spelling? Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

m-w [2] lists it as as a variant, with the double-r as the primary. Same here - [3].Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, Wonder how I got them confused...? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Derived from the French guerre (war), I believe. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually Spanish guerra. The British seem to have adopted it based on experience in the Peninsular War. Monstrelet (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

[4] Sock? Keith-264 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: by the looks of it. This article has been dragged through so much dirt in the past few months and I've grown real tired of protecting it from socks. I would appreciate it if other editors would pitch in to monitor this article because its getting to the point where I would have to violate the 3-revert rule to stop the disruptive edits. Also, I think the temporary semi-protection on the article just simply isn't enough. It already received that protection this summer and though it did temporarily stem the flow of disruption from IPs and single-purpose socks, everything came back as soon as the block was lifted. And then there was one socker who had the idea of committing low-level vandalism to achieve auto-confirmed status for their sock so they could disruptively edit the article. Right now, there is one disruptive editor who is probably a sock that has auto-confirmed status that is running free on the article because they are not restricted from editing it. I think we need to present this to admins as a whole picture to secure better protections. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree, its getting beyond a joke.Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ask at WP:AN for extended confirmed protection. I recently got that imposed on an airline article that was the target of a large sockfarm. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A new user has an axe to grind Several articles are in need of review

Hi all,

A newly registered user has taken issue with the following two pages, and is heavily tagging them. They clearly have an axe to grind, and I do not think such extensive tagging is constructive. Rather than edit-warring with them, looking for a coordinator etc. to review the situation? Thank you.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Panzerschlachten
• Rommel myth

Hi. Not really a reasonable conclusion. I'm a long retired editor who came back after seeing serious issues on a few articles. Issues that grow the more I look. The tags are all legit, and documented in Talk pages. No need to assume I'm acting in bad faith. I've been very patient and waited for interested editors to respond to my concerns. But, I am very much hoping for more eyes on both articles. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ten separate tags in the hatnote area of an article rated GA? Controversial. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree. Is GA worth nothing anymore? :) LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Per your comment, struck several of my comments; AGF.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I've largely finished my work on Panzerschlachten for now and would really like some feedback. I've taken it from this to this. The issues that initially attracted my attention to this article seem to be systemic across possibly hundreds of articles, centering around two or three editors. Since none of them have logged on since I started my work I would really like feed back from MILHIST on whether or not this is the general direction to be going. Any feedback at all, positive or negative, substantial or brief, is greatly appreciated. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Civility war?

User:Keith-264 has chosen to describe this edit as "infelicitous" & this as "incvil" & "complaining". Comment at the Malta Convoys talk page is invited. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why Trek had taken such umbrage at a mild objection to the diatribe he left on the talk page or his unwillingness to discuss his edits as I suggested but will avoid 3RR and hope that other editors take a look at the edits. I hope that help will move towards consensus. I'd particularly like help to discover why the definite article is so inflammatory. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, handbags holstered. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to know why a demand for "consensus" & "discussion" was met with indifference & treating the very discussion demanded as if it was a waste of time, followed by accusations of ownership, when it's his own adds he's insistent on keeping (judging by the latest rv on the page--to his preferred edit), without any of the "discussion" he demanded from me. And calling my rv "vandalism" in the process. So much for BRD. So much for WP guidelines. So much for civil treatment. I suppose I'm supposed to just take it, shut up, & go away, am I? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:43 & 21:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating a content dispute into a one-sided personality clash; look at the talk page.Keith-264 (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

The relevant discussion can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_17#Template:Knight.27s_Cross_recipients_of_SxG_77

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone identify this gun please?

It's on an Italian MAS (motorboat) and is from an article called "Submarine Hunting" in a magazine published in January 1917. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't identify the gun but internet pictures show there is an example of one in the Italian Naval Museum at La Spezia. I checked their website but, alas, couldn't find more details. But maybe it is a lead? Monstrelet (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I checked my Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II which is quite comprehensive, I have looked through machine guns, cannons and even against the MAS boat itself and had no luck either. It doesn't look like a machine gun, but the MAS boat entry said they were only armed with torpedos and an MG. I don't know what type of gun it is or its calibre to look further. Any thoughs on what type of gun it is might open new leads. — Marcus^(talk) 10:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, really. Possibly a 37 / 20.6 cannon? [5][6] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

See [7] - 37/25 H 1890 1pdr, described as "torpedo boat gun" - but no pic.Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The MAS was produced in lots of different versions from WWI right into WWII; and the secondary armament accordingly changed rather frequent. Also a non-regulation armament is possible to make it more difficult, though I don´t how likely that is. Some of the versions are posted on this board and on that one as well; of course I don´t know how correct or complete the info is. But as the picture description says it is in 1917 it surely limits the options ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

True, but there aren't many options for guns of that caliber. It sure looks like a Hotchkiss 1-pounder to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I did try that but I'm not convinced of the match. The la Spezia example shows very clearly the stock and trigger, which seems to be of a different design.Monstrelet (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If it is a 1pdr Hotchkiss then the 1890 Hotchkiss 37mm Lungo seems the most likely, or a variant thereof. This was apparently used by Italian navy at the time of WWI. Can't find a labelled match photo. The one definitely of this weapon at La Spezia is frustratingly unlabelled. Monstrelet (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There were two different Hotchkiss 1-pounders in Italian service - the /21 1886 variant and the /25 1890 variant (the Lungo mentioned above), and if you look through Google images, you see 1-pounders (from various navies) with all sorts of mounts, grips, and recuperators. I wouldn't discount 1886 version, since there would have been plenty of them lying around. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought this may be the longer barelled 1890 version. Here is the La Spezia one for the record https://wargamingmiscellanybackup.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ce496-laspezianavalmuseum2016-021.jpg?w=364&h=400 Monstrelet (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The Hotchkiss went through all sorts of mods, including I believe marrying the barrel with breeches from other guns. The spotting rifle and mounting, in this pic, are variable between different variations.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Very true. For reference, MAS 96 appears to be carrying one of the /21 1886 guns (compare with Puglia) - looks to be the same kind of mount, even. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all most kindly. This is for an image that I posted on the MAS (motorboat) article, and I intend to put "probably a 1-pounder (37 mm) Hotchkiss quick-firing gun" in the caption, unless anybody thinks this is misleading. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I tried to shoehorn some info on this type of gun into the US section of QF 1-pounder pom-pom, which is what "1-pounder" redirects to. The single shot weapons really need a separate article, though. I have found little online info about them. Compounding the problem is that both "machine gun" and "single shot" versions are all called QF or RF, depending on country. RobDuch (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I would not use "probably" in the caption as it's an expression of doubt; WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt. If it looks like one put that it is a Hotchkiss... if someone can identify it as a different gun later on they're free to dispute it. — Marcus^(talk) 13:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Look at the wikipedia page for the MAS (motorboat). that same picture is there and it has a caption that tells what gun it is

That caption is the result of this discussion :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of the definite article before a warship's name

See Talk:H. L. Hunley (submarine)#Request for Comment on "the". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

HMS Marne?

Was there an HMS Marne that was lost in 1841 at Phillippeville, French Algeria, or was she a French ship? The Times of 15 February 1841 refers to "Her Most Faithful Majesty's Ship Marne", whereas the issue of 13 February says she was a French corvette lost in the Gulf of Stora with the loss of 57 crew. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No 19th century ship by that name is listed in Colledge. All the local papers I've looked at for that period all refer to the same French newspaper account that the Times article references. Nthep (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Worth remembering that in 1841 the French king was the Catholic Louis Philippe I, which would make some sense of the Times' comment...or could have been an attempt to refer to Queen Maria II of Portugal. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Marne being a French ship makes sense if the reference to "Her Majesty" was in error. Can't see why Portugal would name a ship after a French river. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I've found another newspaper report that quotes "his French Majesty's ship Marne" and another quoting a Marseilles newspaper about the deaths of a number of French troops on-board the Marne. Nthep (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The French Navy about her modern namesake Marne (A 630) has some details: "Corvette de charge (1825-1841): Construction started in June 1825 in Toulon, launched on May 29, 1826, armed in June of the same year. With a length of 43.30 m and a width of 10.40 m, it displaces 800 tons and is armed with 24 guns. Her activity takes her to the West Indies, Newfoundland and again to the West Indies. In June 1829, she sailed for Valparaiso before campaigning in Brazil. After staying in the West Indies between 1830 and 1832, then in the Mediterranean from 1833 to 1835 and in the Atlantic, she ended her career on 25 January 1841 on the African coast at Siora".

"The Marne Corvette was lost with fifty-seven of the crew, the captain, surgeon, and a midshipman" (footnote to an article about a "furious storm over Naples" on 4 January in The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle for 1841 (pp. 232-233). Alansplodge (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

French ship Marne created as a shipindex page. Needs checking for errors as I'm only fr-1. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Col William A. Whitaker (USAF) (1936-2010) - Probably deserves a biographical article

While trying to decipher a Latin phrase, I ran across an ingenious Latin 'dictionary' (it's really more than that), called William Whitaker's Words, which proved quite helpful. Apparently, a lot of other people thought so too, as Col Whitaker's program has been kept alive by folks who admired his program (written in an advanced computer language, from what I read) on Github and the University of Notre Dame website. At any rate, I am not in a position to pursue this possibility, thus my mention of the good Colonel here. This is a brief bio from the article on his 'Words' program to give you a little more info:

William A. Whitaker (1936–2010) was a colonel in the United States Air Force. While at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), he chaired the High Order Language Working Group that recommended development of the computer language Ada, in which Words is written. An amateur Latinist, he created the translation software "Whitaker's Words" after his retirement from the forces.

There are some good references in the 'Words' article to give a potential editor a headstart on a biographical piece. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

References

RfC regarding Infobox and map for Oradour-sur-Glane massacre

Can you please provide comments at Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre#RfC regarding Infobox and map. thanks Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ragamuffin War

Ragamuffin War doesn't have the word "ragamuffin" anywhere in its text, so it gives no indication of why the article is at that title. The article uses the Portuguese name "Farrapos War" rather than the title. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There was a RFC in the past there supporting ragamuffin. Also old versions have this - [8]. Probably POV edit warring - without a move of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent IP editor did this. Reverted per prior consensus on talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment re content of Malta convoys

On the article talk page, Should the article list Malta convoys or go into a certain amount of detail about the context, even if this overlaps slightly with other articles?Keith-264 (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

John J. McCloy

John J. McCloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm wondering if someone from this Project may want to double check my edit here regarding controversy regarding the appropriateness of bombing Auschwitz. I initially intended to revert the recent addition of the second sentence with the rationale of WP:HOWEVER and because it was uncited, then I decided to take the first sentence with it because the source doesn't mention McCloy and seems to be getting into material better suited for Auschwitz concentration camp. Thanks! -Location (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

South Vietnam Air Force move request

There is currently a discussion of the title of the South Vietnam Air Force article at Talk:South Vietnam Air Force if you care to participate. Unless I overlooked something, someone interested might also want to amend Template:WPMILHIST Announcements to list move requests like this above. —  AjaxSmack  23:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

African Americans in Gray: John F. Harris (Mississippi)?

One of my interests is writing about the life of African Americans in the 1800s. There is an often told story about Mississippi State Representative J. F. Harris's support for a Confederate Monument in Jackson in 1890. I researched the story and made an article about the figure (please feel free to take a look). One part of the story I see on forums is that he was a Confederate Soldier. I think this is based on his famous 1890 speech[9], but I don't read the speech as saying he was a soldier in the sense we usually mean. Actually, my reading of it is that he was a likely slave serving someone in the Confederate Army. I know wikipedia is not a place for righting wrongs, but I thought it would be appropriate to ask here if anyone had seen any WP:RS discussion of this in Harris' case? Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Grave misgivings concerning combatant and casualty numbers in pre-Modern battles

The format of Wikipedia is not very conducive of expressing doubt, or of reflecting a variety of opinion in sources. This is particularly true of infoboxes, the format of which is rather inflexible. I have concerns over the use of numbers of combatants and casualties in the infoboxes of articles concerning Ancient and Medieval battles. An approach that works well for a battle in 1862 or 1942 is not really applicable to a battle in 1162 or 362 BC. Unfortunately, articles are read by many people who will have little or no background in pre-modern history, and they may gain the impression that the numbers inserted in infoboxes are factual. In truth the numbers may be based on unreliable primary accounts (such as the 100,000 Crusader troops at the Battle of Arsuf described by a contemporary source), or they may reflect the opinion (usually, more-or-less informed guesswork) of one amongst a number of modern secondary sources (indeed, the source favoured by the last editor to address the infobox). On more than one occasion I have added short caveats about the reliability of combatant numbers to infoboxes of pre-Modern battles, only to have them removed by other editors.

I think this is an important difficulty that could benefit from some form of 'standard practise' approach. Urselius (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is compounded by the fact that many editors do not see the info box as a summary of the article but as a stand alone item, where information does not have to be related to that given in the text. The text is the place in which variant estimates can be given and contextualised. Given the unreliability of estimates, the use of citation can be helpful. Monstrelet (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I have come across articles where the infobox figures differ from the ones in the body of the text, the latter ones having citations! Urselius (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that a range should be given in the info-box (reflecting modern mainline estimates, discounting real outliers) - and at the very least an efn. In most of these, the range is quite wide.Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Range is useful, though there can be some difficulty in deciding which estimates are worthy of repetition. This is why I believe citation to info box numbers is useful and it demonstrates where the numbers have come from. I often enough seen edits which can only be described as OR when it comes to numbers because there is no indication where the editor has got them from or why those numbers are to be prefered. Monstrelet (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Monstrelet that the infobox should generally only contain material that is also mentioned in the article text - in fact that's exactly what Help:Infobox advises. That way the article text itself can explain the ranges or direct the reader to efn's. Prefer that to attempting to footnote the infobox line items, which can make what is already this a statistically cluttered space even less easy to follow. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but for one option in coping with this problem I suggest as a solution what I did with French casualties at the Battle of the Nile.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

All of the above suggestion on how to represent uncertainty or variability in the figure plus, explicitly stating in the box that it is an estimate approximate figure or more than a certain figure; and, use of a footnote to clarify the nature of the figure. The info box is not a licence to report uncited material and should be consistent with the main text. Where no reliable figure is available, it may be better to report this or to remain silent on the figure at the info box. It is better to be silent than voice what is unreliable. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the best practice is to use citations. However, even in that case, primary sources quoting unreliable numbers must still be excluded from the infobox. It is better to have an "unknown" participants or casualties figure when estimates from reliable secondary sources do not exist. For instance, there is a very stubborn ip that inserts his/her own participant/casualties numbers in GrecoRoman battles, with e.g. edits like this, while in other cases he uses unreliable primary sources like this from Herodotus.--Dipa1965 (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Plucking material out of ones nether-region is quite incorrect and the second example is inappropriate detail for an info box, let alone replacing modern estimates from a reliable secondary source (presuming this is the case) with a ancient account that differs significantly and is not subject to any editorial oversight. I guess you know all of this. If nothing else, this discussion can be used as a link when reverting such edits and might help the IP to get the message. Hope this helps. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that the use of footnotes is ideal. The infobox can just have the text "Estimates vary" with a footnote to give at least a couple of the estimates in the relevant literature. This way the infobox isn't overburdened with detail, an estimation is not spuriously presented as fact, and figures would be available for those readers who are sufficiently interested to look for them. Urselius (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There are some articles where the infoboxes don't provide either the 'result' of the battle or numbers relating to it, but instead say something like 'estimates vary - see [x] section'. This prevents readers from mistaking a range in the infobox as somehow being reliable. This would probably be a good model to use more broadly for articles on pre-modern battles where there aren't reliable figures (something historians of such battles routinely comment on). Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Context in FA Warship Articles

I have raised a query at FAC Talk concerning the amount of background information that goes into warship articles at FA. I know that a great many Milhist users work on these articles or review them, so please do have a look. Regards, Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding Holocaust sidebar for Tulle massacre

Can you please provide comments at Talk:Tulle massacre#RfC regarding Holocaust sidebar. thanks Mztourist (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Western Front (World War I)

I just listed my picks for November TFA reruns at WT:TFA, and (with some sadness) I had to omit this article because it doesn't look like it's going to survive its trip through WP:FAR, with 10 tags. I'm not sure what we're going to run on 11 November this year and next; this is the only top-level WWI FA we've got, and it's probably not long for this world, unless someone yanks some sentences or provides some references. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I think I've dealt with this now, but if others could take a look that would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Dudley thinks you got them all. Thanks a million. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bumping this ... more problems. The review page is Wikipedia:Featured article review/Western Front (World War I)/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dan, not sure I can be much help with the Western Front but if you're really stuck for something for the 11th, one of my war memorials might be an option. I might even have got the most famous of them all to FA by November next year, though obviously we'd ideally run something really special for the centenary of the armistice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Those articles would make an excellent choice for 11 November IMO. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Banner and Film Taskforce for book?

I have been adding the banner to some articles and came across The Return of the Dead Army (film). I have added the milhist banner to the novel on which this was based The General of the Dead Army (novel) with a note that it is based on the film. My first question is what thoughts there are on this? I note that {{Template:WikiProject Novels}} supports Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force but this is dead. I don't suggest CPR but am wondering about links between the templates - does the Military fiction task force parameter create a link to the Milhist project as with the Bios project for Mil bios? I was also wondering about other projects for books, poetry, magazines and academic journals where there is an overlap with milhist. Is it appropriate to have their banners have a parameter for milhist, to associate them with the Milhist project when these other banners are used - so Jane's might have a banner for Wikiproject Books but a parameter in books tags it to the Milhist project in default of it belonging to a Milhist taskforce? Regards 05:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin can probably answer this definitively, but I'm not aware of any operative inter-project links in our banner or any other project's banner, if that is what you're asking. My understanding is that we just have to add each relevant project's banner separately. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The first part is about linking the book to Milhist Film Taskforce but the bulk of my question relates to inter-project links. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A-class marker on articles?

I was about to sent the Mark XIV bomb sight to A-class review when I clicked on the talk page and noticed it's already A-class. This happened because when an article is Good, we have this little widget in the upper right, and lacking that I thought I had never sent it in. Given that A-class is much more detailed than Good (IMHO), perhaps we should have such a marker? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• — fortunavelut luna 13:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but is there any rule saying where we should, should no, snowing Tuesdays? I would argue this should be on all A-class? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, that puts it in the wrong location (on the left) and I cannot see any internal way to position it properly. Is there an easy trick? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

In any case, is it perhaps because it's A-Class on the projects scale but not to the broader one? E.g. SMS Wittelsbach, which is A-Class for a couple of projects on the TP, but officially is only a GA, so only has the green icon on the article itself. — fortunavelut luna 14:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Urg, so they would have to go through both even though A is much more stringent? I'm not sure I like that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that even if A/c is a narrower constituency it is still more important grade. Bloody ridiculous if so. But I might be wrong, I was just going by that battleship. At some point, someone will actually come along who knows what they're talking about and answer (y)our question  ;) but it's a bit late / early for the Australians atm  :) — fortunavelut luna 15:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yeah, part of the problem is that A-class is run by Wikiprojects, and most projects don't even do A-class reviews, let alone ones that are as robust as ours, whereas GA and FA are project-wide. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A-Class Review needing another reviewer

G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Junayd of Aydın seems in pretty good shape but could do with at least one more set of eyes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

How does this info box work?

This info box appears in the 1st BCT 10th Mountain Division article. It needs to be updated, but I don't know how to edit it. Can anyone help?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82redleg (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@82redleg (talk · contribs) – can you please "sign" your posts using ~~~~ and place new queries either at the end of the page after the latest thread or use the "New Section" option at the top, it was rather tricky trying to determine who posted this query, and that it was posted out of chronological sequence didn't help.

Okay, enough rebukes. ;)

It looks like the "Edit" links are buggered on the template in question. Someone needs to take a look at that and fix it. In the meantime, you can use https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:US_10th_Mountain_Division&action=edit to access the template to edit it. — Marcus^(talk) 17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Marcus. I'm still learning how the wiki editor works.

I edited the template at the link you posted, but it doesn't update on the pages. It seems like the {{ }} means that it is supposed to update, but its not doing so.

82redleg (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)82redleg (talk · contribs)

The template itself needed fixing. I made an adjustment to get the V T E links to show now. --Finlayson (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finlayson. I took a quick look, but wasn't sure what was causing the problem. I expected someone would know and sort it. — Marcus^(talk) 16:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Operation Hailstone Page Improvements Question

Howdy folks. I'm looking for input on how to best clean up the Operation Hailstone article. Right now the bulk of page space in taken up by lists of ships at Truk at the time of the raids and the damage they incurred; and also a lengthy Evacuation Log showing when IJN warships/shipping vessels were moved out of Truk in advance of the raids. This Evacuation Log in particular is very long and unsourced, but I don't want to delete it entirely. Would it make sense to create a subpage for the Log that's Wikilinked from the main article? In general I find that things like Orders of Battle and ships' logs can bog an article down unnecessarily.

Anyway, most of you have more experience than I do with this sort of thing. Hopefully I can get some feedback on how best to streamline things. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a precedent for this specifically but there certainly is for order of battle pages (see Battle of Milne Bay order of battle). I would say that it sounds appropriate. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Another option is to create a collapsed list, like the order of battle at Beauman Division. I'm no expert, but see Help:Collapsing. Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, guys! I think a collapsed list is the way to go, though I have to consider what to keep and what to get rid of from the Hailstone article. I just realized via Google searching that this entire article is copy/pasted from "World War 2 In Review, vol. 17" by Merriam Press. I'm working in my Sandbox right now rewriting the thing, but it's going to be a serious undertaking. Thanks again, Finktron (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

The discussion can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_30#Template:Knight.27s_Cross_recipients_of_the_1st_ID

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

1000! Featured Articles!

G'day everyone. I just thought I'd highlight the fact that the tools tell us we have now exceeded our Featured Article target of 1000 articles! What a fantastic effort by all the content creators, copy editors, image checkers and reviewers over the years! I'm having a beer to celebrate! The coords will set a new Featured Article target shortly. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum Non-Commercial Licence

Can anyone advise if the Imperial War Museum 'Share and Reuse'/Non-Commercial Licence (terms can be viewed at http://www.iwm.org.uk/corporate/privacy-copyright/licence) allows us to use images so copyrighted on Wikipedia? FactotEm (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I am almost certain that because it is non-commercial only, the answer is no. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a non-commercial organisation, so You are free to: copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information for Non-Commercial purposes except for film or sound recordings would suggest we can. — Marcus^(talk) 23:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope: although WP itself is non-commercial and educational, everything here (excepting items uploaded under a fair use rationale) is supposed to be reusable by anyone, for any purpose. That said, policy does not require us to recognize copyright claims on faithful reproductions of free two-dimensional works, so where this licence may have been applied to scans of original photos & documents that are themselves PD due to age &c., it can be safely ignored.—Odysseus1479 00:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That's correct: only images available under licences whose conditions include commercial re-use can be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons from other sources. This is also something to consider when uploading your own images (eg, don't upload anything you wouldn't feel comfortable about someone using to make money out of). As such, the IWM licence here isn't compliant with Wikipedia/Commons requirements. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Since posting the original question I've discovered that the image I was hoping to use has already been uploaded to Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Private_Frederick_G_Neale_(7697916430).jpg. It all looks very legal on the Commons page, but the image nevertheless exists on the IWM site at http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205023812, where it is covered by the Non-Commercial licence that prevents its use on Wikipedia. FactotEm (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That’s an example of the situation to which I alluded above: the original image is out of copyright, so Commons takes the position that any claims of intellectual property on the reproduction are void. Some go as far as to call such claims “copyfraud”, but IMO that’s an extreme position, as AFAIK only American courts have set clear precedents on the question (see Corel v. Bridgeman), while in most other countries, including the UK, the legal situation is unclear.—Odysseus1479 00:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The IWM may have mislabelled this item on their database, especially if it is a Government-created image. However, from looking at the photo it seems more likely to have been a privately-created portrait of the soldier and was presumably donated to the IWM by his family. As such, the image may in fact still be under copyright, with the IWM owning the rights. It waived these when posting the version to Flickr, so that version can be used here, but that doesn't automatically mean the version in its database is PD. Simple! ;) Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help. Much appreciated. FactotEm (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

The article has extended confirmed protection and I can't edit despite exceeding the "30 days' tenure or fewer than 500 edits" criteria. Apparently I'm not an extended confirmed user; can anyone help? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

According to Special:ListUsers/, you're not a confirmed or autoconfirmed user, which is also required to become extended confirmed. (Hohum ^@) 17:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Odd, I just looked again, and you are extended confirmed. (Hohum ^@) 17:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: You are now. It seems you asked Mjroots to remove all your rights, which MJ took to include extended-confirmed. If you ever want the others restored, just ask me or any passing admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ooh-er Mister.... ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I was only following orders! Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

"Don't tell him Roots!" ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Difference between MICH and LWH helmets?

Busy trying to check the photos in the MICH category in commons and I need help since I'm not sure if the photos I catalogued are all MICHs. I removed some photos of Marine practicing small arms on the Essex wearing MICH-like helmets, but I decided to change their catalogues to LWHs.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Modular_Integrated_Communications_Helmet

Link as provided. Ominae (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Article move discussion: List of wars/conflicts involving...

Please see article move discussion here:

• (Discuss) – List of conflicts involving the United Kingdom → List of wars involving the United Kingdom – Restore stable article title before unnecessary page move. As dicussed on the article Talk page, if we want to include militarized interstate disputes and other conflicts in the list we can simply state this in the lead per WP:SALLEAD. Every other article on this topic begins List of wars involving [country]. Every other page beginning List of conflicts involving is a redirect. Whizz40 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hyphens in ranks and positions

I have been looking to see if there is guidance (a guideline) on the use of hyphens in ranks and positions eg lieutenant-colonel, air vice-marshall or attorney-general (or a more military version), deputy director-general, quartermaster-general. I am not seeing anything specific although I would observe the unhyphenated appear more common in milhist. I am asking as I have come across lieutenant-colonel in a new article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• It is depending on the respective military forces and era. For example it is Lieutenant Colonel in the contemporary U.S. Army but Lieutenant-Colonel in the contemporary Canadian Army. ...GELongstreet (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly. It should depend on the era. Hyphens used to be used far more than they are now. We don't impose modern conventions on pre-modern terms. I've had this debate with an editor who argued that "lieutenant-general" should not be hyphenated in an article about a WWI Australian general because the Australian Army doesn't currently hyphenate (even though it did then). This is clearly rubbish. It's revisionism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought this might be a matter of "our" style (MOS/MILMOS) rather than the preference of individual militaries (now or in the past?). For the example "Lieutenant-colonel Bloggs", WP:HYPHEN specifically depricates caps following the hyphen generally. It might then beg the question of how it is dealt with in an article on a joint US-Canadian op. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It falls under WP:ENGVAR, which overrides WP:HYPHEN. In AusEng, we no longer use hyphens in ranks. But the British Army still does, so it will be Lieutenant-Colonel if {{Use British English}} is used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

We aren't bound by the usage outside Wiki except for dictionaries, surely? The hyphen is covered by Engvar but Lieutenant-colonel would be my choice, even though I've capitalised both words in articles since 2006. Keith-264 (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the British Armed Forces no longer officially use the hyphen either (except for air vice-marshal). But officers who served in the British or Australian or Canadian (or any other) forces when the hyphen was still commonly used should have it in their articles. As I said, anything else is revisionist. But yes, both words should be capitalised when it's used before a name. Anything else would look ridiculous and not be usual practice anywhere. WP:HYPHEN actually says "Do not use a capital letter after a hyphen except for a proper name". In this instance, it is being used as part of a proper name. So it's "Bloggs was a lieutenant-colonel", but "Lieutenant-Colonel Bloggs". Nobody in their right mind would use "Lieutenant-colonel Bloggs". It would just be wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The question about who is in the right mind and who isn´t is rather subjective, isn´t it? And with grammar it is not easier, either. And capitalization in various situations and with various manuals of style and opinions is a field on itself as seen e.g. in the discussion here, here and here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Every one of those discussions seems to be about usage of ranks without a name, not in front of a name. We long ago decided on Wikipedia that ranks should not be capitalised unless they appeared in front of a name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Every one of those discussions is more about usage of ranks outside of sentences. As I said, it is complicated. ....GELongstreet (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of books use the Lieutenant-colonel form because the hyphen links the first word with the second to create a compound word but what do they know? Keith-264 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I can quite honestly say I don't recall ever having seen that in any book when the rank appears in front of a name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I can find it in usage round 1820s eg "Major-General Smith" (with a bonus "Lieutenant-Colonel Leighton" now I look more carefully). GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

As an MoS maintainer, I would say go with the usage in modern sources most common in RS on the specific rank in the specific military. This really is going to vary. Just like Mike Pence is the US vice president, while Joe D. Schmoe might be vice-president at SchoeCorp. The main ranks problem I see is overcapitalization of ranks when not attached to names, e.g. "He was a Sergeant First Class in the Elbonian army." It's okay to capitalize them in a words-as-words manner, as in "The name of this rank was changed in 1932 from Marshal of Air Forces to Air Marshal", but this is a bit strained, and from what I can tell our military articles are mostly not doing this. A similar matter is overcapitalization of military forces in descriptions that are not names (e.g. "the American Army", "the British Navy"). Worse yet is capitalizing "soldier words", e.g. "Joe D. Schmoe is a retired Marine".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A similar matter is overcapitalization of military forces in descriptions that are not names (e.g. "the American Army", "the British Navy"). By this, do you mean "American Army" = wrong, "U.S. Army" = correct, "British Navy" = wrong, "Royal Navy" = correct, since the correct examples are the proper names of organisations, whereas the wrong terms are descriptive terms which should not be capitalised like they were proper nouns? When this happens we have the choice of either correcting the name or the grammar, depending on the article and context of the text. — Marcus^(talk) 22:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ISTM "British Navy" is an obvious mistake, since it describes a thing, whereas "Royal Navy" is the name of said thing. In the same way, a chopped Merc custom is not the same as a chopped Merc Custom. I'm not so sure about "Marine"; in ref to a former leathreneck or bootneck, I think I'd capitalize. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No need to capitalise marine (except when used as a rank before a Royal Marine's name or when in Royal Marine or US Marine), any more than we capitalise soldier or airman. It's just a stuck-up service thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Groix

From the FAC page: "a largely forgotten naval battle of the early French Revolutionary Wars." Has been at FAC for a while, and has two supports. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

American Civil War units on Wikidata

Advice from someone with knowledge of army units of the American Civil War is needed at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat#American Civil War. Please help if you can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft article that could possibly be developed

G'day, I was looking through Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and came across Draft:Japanese-American Women During WWII. I have done a little clean up work to stave off deletion for the timebeing, but it still needs quite a bit of work. I think it is ultimately a viable topic, but it isn't really a topic I can do much with I'm afraid. As such, I wonder if someone else here on the project might interested in improving it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to get my Karl Strecker rewrite out within the week but I'll take a look after I finish. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, LR. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, I looked up "Nisei" from the lead in that draft, which lead to Nisei#World War II service and it seems we have a decent Japanese American service in World War II article. It seems the Draft and the live article focus on different things – the Draft being about women only in both civilian and military roles, and the article more focused on military service of both men and women. I would propose that someone could merge the Draft material into the article, if necessary, since the experiences of women could be put into a sub-heading without controversy, rather than as a standalone article that might draw less attention (by which I mean putting women under the same heading strengthens their wartime role, whereas having a separate article might be seen as removing them from mainstream history into an "aside" article, though that's just my thoughts given political correctness today, and not a judgement on these articles being developed separately). Unless you think it better to have these as separate articles? I think they're too closely related to be developed apart... but that's just my 2 cents. Regards — Marcus^(talk) 01:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day Marcus, yes, that is a good suggestion. I think there is definitely scope to merge some of it into the Japanese American service in World War II. However, I also believe that ultimately an article titled Japanese American women during World War II (which would be the eventual location of the draft, or thereabouts) would potentially have a broader scope than just military service as it would probably encompass aspects of work/life on the home front, internment (possibly) and probably other aspects that are beyond my knowledge to even identify at this stage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems a very niche topic... likely to be a very tricky position to fill, finding someone with an interest in the subject and good sources, given that it's about a teeny percentage of the population, I'd be very surprised if there were many books or websites dedicated to the matter. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation says: "According to the census of 1940, 127,000 persons of Japanese ancestry lived in the United States, the majority on the West Coast. One-third had been born in Japan, and in some states could not own land, be naturalized as citizens, or vote." So the article is really about, what... 20–30,000 or so women, at a rough estimate? Might be worth giving WP:WikiProject Japan a heads-up, see if anyone there would like to contribute, even though they're a small group, they might have some insight based on cultural studies. — Marcus^(talk) 02:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Historians have done a lot of work on the civilian side, and a fair amount on the military side. see Matsumoto, Valerie. "Japanese American Women during World War II' Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 8#1 (1984), pp. 6-14 online and the studied cited at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=6118616893066463457&as_sdt=5,27&sciodt=1,27&hl=en On the military women see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=6882127618522294404&as_sdt=5,27&sciodt=1,27&hl=en Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

First Battle of Passchendaele

Another editor thinks that the article should have measurements in metric then imperial and denies that the UK exception or national ties apply. Opinion? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sort of new and haven't formally added myself to the list yet, but if acceptable I've got an opinion. As I understand things, the adoption of metric units was not formally mandated within the United Kingdom until 1965; the battle of concern occurred nearly half a century prior. This battle having been conducted as an offensive operation of units from the British Empire against those of the German Empire, planning would thus have likely been conducted using imperial units. It seems likely then that much discussion of the battle would also use imperial units, referencing, I assume, various primary sources which would, if British or ANZAC, invariably use them. I've no doubt some sources make use of metric units, but the more details available regarding British/Empire involvement from British sources seems more than sufficient to establish a national tie to the UK and justify the primacy of imperial units in discussion. After all the metric units are still given, and changing every entry just to reflect a contested preference seems unnecessary to effectively convey the information. Darthkenobi0||talk 01:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

All comments are welcome, Darthkenobi0. And welcome to Milhist! You might like to make a comment about this issue at Talk:First Battle of Passchendaele#RfC on measurement issues. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Question Re Scope

I have a query regarding your scope, how old does a military topic have to be to fit into 'history'. Is it anything that isn't a current event, or is there a set time frame? Dysklyver 09:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Our scope is pretty broad. I'd estimate we cover a significant percentage of articles. Current military-related events are certainly within scope. For example, we have articles on many serving personnel and units, and articles like Operation Temperer, which was very much a 'current' event a few weeks ago. It'll all be history one day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I suspected that might be the case, I was just asking because I noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military redirects to this project. Dysklyver 10:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

In effect, this project doubles as a WikiProject Military - current and future military-related issues are in scope. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Harrias/Myrtle Maclagan

I wondered if one of you kind people might take a look at this article I'm working on in my sandbox: User:Harrias/Myrtle Maclagan. Maclagan was one of the first prominent female cricketers, but as with most of her era, she served during the Second World War. Unlike most, she later was awarded an MBE for her work in the Women's Royal Army Corps. I've got a "Military service" section, which mentions what I've found of her service. I was hoping someone here with a bit more expertise than I might be able to take a look over it and check whether I've made sense of it all correctly. Feel free to edit the draft directly. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Harrias ^talk 14:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Harrias. Nice article. I dug around in the Gazette a bit more and expanded it a little. Her rank history is fairly confusing due to the changes in the ATS rank structure, change to WRAC, retirement and mix of emergency commissions, war substantive ranks, honorary ranks and a regular commission. I have put the bare facts in there but it might warrant some further explanation or else cutting-out/simplifying, let me know if you want me to assist. Hope I was of some help! - Dumelow (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Backlog of Good Article Nominations

G'day everyone, the GA list is longer than it has been for a long time. If you can spare the time to grab one and review it, that would be great. It helps to watchlist Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Warfare to keep track of what is already under review and what isn't. It is especially important to contribute to reviewing if you are nominating GANs yourself. As they say, while there isn't a quid pro quo requirement for GANs, what goes around comes around. If you haven't done much reviewing of GANs before, feel free to contact me or one of the other coords, we'd be glad to talk you through it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken one (yours, in fact), as I've been quite slack with GAN recently. I'm a bit stretched at the moment, though, with a new baby and a new role at work, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert. It's easier for those of us who are semi-retired... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The GA Review banner on the talk page says that "Anyone who has not contributed significantly..." can conduct a GA review. Are we, during the course of a GA review, permitted to copy edit the text, or does that then disqualify us as GA reviewers?FactotEm (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the key word is "significantly". I don't think I've ever reviewed an article without copyediting it at the same time, but I would only recuse myself from passing (at GAN) or supporting (at ACR/FAC) if my copyedit was so extensive that it altered the thrust of the article in a major way -- copyediting for grammar, spelling, etc, isn't in that territory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Common sense, but thought it best to check first. FactotEm (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd think copyediting should be fine. An example where it'd not be ok for me to review an article is Ersatz Zenta-class cruiser, which Iazyges initially wrote and nominated and I significantly expanded. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken on the review of Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. At the moment it's on hold, waiting for responses from the nominator, but as the article currently stands I'm inclined to fail it. As this is my first attempt at a GA review, would someone with experience of GA reviews be willing to do a quick scan of my efforts and let me know if I'm on the right track? I'm not looking for a detailed appraisal, just a quick look to see if I've made any obvious mistakes. FactotEm (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, dead links are allowed for GAs if you did not know. So you can comment that they should fix them, but I usually add that they are not required to fix them. Make sure you check the licensing on all the images if you have not (is that one really non-free?). They should have a short summary in the Accidents and incidents section. Other than that, the review seems fine. Usually nominators will want specific feedback, like which images specifically should be removed, but it is up to the reviewer on how they want to do it. Kees08 (Talk) 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That's grand. Thanks for your help. FactotEm (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken one too for a start. Alex Shih^Talk 09:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Audie Murphy (again)

Sigh !!! ... Notifying you all that I have changed the protection level of Audie Murphy to full protection. The old editor is back who caused so many problems before we got this to FA. Apparently he has now decided that "for the good of the article" to rename sections, rearrange the article, and change the wording around. — Maile (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Maile. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Decisive Battle

I'm sure this has come up before but can someone point me to the guidance on the word "Decisive" when desribing victories in info boxes? Low key edit warring on this at Battle of Agincourt and it would be useful to point to any agreed definition. Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict

• result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

  • Good luck.Keith-264 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

    It's come up before on many articles. It is the "decisive" bit that is always contested. Military historians don't believe in decisive battles anymore. Unless it's one of The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World I wouldn't bother. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I commented at Talk:Battle of Agincourt. I have either provided a solution or I have started a citation race (read arms race)? Hope this helps Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I must admit I'm dubious about the idea of a battle decisive in strategic terms. This seems very much a historian's perspective. However, a battle it seems to me can be decisive in that it allows the victor to achieve a campaign objective. Agincourt's strategic impact is complex (see the Aftermath section) but its decisiveness in campaign terms isn't in doubt. After it, the French could not prevent the English from reaching their objective, Calais. I'm just not convinced editors at the article are arguing from the same definition of decisive, or that a casual reader would understand the same meaning. Probably better off without the qualifier in this (and most) cases. I'll check the talk page and comment there on the solution proposedMonstrelet (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This comes up repeatedly, and editors continuously argue over the definition of "decisive victory" (Pyrric too), and then try to make cases for why it should be applied for the article in question. This is original research.

Wikipedia should only reflect what sources say about each article subject. The only thing that matters is whether reliable sources conclusively state that the subject of the specific article was a decisive victory. If there is significant disagreement among sources, or it's complicated, include that disagreement in the article body.

I think editors should be careful about trying to find many sources supporting their particular POV - you'll find what you search for. Instead, see what the most seminal sources say - For instance: Peer reviewed, published military historians, in their specialist subject, who are widely cited - in preference to journalists writing about something they found interesting that week. (Hohum ^@) 11:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

But then we risk arguments about what the most seminal sources are and why Prof. A's view is more significant that the opposing view of Drs B & C. I'd go with no qualifying adjective unless clear consensus among reliable sources, if only to reduce editorial disputes. (sorry edit conflict ) Monstrelet (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It is the editors role to argue about sources (but they still need to use evidence), it is unequivocally not their role to interpret a definition of decisive from one source, and apply it to information from another source. I agree that when RS's don't have consensus, don't use the term in the infobox. (Hohum ^@) 12:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I´d argue a victory in battle (or siege, or campaign) to be decisive if one side surrenders, like e.g. the Appomattox Campaign. Decisive in so far as that enemy army is off the table. Same is even more true if civilian leadership elements are involved, like e.g. the Battle of Sedan with Napoleon III involved. Also if one side is virtually annihilated, like e.g. the Battle of "The Saw". But yes, there are more complicated cases like Agincourt with arguments for or against. And sadly here on wiki the question of being decisive or not often becomes a question of personal (or national) bias ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that our opinion is irrelevant and we should follow Clausewitz, that a battle is decisive if it is war determining. This makes Smolensk 1941 the decisive battle(s) of WWII. Decisive oughn't be used as a superlative or a synonym for big. Keith-264 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Without getting into a major debate, not all wars are determined by battles. Therefore, trying to insert this definition into a WWII battle info box may just be courting trouble. I agree on the superlative point though. In the particular case in question, we lack a really strong consensus that the battle was decisive, in part because of insufficient care by authorities to define what they mean. As we do not, in guidance, define a wiki definition of decisive, we should be very cautious in using it. We should as always think with an info box, does this clarify for the reader or obfuscate, IMO Monstrelet (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a difference between hack writers and pop-historians flinging decisives around and proper historians using the Clausewitzian definition. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I generally find that "See Aftermath section" is the best way to handle results in an infobox. Battles rarely have a simple clearcut short phrase that describes the result, it is usually nuanced and complex. Also, IMO some editors focus far too much on what is in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree on the over emphasis on info boxes. But wikipedia does encourage them and they are designed, I presume, as a summary or overview for the general readership, so they should be clear and, IMO, summarise the information in the article (some editors seem to feel they are entirely separate). Monstrelet (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with "see aftermath" is that it can be regarded as a dispute resolution option, and we end up with attempts to represent a clear victory as something other than a victory for the sake of a relatively semantic detail. My feeling is that we need only two options for the result parameter: victory or see aftermath. The infobox is not the place for nuance, and having just the two options would remove the source of a lot of conflict.FactotEm (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's true but a structural change won't stop arguments only move the goalposts. It seems to me that the criteria don't work well for C20th battles of exhaustion which took weeks or months and amounted to what in the C18th and C19th would have been called campaigns. The Battle of the Somme had tactical, operational and strategic effects on the war and also changed the structures of the British and German armies. Depending on emphasis, writers and historians label it a victory, defeat, Pyrrhic victory, stalemate etc blah, with some justice according their terms of reference. See Aftermath seems to me to be the only criterion baggy enough to fit these battles.Keith-264 (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The concept of a decisive battle was popularised by Creasy in The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World back in 1851. Nineteenth century military historians concentrated on battles to the exclusion of all else. The prevailing theory of warfare was that you sought a decisive battle. Bringing the enemy to battle was considered all-important. So in the Second Battle of Gaza the British claimed victory because they had brought the enemy to battle. (By attacking with an inferior force.) As you say, even determining victory or defeat is not always clear-cut in the 20th century. Indeed, the whole concept of decisive battle took a battering by the end of the Second World War. Give me a decisive battle, and I can give you someone arguing that it was not decisive. This is pretty common these days even for battles like the Battle of Châlons or the Battle of Tours, to say nothing of more controversial ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should modify the guidance for use of the info box to narrow the acceptable options and exclude "decisive"? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

PS, while I am not tied to qualifying a "victory", can I suggest that "conclusive" might be a more acceptable "qualifier" than "decisive". The Battle of Agincourt was (IMO) a conclusive victory for the English to the extent that one could not reasonably conclude that it wasn't an English victory without any doubt. This is different from a result of say, 70:30 or such, but are not "conclusively" in favour of one - immediately (or in the immediate future) and would be described as a "victory" but is not "conclusive". This is distinct from an outcome that is equivocal - both sides withdrew with a bloodied nose (or something closer to 50:50) or something which needs to be explained in the "Aftermath". Even then, with only three choices, it might be appropriate to refer a reader to further discussion (in the Aftermath) - particularly if "the devil is in the detail". Regardless of anything I have said, what is put in the info box must be consistent with the sources and not conjecture or WP:OR. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

There are two issues with qualified results. One is they are rarely unanimous even among reputable sources, as already mentioned, and the other is whether the reader will take from the simple phrase the meaning intended. "Conclusive" could mean definite, beyond doubt or it could mean something like emphatic. I'm wondering whether sticking with "victory" unless there is doubt over who won (result = disputed see aftermath ?) is the advisable route. Monstrelet (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said. I am not tied to qualifiers and, having said that, if we must have them, then perhaps there is a better solution? On what you say, I do not disagree. "If" a qualifier must be used, it must most certainly be uncontroversial per sources and within what might be "narrowed" guidance. As I read things, Agincourt was a "walkover" without dispute. It is a case of how we want to quantify this or if we want to quantify this at all in an info box? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Another typical instance is the Battle of Samarra, an inconclusive skirmish where the emperor died from his wounds but nevertheless the Roman army continued retreating. Surely Julian's death accelerated the eventual conclusion of that failed campaign (but not before the failed attempt of Julian's successor to cross Tigris). However the "battle" itself had no importance in tactical or strategic terms (historians usually refer to this battle without naming it, since they are only interested in Julian's injuring and his last moments). There was some edit warring, esp. from Iranian-pov users who insisted on the decisiveness of the battle (a case of 100% OR, imo). In general, I would be happy to see the qualifier using only two values: "victory of x" and "inconclusive", the rest being mentioned in the lead and discussed thoroughly in Aftermath section.--Dipa1965 (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You might also want to consider what Wilmott said about it: unless it ended the war, it ain't "decisive". (Yeah, I know, it's usually meant to indicate "clearly won by a given side", but...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

War determining, not necessarily the same as war ending. Perhaps Willmott was having a bad day.Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Austerlitz didn't end a war, it did bring an end to the Russian-Austrian coalition, leading to the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. I would imagine that eliminating one or more enemies from a conflict could be considered "decisive" if it determines the outcome of a theater of war, in a war with several fronts or independent theaters (just as WW2's Battle of Berlin defeat of the Germans didn't "end the war" with Japan). So I'd have to disagree with Wilmott too on that point, his theory would seem to only apply to conflicts with a small scope and possibly one theater where a major defeat for any one side concludes the war. All that reasoning made my head spin... — Marcus^(talk) 08:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Samarra is the key conflict in Julian's Persian War, primarily because it eliminated Julian himself, made Roman victory unlikely, and triggered political changes across the Roman Empire. This was based not on what the Sasanids did, but on the conditions of the Empire at the time. Julian was the last emperor of the Constantinian dynasty, having survived his uncle, his cousins, and his half-brother. Julian was a widower at the time of his death and never had any children. He did not have a suitable heir.

The army on campaign elected Jovian (emperor), the comes domesticorum, as the new emperor. His first task was to withdraw his army from areas deep within the Sasanid Empire, while harassed by the Sasanid Army. To be allowed to retreat, Jovian signed a peace treaty with humiliating terms for the Romans. "In exchange for his safety, he agreed to withdraw from the five Roman provinces east of the Tigris conquered by Galerius in 298, that Diocletian had annexed, and to allow the Persians to occupy the fortresses of Nisibis, Castra Maurorum and Singara. The Romans also surrendered their interests in the Kingdom of Armenia to the Persians. The Christian king of Armenia, Arsaces II (Arshak II), was to stay neutral in future conflicts between the two empires and was forced to cede part of his kingdom to Shapur. The treaty was widely seen as a disgrace and Jovian rapidly lost popularity."

Jovian had a brief reign, and reversed most of Julian's policies. Jovian died in February, 364, under suspicious conditions. The official cause of death seems to have been -in modern terms- carbon monoxide poisoning, but several 4th-century sources considered him murdered. His son and potential heir Varronianus was bypassed from the succession, and the army was asked to elect a new emperor. The result was the election of Valentinian I, a recently discharged military officer. He named his brother Valens as his co-emperor. Neither was particularly popular, and they had to defend the throne against the revolt of Procopius (a maternal cousin of Julian, who claimed that he was the deceased emperor's intended heir). Dimadick (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Notification of discussion per revision of conflict box documentation

Please see discussion stared at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Revisions to general guidance and "Result" and my recent revision to Template:Infobox military conflict/doc to discuss this revision, in consequence of this discussion here. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Clean-up

Is there a bot that's supposed to clean up sections like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military#Military-related_Redirects_for_Deletion? The decision was "keep."--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I'm pretty sure that part of the page is manual. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Viewing articles not assessed for B-class

Hi all. Is there some way to view a list of articles which have not been assessed for B-class? I know there is the incomplete B-class checklist category but that only shows articles where the template has been part-filled. Looking at a random sample there are quite a few start-class articles that have never been assessed (eg 1, 2, 3, 4). I figure it could be a nice little side task that I could dip into and out of when I don't have the time or will to write article. All the best - Dumelow (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well Category:Unassessed military history articles could help? Dysklyver 22:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that shows articles which have never been assessed for class - which I will look to work on also. However I was looking if there was a way to show articles which have an assessment of class (stub, start, C) but not any assessment against the B-class criteria. Maybe not, unless there is some tool that can do it? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin might know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How about Category:Military history articles by quality? From there on you can select quality-related subcategories like e.g. C- and STUB-class articles. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It sound like we might need to create a tracking category that would be populated by certain parameters in {{WPMILHIST}}. Which is probably doable, but I have no idea how to do it myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am going to hop in here a little late. All start class articles that didn't have their B-Class checklists filled out used to populate the Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists category. I think Kirill changed it a couple years ago to only show pages with half filled checklists. I would support reverting back to the old way, you'd just have to expect a backlog with 15k+ articles. --Molestash (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. As far as I can recall the Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists has been without a backlog since we cleared it during the February 2014 backlog reduction drive. I would support changing it back to include unassessed articles. Perhaps we could even mark the occasion with a new drive to assess a load of them - Dumelow (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In that case would that appear as a subcategory ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A subcategory might be best. We should have some way of distinguishing partly filled checklists from articles that have never been assessed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree a subcat would be best if possible. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've created Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists and updated the banner template to automatically generate it as appropriate. Please let me know if you see anything not working as expected. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, Kirill! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, that's perfect - Dumelow (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added this category to the backlogs list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, so it can be easily accessed - Dumelow (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor milestone reached...

Just to note that the Fortifications task force has now reached a total of 200 Good Articles - a small but nonetheless meaningful milestone in terms of content development. Thanks to everyone who's reviewed or contributed material so far! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well done, everyone involved! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That's some very impressive work. Would be great to showcase it in the next Bugle (paging @Ian Rose and Nick-D:). Not to step on their toes, but you could perhaps write something up for it. It reminds me that I really must revisit Caludon Castle; there's an FA to be had there, and there can't be many FAs on bits of wall! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well done! - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful, well done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Categories nominated for discussion at CfD

Inviting interested editors to comment on the discussions for Category:Military campaigns and theatres of World War II involving Australia and Category:Military operations involving Polish resistance during World War II. Alcherin (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

The discussion can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_22#Template:Knight.27s_Cross_recipients_of_the_12th_ID (multi-TfD).

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sanity required.

Could someone offer a third opinion at Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Image sizing. please. Its the silliest disagreement I've encountered in some time. (Hohum ^@) 18:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with notability

Hi, I am considering making articles about fairly obscure historical military-type people. For example pre-1921 Lord Lieutenants in England, these were royal officers which were 'responsible for organising the county's militia.' Some Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall are already done, How does this this fit into WP:MILPEOPLE if it does at all? Dysklyver 09:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I recommend not. They were civilians -- very high status aristocrats--and played a role something like a modern US governor who is also nominally in charge of the state's national guard. Do they also belong? I think not. Rjensen (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense, thanks. Dysklyver 09:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The individuals may or may not be sufficiently notable for their own page. The office is notable but may or may not have sufficient material to warrant (probably a pun) individual pages - though I think they may. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of them will certainly be notable, though you might have to do a lot of digging to turn up the source material. I'd approach them one by one and try to find as much information on each as you can rather than creating lots of shot articles in quick succession otherwise someone is bound to nominate them for deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Let the source decide. Obviously if they have an article in the ODNB then they are notable, but sometimes one finds enough to create an article from snippets in various sources (ie create a summary). However be careful, if all you can find unreliable sources (genealogical web sites (shudder!)) and primary sources, because that probably means that they are not notable. There is a real problem of using primary sources because in the 17th century families often use a restricted number of Christian names, so it is easy to mix up father and sons and uncles and cousins. Ie just because the primary sources say John Smith it does not mean it is the John Smith who is the subject of a biography! See for example Colonel Anthony Hungerford (an old version of a biography built primarily with information from primary sources). As it happens that man has an entry in the DNB (Hungerford, Anthony) as a sub section in an article about a contemporary namesake (making the primary sources confusing).

I recently completed a large expansion on the Siege of Worcester (1646) the secondary source I used listed the Parliamentary Committee who ran the place after the Royalist surrender and of the people that they singled out for fines. All of them were men of standing in Worcestershire at that time. Of the 15 men in the committee 5 had Wikipedia biographies. Of the 9 Royalists who had to pay a fines 2 had biographies. Ie if those statistics are typical, you will probably find that about 1/3 of the people you are interested in either already have a biography, or may be notable enough to have one. -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I reckon this is good enough for me to have a go at doing some of them, I will have to put some research into it though by the looks of it. Dysklyver 09:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Most Lord-Lieutenants will be notable anyway by virtue of their honours, knighthoods, peerages or previous service. People are generally appointed Lord-Lieutenant because they're already notable in some other field. On the Cornwall list, for example, only the current Lord-Lieutenant and Sir John Carew Pole might fail the notability requirements. Every other one was either a peer, an MP, a knight or a dame. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Globalizing our presence

Hi everyone, a discussion has been started to globalize our presence, and spread the word of Military History across other Wikimedia projects. All project members are requested to comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Globalizing our presence. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide - Biographies

G'day all, as discussed elsewhere, I've had an initial crack at adding some guidance on military biographies to this page. Feel free to jump in and add, subtract or suggest changes here on this thread. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, PM, I've expanded the content guide a little more to include vehicles, aircraft and other equipment also. Any feedback on those changes would also be greatly appreciated, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Created page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVIII Tranche Project Audit/Content guide for talk and to record audit. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That guide might benefit from some guidance on how to include relevant supporting materials, such as paintings or photos of commanders, battlefield art or photos, photos of equipment, uniforms or hardware, and where possible maps are always very helpful, especially topographical maps showing the positions of army elements during campaigns or battles. I've always been of the opinion that the best way to enjoy history is not through reading text, however detailed and wonderfully written it might be, but to see it through images, recreations, and surviving artifacts and that, in many cases, it is the text which accompanies the visual evidence... i.e. "seeing is believing". — Marcus^(talk) 12:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Marcus, definitely a good idea. I think that would potentially be best covered as one of our Academy articles, though. Potentially, one titled Using supporting materials. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be productive to establish a general criteria for biographic and operational detail. What's too much? For commanders, what belongs in unit articles and what belongs in bios? For bios in periods of controversial conflict, especially WWII, how much coverage of accusations of war crimes should be covered and how much should the accusations of war crimes against their units be addressed in commander bios? Should we include accusations against larger parent cmomnads? I.e. should general accusations against Army or Branch level organizations be included on bios of people who served under those units? Also, I've been incorporating notable Awards into drop downs. See also Karl Strecker and Helmuth Groscurth for examples. I think it's a lot cleaner and engaging for the reader. Thoughts on that? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think any war crimes allegations against a unit or formation commanded by, or under the command of an individual should be covered. For example, the Franz Böhme article should include information about the Kragujevac massacre, as Böhme played a part in it and was indicted for it. Not so sure about war crimes allegations levelled at commanders above them though. Seems a bit like mission creep. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't like the drop-downs, they crowd the infobox in my view. It is a matter of personal taste until they get reviewed at GA or above, but be aware that reviewers may not agree with that approach. The infobox should just list the most important awards IMO, and certainly not redundant ones, like the Iron Cross when the recipient also received the Knight's Cross. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

1914 iterations of the award only for Knight's cross holders then? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Iron Cross 1914 (with the obvious exception of the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross) was really that important an award that it should be in the infobox unless the award is really closely associated with that person's service (like Hitler in WWI). I was thinking along the lines of the Blue Max and above for Prussian troops, or the highest order available from each kingdom/duchy/etc, like the Military Order of Max Joseph for Bavarian troops. Awards that might be roughly equivalent to the CB, CMG, DSO for British Empire troops. Maybe down to DCM/MC level or a large number of MiD. Definitely not campaign medals. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

The Chicago museum is donating 19 books on women in the military to editors who produce a lot of content for this, I think they could be very valuable for your project. Would appreciate your involvement in this contest. There's also $200 of Amazon vouchers for the hardest working editors on women in the military, so can go towards any books you might need. If contests aren't your thing and you don't want to "compete" you can still treat it as an editathon.

1st prize: Women in the Civil War by Mary Elizabeth Massey, Mary Chesnut's Civil War edited by C. Vann Woodward, A People at War: Civilians and Soldiers in America's Civil War by Scott Nelson & Carol Sheriff, A WASP Among Eagles: A Woman Military Test Pilot in World War II by Ann B. Carr, Thanks for the Memories: Love, Sex, and World War II by Jane Mersky Leder, Confederate Hospitals on the Move: Samuel H. Stout and the Army of Tennessee by Glenna R. Schroeder-Lein, Below Stairs by Margaret Powell, Changing Course: The Wartime Experiences of a Member of the Women's Royal Naval Service, 1939-1945 by Roxanne Houston, This Republic of Suffering by Drew Gilpin Faust, and The First Salute by Barbara Tuchman.

2nd prize: Sisterhood of Spies: Women of the OSS by Elizabeth P. McIntosh, Mary Chesnut's Diary by Mary Boykin Chesnut, When Sherman Marched North from the Sea: Resistance on the Confederate Home Front by Jacqueline Glass Campbell, Her Act and Deed: Women's Lives in a Rural Southern County, 1837-1873 by Angela Boswell, A Woman of Honor: Dr. Mary E. Walker and the Civil War by Mercedes Graf, The Civil War Diary of Clara Solomon: Growing Up in New Orleans, 1861-1862 edited with an introduction by Elliott Ashkenazi, The Quality of Mercy: Women at War Serbia 1915-18 by Monica Krippner, Wonderful Flying Machines: A History of U. S. Coast Guard Helicopters by Barrett Thomas Beard, and Farmcarts to Fords: A History of the Military Ambulance, 1790-1925 by John S. Haller, Jr.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If you would also tag articles you submit to the contest with the tag for WP:GLAM/PMML on the article's talk page so we can help keep them up overtime, it would be much appreciated. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Momčilo Đujić needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Momčilo Đujić; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at World War II reenactment

The discussion can be found here:

• Talk:World_War_II_reenactment#Requested_move_28_October_2017

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This article appears to me to be a WP:coatrack with significant POV issues. I doubt it has any place in WP in its present form as a separate article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Your assessment of the article is the same as mine, but I oppose a move or deletion, per my comments on the article's talk page. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on lead sentence for Abram Petrovich Gannibal

I started an RfC on the lead sentence of the article and how the subject should be referred to. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Rhine Campaign of 1796 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Rhine Campaign of 1796; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's a long article--my apologies for that--and I appreciate comments and suggestions. auntieruth (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Query re: task forces for disambiguation pages

G'day all, I've been doing some backroom work, and I'm a bit rusty on the syntax for the Milhist banner. I'm wondering if anyone can tell me if we have a fix for the banner on dab pages, which show up in Category:Military history articles with no associated task force, but task forces really don't seem useful in the case of, say Talk:25th Battalion, which is a dab page. Unless I'm just not seeing it, might it be possible to modify the code so that articles classed as dabs don't show up in this category? Kirill Lokshin? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. Adding "|no-task-force=yes" to the banner seems to fix this. I just tried it out on Talk:25th Battalion and it removes it from the no task-force category - Dumelow (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't neglect the disambiguation pages, though. They often require expert attention to insure that their contents are correct, and to regularly check and fix incoming links. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, thanks to both! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Heinz_Wernicke

this article was deleted by @K.e.coffman: on notability grounds. restored pending further discussion on talk page. auntieruth (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• merging this post into the Heinz Wernicke post, since they have the same issue: First Jet fighter ace...."This article Alfred Schreiber (officer) was deleted due to "notability" and tagged with reliable sources. Notability seems evident to me if he was the first jet fighter ace. I've restored it, pending discussions. Please review and make comments on the talk page."

This is a can of worms, no doubt. I'd suggest combining this entry and the one above as they deal with the same general effort at redirect based on the same notability criteria, by the same editor. My understanding is the working assumption is that aces are not agreed upon as being inherently notable so, barring substantial treatment by reliable sources or another assertion of notability, the underlying criteria should probably be looked at again. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The RfC closed as no consensus - many thought these were grounds for notability in and of themselves (for a 5 kill threshold!). This is a 117 kill ace. The one above is the pilot who achieved the first fighter jet kill. Both have quite a bit of sources about them. While I see @K.e.coffman: point on some of the more obscure German aces - these two cases are not obscure.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I agree, but if there's going to be an enduring consensus on the underlying issue then the RfC should be revisited. Otherwise, what's the difference between a 117 ace and a 5 ace other than a subjective case-by-case assessment by individual editors? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

GNG is nearly always quite subjective, in most subject areas. MILHIST is the exception with SOLDIER and MILUNIT providing rather hard criteria of assumed passing of GNG. Reaching a closed criteria for aces is difficult - while most 5 kill aces in most wars are clearly notable per coverage, the coverage on some of the german aces who are way down the list (not these two) appears to be sparse.Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC):

• I've merged the two posts per discussion above, and @K.e.coffman:ed K.e. coffman again. auntieruth (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"This is a 117 kill ace." So what's the number making for notability, then? 100? That means every single WW1 ace, & every single Allied WW2 ace, & a substantial number (the majority?) of German WW2 aces, & every single post-WW2 ace, doesn't qualify. Is 5 too low? Not when the category is "ace"--& the number to meet it is 5. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The RfC should be revisited with tightly parsed wording. It is the clear consensus that a fighter pilot "ace" is defined as 5 or more kills. That is an objective criteria we should apply to WP:SOLDIER in my view. It should apply across the board, irrespective of the number of WWII German fighter aces. The weapons officer etc thing from the previous RfC was just a distraction from the fighter pilot discussion which contributed to it being derailed, they can be covered in the article about their pilot for now, and pulled out individually on examination. Many WWII German fighter pilots just happened to be in the right place at the right time early on in the right war with the right training, aircraft and tactics against often inferior enemies (in the early days on the Eastern Front at least), so they necessarily had high tallies. That doesn't take away from the skill needed to consistently achieve what they did, or their notability as aces. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither WP:SOLDIER nor WP:GNG provide that the skill needed to consistently achieve what they did warrants notability as defined by Wikipedia. The whole notion of a "flying ace" is POV in itself, originating in wartime propaganda. It is not "objective" at all. Serious historiography has analyzed that notion, but not employed it. I understand that some would like to be Wikipedia something like a collecting album of alleged wartime heroes, but WP:MEMORIAL. Regardless of Wernicke's tally, the coverage of his bio is scarce. Maybe you should try to lower the bar of WP:GNG even further, but beware: There is a lot of brown mud on the ground. Many WWII German fighter pilots just happened to be in the right place at the right time early on in the right war with the right training, aircraft and tactics against often inferior enemies - what a lucky bunch they were that Hitler offered them so many opportunities to excel!--Assayer (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER specifically says that application of it is a presumption for the existence of sigcov in reliable sources. However we have seen several examples of fighter aces that did not, in fact, have sigcov, and deleted their articles because of that. Whether or not they were skilled is not relevant to notability, because notability is defined by the objective criteria of having, or being able to presume the existence of, sigcov in reliable sources, and it is clear that many fighter aces do not have sigcov. We should not add "being an ace" to WP:SOLDIER simply because many aces do not have sigcov, and as a result we cannot assert in WP:SOLDIER that most aces will likely have sigcov . Alcherin (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• These articles were also redirected, and before I revert the redirects, we should include them in the discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Wei%C3%9F_%28pilot%29&type=revision&diff=798838060&oldid=787731408

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulrich_Wernitz&type=revision&diff=796178368&oldid=792721681

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Miethig&type=revision&diff=796178703&oldid=758945418

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hartmann_Grasser&type=revision&diff=796179188&oldid=765066942

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinz_Sachsenberg&type=revision&diff=796485720&oldid=787908631

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eberhard_von_Boremski&type=revision&diff=796179755&oldid=762423259

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Lucas&type=revision&diff=796181034&oldid=783711849

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viktor_Bauer_%28officer%29&type=revision&diff=796181402&oldid=796181254

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernhard_Vechtel&type=revision&diff=796182223&oldid=735506704

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emil_Bitsch&type=revision&diff=796186793&oldid=782907566

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Woidich&type=revision&diff=796187040&oldid=788517966

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berthold_Korts&type=revision&diff=796191141&oldid=765031324

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Dammers&type=revision&diff=796193551&oldid=779734095

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_Lambert&type=revision&diff=798650755&oldid=787032935

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jakob_Norz&type=revision&diff=796778621&oldid=790927066

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Joachim_Birkner_%28officer%29&type=revision&diff=797108671&oldid=797108398

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinz_Marquardt&type=revision&diff=801019195&oldid=787234824

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Tonne&type=revision&diff=796190365&oldid=785550495

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf-Udo_Ettel&type=revision&diff=801006927&oldid=791404695

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josef_Zwernemann&type=revision&diff=796187690&oldid=761864678

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Rademacher&type=revision&diff=796474863&oldid=792705206

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_D%C3%B6rr&type=revision&diff=795419996&oldid=784194895

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Eisenach&type=revision&diff=797110417&oldid=784335852

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Sterr&type=revision&diff=796776795&oldid=788470710

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerhard_Hoffmann_%28pilot%29&type=revision&diff=798658887&oldid=735501817

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Borchers&type=revision&diff=797109546&oldid=782971307

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl-Heinz_Weber&type=revision&diff=798451872&oldid=788519780

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horst-G%C3%BCnther_von_Fassong&type=revision&diff=796956784&oldid=784531354

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otto_F%C3%B6nnekold&type=revision&diff=798451038&oldid=735501440

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Schall&type=revision&diff=801352115&oldid=792704973

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Trenkel&type=revision&diff=796191503&oldid=765472619

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Gratz&type=revision&diff=798449701&oldid=785248522

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Tanzer&type=revision&diff=796182926&oldid=748059304

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albin_Wolf&type=revision&diff=796611644&oldid=765036226

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fritz_Tegtmeier&type=revision&diff=798449399&oldid=788517993 I'm ready to revert all, but want to discussion to be more specific. auntieruth (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

If there’s a desire to restore these articles, I’d suggest attempting to cite the material to actual RS before restoring the articles; see WP:BURDEN. That may be challenging, however. IIRC, none have de.wiki articles, strongly suggesting that SIGCOV on these subjects does not exist. I also performed searches prior to the redirects and was seeing passing mentions (i.e. appearance on a list of pilots of a particular unit) and / or non-RS militaria / hobbyist literature. The coverage was consistent across the board; that’s not how we establish notability on Wikipedia.

The recent AfDs on fighter pilots have not been conclusive; none closed as “keep”:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Broch -- no consensus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Lüddecke -- delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Clade -- no consensus

Those that closed as no consensus have not produced SIGCOV either.

At the very least, these articles, if restored, should have their uncited material removed. For example, one of the links provided is redirect of the Heinz Sachsenberg article. Most of the material is uncited, and one of thw two citations provided in the body of the article is to Obermaier, who is best known for producing hagiographic accounts featuring the members of the Jagdwaffe. The other citation is referred to as "Quote from Franz Stigler".

In general, Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL; it’s not its aim to produce a catalogue of all aces who fought in a given conflict, irrespective of whether RS on the subjects are available or not. Many fan sites for German pilots of WW2 already exist, such as Aces of the Luftwaffe; I’ve come across articles which sourced their material from it, including verbatim. We don’t need to replicate such material here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL is being quoted a lot, but I really can't see that its wording or intention is to disqualify articles on people such as these. It's intended to stop articles being created on people just because they're dead but have done nothing that anyone except their family and friends would regard as especially notable. The fact there is so much interest in these aces suggests that they certainly do not fit into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The paucity of RS and the AfD results above suggest that the interest from 3rd party sources is limited; see WP:SIGCOV:

• If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention (...).

Such coverage is lacking for many fighter aces, that’s why I agree with the sentiment expressed above that the suggestion to modify MILHIST’s notability essay, WP:SOLDIER, to include aces is counter-productive. It would take away from the legitimacy of SOLDIER as it currently stands. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments on page renaming

I have suggested that List of serving admirals of the Pakistan Navy be renamed to its original name of List of admirals of the Pakistan Navy. Could you please weigh in at Talk:List of serving admirals of the Pakistan Navy#Should this page be called List of Admirals or List of serving admirals. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Need for both Defense of the Reich and Combined Bomber Offensive articles?

It seems to me that the Defense of the Reich and Combined Bomber Offensive articles are two sides of the same aerial campaign. This seems somewhat aberrant to the way this project usually covers major military campaigns. Operation Barbarossa, for one example, is one article and there isn't another one on Defense of the Motherland. Neither does Siege of Petersburg have a corresponding Confederate-perspective article.

The Defense of/Offensive articles therefore seem somewhat redundant to each other. The former is currently 129,524 bytes and rated B-class while the latter is 51,430 bytes and rated C-class. Much of the text on the former, however, seems to be an in-depth examination and explanation for the reasons behind the defeat of the Luftwaffe. This leads me to ask if both articles are really needed or can they be merged, streamlined, and a redirect created? I'm assuming that there must be some wiki-historical reason for maintaining two articles of which I am unaware. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The Combined Bomber Offensive covers 1943 onwards and is limited to US and UK efforts. Defence of the Reich starts in 1939. I don't know if and can also be considered to cover defence against Soviet efforts from the East. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Media works

I see that there is a task-force for films about wars, but there is none for novels or other media portrayals. I think it would be good if there was one.★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Depends what you consider the purpose of a task force and whether it merits setting one up. They don't act as sub-projects with their own "in community", since all of the MilHist project interaction is directed via this main board and receives the same attention. Every now and then the MilHist project will have a run on a select topic, maybe because of an anniversary, like the WW1 100th, which brings a task-force into focus for a short period, but generally speaking, they don't amount to much and you might not find a great deal of interest. Not to say that I don't like the idea, since there are many, many novels... I mean, all the Sharpe, Hornblower and Flashman books alone get Napoleonic novels off to a decent start, but the problem is that most MilHist members are focused on non-fiction articles, and leave the fictional representations of war to other projects, since WP:FILM is a very active wikiproject there's little chance of war film articles being neglected or requiring constant monitoring by MILHIST. I would recommend that you request the creation of a new task force to the MilHist coords, maybe present some numbers to support your request, such as an indication of how many articles would fall under the scope of such a task force. Bear in mind that those articles would all need tagging under the MILHIST banner, and if you turn out to be the only editor interested in such a task force it would be a substantial amount of work, which is why you really need coords to review the idea carefully, to see if it would benefit the project or simply bring a lot of unnecessary work. You might also want to consíder looking at WP:WikiProject Military history/Incubator which allows for the creation of new groups "in principle" to allow time for them to either develop or to fail, without all the overhead. — Marcus^(talk) 13:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Philippe Leroy in the Foreign Legion?

Hello, I raised a question here. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

List of fictional military ranks AFD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military ranks

I've put this up for deletion, might be of interest to this project.★Trekker (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

HMS Magnet?

The Times of 26 July 1842 reports the raising of the "Magnet sloop of war" near "Oro" and her being taken into Malmö, Sweden. It is stated that she was commanded by Captain Morris during the war of 1809. Armament is two 9-pounders and sixteen 32-pound carronades. Damage to bow suggest a collision with a larger ship. she was built of oak, and was coppered. The armament largely fits HMS Magnet (1809), but the location of her loss is at odds with what is stated in the article. Can anyone shed any further light on this one please? Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Times is more likely talking about HMS Magnet (1807) which was lost in the Baltic in 1809. Nthep (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, that makes sense. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance: Looking for sources to new article

(First of all, I am not a member of this project. If a project's maintalk is only intended for internal project discussion, I apologize and will post somewhere else.)
I recently started a new article all by myself: List of estimated death tolls from nuclear attacks on cities. The problem is that, as opposed to my initial expectancy, I cannot seem to find any sources on the topic. I thought that a simple search would rack up loads and loads of Cold War-age studies on the effects of thermonuclear war and estimated civilian deaths thereof, but I found hardly any! Maybe I'm just a bad searcher. Anyway, for this reason, I ask this highly respected WikiProject for help. Is there any sources on this subject that you can recommend? Is there a Cold War fanatic or a Dr. Strangelove admirer here somewhere? You can either give me a source you happen to know of or just give me a tip or two about how to find them, or you could always just edit the article and add them right away.
Feel free to reply to me, either here or on the article's talk. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 21:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that this topic was largely covered in the Cold War, you may need to rely on hard copy sources. My old university's library has several bookshelves worth of books on this issue (from looking at its online catalogue, it has almost 300 books falling under the standard subject classification of 'nuclear warfare' - searching for this in your local libraries should be useful). Lots of books were published in the UK during the 1980s about the possible effects of a nuclear weapons attack on the country. Peter Hennessy's recent book The Secret State covers the topic as well. I also recall news stories a few years ago about modelling of the results of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The Australian intelligence services also looked into the possible effects of an attack on Australia in the 1980s, with the document now being available on the National Archives of Australia's website - this website has the bibliographical details, as well as more recent estimates of the effect of a nuclear weapons attack on the important Pine Gap intelligence base near Alice Springs. I've also seen 1980s-era books discussing the effects of the use of nuclear weapons in Germany had World War III broken out there, as well as modelling of the effects of different types of Soviet nuclear attacks on the US. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has likely also covered this topic in detail - see this article for example. The Federation of Atomic Scientists is also worth a look. RAND may have also looked into the issue, and it often publishes old studies on its website. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Google searches also produce useful results. For instance, I easily found this article by Googling 'FEMA atomic casualties'. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, I really am a bad searcher. Forgive my idiocy. Thanks for the tips, most sources I've found so far have been focusing on "how bad would a nuclear attack be" without providing any death figure. I'll go through your tips when I have the time. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 17:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

The discussion can be found here:

• Talk:Holocaust_trials_in_Soviet_Estonia#Requested_move_6_November_2017

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

List of wars involving Serbia

Please see List of wars involving Serbia. I do not know enough history on the issue to become factually involved, but there have been substantial content disputes going back essentially since the page was created. I hope this is the correct place to put this request, but ANY help would be appreciated, by anyone. Obviously it's contentious and I don't want to take sides without knowing what I should. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Contentious"  :) well, it's hard to imagine an article that could be much more a magnate for spite, hatred and ethno-centric POV-pushing! Thanks for this though. — fortunavelut luna 15:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've chipped in to separate some of the wheat from the chaff, but by no means is everything fine now. Alcherin (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've stopped the edit warring temporarily, let me know if it recurs? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ship index pages

There's a discussion re ship index pages, and a proposal, which affects some articles supported by MILHIST. Please feel free to join the discussion and comment on the proposal. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Now that this issue has been fought in MILHIST, let's take the battle to OUTCOMES

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Suggested addition (Military) for more fun and games about Iron Cross recipients. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chris: What’s with the militant language? Battle, fought, etc. I’m well aware of your attitude to what you call my ongoing de-Nazification campaign; please don’t escalate the hostilities unnecessarily. :-) A neutrally worded notice would have sufficed.

On an unrelated note, there are actual Nazis attempting to edit Wikipedia; see User:EchoUSA and related MfD. Please reconsider using denazification pejoratively in the future. Also, please don’t equate your opinion with the wishes of most of MILHIST; other members can speak for themselves.

In any case, I included additional background at the link provided for anyone interested. The OUTCOMES itself has been recently modified, so I was attempting to expand on that addition. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I made that comment almost a year ago. If it still offends you, then perhaps you should consider your sensitivity to mere words. Seeking deletion for articles about Nazis seems like de-Nazification to me. I suppose there are no Persilschein to be had. For those that seek to overturn or change a subject-specific notability guideline, doing what you did (going to OUTCOMES) looks like forum-shopping to me. I didn't make that accusation and perhaps I should have. OUTCOMES itself doesn't serve its correct purpose anymore. I simply don't think you're a neutral arbiter in this. I wish you would just let this Knight's Cross thing go, honestly. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, you may have picked a bad example for "omg actual Nazis!!". I'm about 85% sure that particular fellow was a variety of Rockcreaturus underbrigeii. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Personally I see no viable reason why the highest military honor of Nazi Germany should be treated differently to any other highest military honor. But by all means let us carry on deleting all the articles on Nazi war heroes - evil murderers - enemy soldiers. I won't be entering into the argument right now, if at all, just let the POV warriors battle it out. Dysklyver 11:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS for battle maps?

Is there any MOS guideline for assigning colours to opposing sides on battle maps? I've produced a few maps for WWI battles and used blue for British and red for German, then realised that others reverse that colour scheme on their maps. It would be confusing if someone wanted to use both in the same article. If there is no standard, would it be worth adopting one? FactotEm (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

By tradition I believe most countries present themselves as blue and their opponents as red. But of course that doesn't help here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps might be able to help if you asked there. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is a shame as blue and red work well on maps! Given the limited number of viable colours to use for maps, it might be tricky to assign colours to different countries. It could be done for factions though: eg, for WW2 maps, the Allies could be blue and the Axis red? I agree that the folks at the maps project would be best placed to comment. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of allocating specific colours for specific countries, but more standardising colours for the opposing sides so that we don't get a situation where, for example, in one map side A is blue and side B red, and in another those colours are reversed, which is what I have encountered in some WWI topics. I guess, though, that a standard is inherently POV and difficult to define; for the same battle a German editor would naturally colour German positions blue, and a British editor would naturally colour them red. The Wikimaps project doesn't offer any guidelines, so I've asked there. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It will be somewhat arbitrary verging on POV, since red implies enemy. However, these are the best colours to represent the opposing sides. On one hand, it doesn't matter, so long as there is a legend to the maps. On the other, I can appreciate your appeal to consistency. I could think of some simple but arbitrary guidelines that might be applied while they might be simple, they are bound to step on somebodies toes. Some difficulty might result where maps have been sourced and not created. I suspect it might be too hard (or unreasonably hard) to change a sourced map. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Purely out of interest, originally the British depicted themselves as red on maps and their French enemies blue (from the colours of their respective uniforms), but the First World War when we were both on the same side required a rethink. See NATO Joint Military Symbology#History. Alansplodge (talk)

It's the whole Red Scare thing. When the enemy was the soviet bloc, red was clearly the enemy color even for the red coats of old and those of the red, white, and blue. For cold-war era conflicts red is really reserved for the soviets. Red also works well for WWII Germany and Japan (who had red flags). Red didn't use to mean enemy - it has grown to become so in the cold-war in the west (the soviets, I believe, used red for themselves). In other conflicts - it depends. I think that in some of them there is established consensus on which force is which color.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In 13 Maps From The Second World War (Map 1.) you can see that the Germans used blue for themselves and red for the British in 1940. Alansplodge (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Red and blue does seem the most common arrangement, and if a third army is present it's often in a very dark green or black, e.g. Battle of Waterloo, Prussians. I don't think we need to enforce a standard, since it's common sense to use colours that stand out against the map, whether it be black-and-white or colour. I have seen a lot of old maps scanned into books that show units in shades of grey thru to black where it is almost impossible to tell the difference between the sides without reading the battle report, fortunately we don't have that problem online, and even pink and yellow is better than nothing. Since everyone has the ability to deal with poor images, they can easily switch badly coloured maps or edit them to make an article consistently use two colours. I don't think we need MOS to enforce anything strict. — Marcus^(talk) 18:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Albert Cashier

Your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Albert Cashier#Pronoun gender. Mathglot (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Template title question

Does anyone know what I have to do to get the date range onto the second line? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC) {{Campaignbox Operations on the Ancre, 1917}}

• Fixed with non-breaking spaces, see diff. Dysklyver 20:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

um, that has actually broken the layout now... the date is too wide, it has to be made shorter to fit on one line. Dysklyver 20:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Shortening the months has fixed it. Dysklyver 20:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC) you can't shorten the months, its a standard style to use longhand dates in campaignboxes.

Thanks, I'd been faffing around with wordwraps and getting nowhere. How now? Keith-264 (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

diff is better, I just had a quick look at other similar templates and noticed this happens pretty much across the board, I don't think you will be able to do better than that. Dysklyver 20:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Confederate General

There is an AfD about Thomas Chilton Jasper, see discussion. It is unclear if the subject was actually a Confederate General or not, could someone who knows about the American Civil War kindly check. Dysklyver 14:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• He definitely didn´t serve as Confederate general in the war; though I can´t rule out any possible militia connection for sure. But the only time I can quickly find him is in muster rolls of Company C of the 6th Kentucky Cavalry in February 1863 where he is listed as Private. But his wiki-article said that he found a post-war veterans organisation - loads of people were made "generals" in those and that led to several people being titled as Confederate generals without ever substantially being such. Family lore and press coverage with public interest and agenda made this even worse. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional input needed as to image that should be used ...

...here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Knights Cross deletions

Most will be aware of actions to delete many knights Cross articles for reasons largely of "notability". It is not inappropriate for a list to contain biographical detail - specifically, more than just a have-dozen tabulated fields. It may be equally valid to have a list article of recipients without their own article. Such a list article could be populated with material from articles which have been deleted. It is not my area of interest but it is a thought, FWIIW. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you interested in putting together a draft concept with three or four examples? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@auntieruth, you might be able to help by providing 3-4 links to deleted articles? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• these are some of the articles that have been deleted and reverted / restored. In addition to Heinz Wernicke we have:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Wei%C3%9F_%28pilot%29&type=revision&diff=798838060&oldid=787731408
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulrich_Wernitz&type=revision&diff=796178368&oldid=792721681
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Miethig&type=revision&diff=796178703&oldid=758945418
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hartmann_Grasser&type=revision&diff=796179188&oldid=765066942
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinz_Sachsenberg&type=revision&diff=796485720&oldid=787908631
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eberhard_von_Boremski&type=revision&diff=796179755&oldid=762423259
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Lucas&type=revision&diff=796181034&oldid=783711849
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viktor_Bauer_%28officer%29&type=revision&diff=796181402&oldid=796181254
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernhard_Vechtel&type=revision&diff=796182223&oldid=735506704
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emil_Bitsch&type=revision&diff=796186793&oldid=782907566
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Woidich&type=revision&diff=796187040&oldid=788517966
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berthold_Korts&type=revision&diff=796191141&oldid=765031324
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Dammers&type=revision&diff=796193551&oldid=779734095
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_Lambert&type=revision&diff=798650755&oldid=787032935
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jakob_Norz&type=revision&diff=796778621&oldid=790927066
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Joachim_Birkner_%28officer%29&type=revision&diff=797108671&oldid=797108398
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinz_Marquardt&type=revision&diff=801019195&oldid=787234824
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Tonne&type=revision&diff=796190365&oldid=785550495
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf-Udo_Ettel&type=revision&diff=801006927&oldid=791404695
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josef_Zwernemann&type=revision&diff=796187690&oldid=761864678
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Rademacher&type=revision&diff=796474863&oldid=792705206
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_D%C3%B6rr&type=revision&diff=795419996&oldid=784194895
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Eisenach&type=revision&diff=797110417&oldid=784335852
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Sterr&type=revision&diff=796776795&oldid=788470710
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerhard_Hoffmann_%28pilot%29&type=revision&diff=798658887&oldid=735501817
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Borchers&type=revision&diff=797109546&oldid=782971307
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl-Heinz_Weber&type=revision&diff=798451872&oldid=788519780
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horst-G%C3%BCnther_von_Fassong&type=revision&diff=796956784&oldid=784531354
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otto_F%C3%B6nnekold&type=revision&diff=798451038&oldid=735501440
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Schall&type=revision&diff=801352115&oldid=792704973
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Trenkel&type=revision&diff=796191503&oldid=765472619
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Gratz&type=revision&diff=798449701&oldid=785248522
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Tanzer&type=revision&diff=796182926&oldid=748059304
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albin_Wolf&type=revision&diff=796611644&oldid=765036226
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fritz_Tegtmeier&type=revision&diff=798449399&oldid=788517993

• these are some that have either been excessively tagged, "cleaned up", "excessive detail removed" or templates removed. Some have not been deleted yet, but they have been damaged by editing or removing large swathes of text.

• Joachim Munchberg
• Hans Waldman (fighter pilot)
• Hans Philipp
• Werner Molders
• Karl von Graffen
• Rudolf Qurner
• Fredrich Rainer
• Herman Reinecke
• Heinz Lammerding
• Michael Wittmann

• I'm finding all this deletion of articles and deleting of material (deemed by one editor as excessive detail) and the challenging of sources he considers "unreliable" as a waste of time and damaging to the overall progress of the project. I would prefer to send my wikitime reviewing GA articles instead of patrolling for these unreasonable deletions. auntieruth (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on use of Frank Collin aka Frank Joseph as a source

I've raised this at WP:RSN#Are books by an ex-Nazi writer of fringe books on Atlantis, etc RS for military history? Doug Weller talk 17:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Questionable article move

I've just noticed a page move, with Old Guard being switched to Old Guard (France) and the former used as a disambiguation page. Looking at the move !votes I found that there have only been 2 responses to the request, which was opened only 6 days ago: Talk:Old Guard (France)#Requested move 6 November 2017. I see no evidence of any dedicated projects such as MILHIST being invited to comment and !vote. I have looked through all the other "Old Guard" related topics and fail to see how the French Old Guard could not be considered the PRIMARYTOPIC use of the term. How do I go about requesting a reversal of this move and a !vote with a properly determined consensus, as I think this move based on just 2 !votes is a bad move made by the back door and fails to consider a wide enough number of opinions? — Marcus^(talk) 22:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually support the use of Old Guard as a disambig. IMO, it's easiest if you just open a new talk discussion on the disambig page with notices to the previous participants. Alternatively, you can request a review of the move on the link indicated on the move discussion template. You can also ask the closing editor to rescind their close for lack of time/participation, but that's up to them. I think this serves as sufficient notice to MILHIST. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I also support this; it seems like a non-started to assume that all "Old Guard" references would be to Napoleon's Old Guard. That is, in and of itself, a very limited usage, and one that might occur solely by those of us interested in napoleonic wars. To think it is solely military history term smacks of tunnel vision. If you do open a discussion of the move, please link it here so we can comment. auntieruth (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tunnel vision, my backside! Did you actually bother to look through the disambiguated terms? There are 3 red links, 2 unlinked mentions, an extinct political organisation which used to use the term, like, 85 years ago... 2 foreign regiments which don't even use the exact term "Old Guard", one U.S. regiment which only uses the term as a nickname, and 3 references with "The" as a prefix due to being titles. Not one of the disambiguated terms is current, exact or even an existing article to rate it highly. And "Old Guard" is hardly a term only known to people who study the Napoleonic Wars, anymore than "S.S." is only known to people who study WW2, and yet I see more relevant uses of "S.S." on SS (disambiguation) than on Old Guard, which should have remained the PRIMARYTOPIC for France and not be moved to promote a bunch of semi-relevant or trivial links. I think suggesting that these other usages are equally as common as Napoleon's Old Guard is reaching, since the page view counts suggest otherwise. I would suggest that if there is any bias here – since that is what you were accusing me of with your backhanded "smacks of tunnel vision" trite – it is yours, in wanting to relegate a well-known historical term to a disambiguation page. — Marcus^(talk) 20:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Pay Warrant

The article 'Eric Joyce' includes - in the context of the British army - reference to "the Pay Warrant rules" (presumably, [10]), as do other articles. Is that something that warrants (sorry) an article? Can someone oblige? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

G'day all, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Guards needs a few more eyes to form a consensus on what should be done with it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Help an old Milhist Alumni out?

Sorry to post this here, but it's been so long since I wiki'd that I'm baffled by what used to be the simplest of processes - listing something for AFD. I've tagged the article and created the AFD page at [[11]] but it doesn't seem to have listed on the main AfD page? Any help appreciated Skinny87 (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you did, or how things worked in previous years. Or how your settings are on your account. But when I want to nominate an article for AFD, I used the XFD tab at the top of the article (maybe that depends on which skin you use). A template then appears, on which you type your reason in the littie dialog box and then click "Submit Query", and the rest is automatically created in the system and automatically put in the appropriate AFD list. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Skinny87: I fixed it for you. In the future, please follow the steps in WP:AFDHOW2. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Very grateful for the assistance Skinny87 (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't have the option Maile66 described until I installed Wikipedia:Twinkle; things got a lot easier with AfDs and other stuff.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow ... I've been taking Twinkle for granted for so long, that I forget it was there as my little helper. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This smells like heresy...I mean WP:NOT to me...

Category:Structures of military commands and formations in 1989. Isn't this a little WP:NOTty? It certainly seems like it to me, but I'm open to second opinions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be fine if there was one for each year and there was a reason why all those articles are date specific. But why 1989? What is so special about it? Dysklyver 16:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• The significance of 1989 in this context is that the Warsaw Pact de facto ceased to exist in 1990 when East Germany withdrew (it was formally dissolved a year later). Consequently, 1989 provides the last snapshot of military structures and formations in Cold War Europe, and is the baseline from which any calculations of 1990s peace dividends, any discussion of the impact of the scaling back of forces in Germany (on both sides), or any discussion of the restructuring of Russian and other post-Soviet militaries in the 1990s is calculated. Thus—as with 1914 and 1939—the disposition of forces and command structures have a particular significance that doesn't apply to most years. ‑ Iridescent 17:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's correct. Historians have dedicated considerable attention to the structure of the NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in 1989 for that reason. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Alright then, I'll apply a {{minnow}} directly to the forehead in this case! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not call it Category:Structures of military commands and formations prior to end of Warsaw Pact or something similar to give it at-a-glance context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"I'll apply a {{minnow}}" Hey, I wouldn't have seen it either... Don't feel bad. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I added the writeup by Iridescent to the category. (in verbatim as it was a pretty good explanation) Dysklyver 16:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been creating most of the articles in this category and Iridescent is absolutely correct: this year is used by historians when they compare the Cold War to the post-Cold War area. By 1990 the peace-dividend = the massive reduction of military forces in Europe was already in full swing: Soviet forces withdrew from Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Czechoslovakia; Belgian, Dutch, French, British and American forces began to withdraw from Germany; the Czechoslovak army disappeared; West Germany swallowed the East German Army; Western nations cut their forces by a quarter to a third between 1990 and 1992; the Soviet Union dissolved and with it the Red Army disappeared; the Yugoslav People's Army disappeared; NATO's round the clock defense infrastructure was put on lower alert levels; Sweden and Switzerland reduced their massive reserve forces; the gigantic REFORGER depots were emptied, the NATO SAM belt was deactivated, NATO's commands and corps were dissolved or merged; nuclear weapons were withdrawn from Europe; etc. etc. 1989 is the last year of the Cold War and also the height of the Cold War, as both sides entered the year with the most massive, most ready, best equipped forces and ended the year with plans to cut their forces. As Iridescent said: "as with 1914 and 1939—the disposition of forces and command structures have a particular significance". For anyone studying the Cold War 1989 is the year to understand the military forces built up by both sides in over 20 years of constant expectation of war at any moment; for anyone studying the peace dividend and/or NATO/EU expansion in the 1990ies, the reduction of forces from 1989 onwards is the basis of research. Therefore I chose this year for the article series I am creating. noclador (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Guidance to contribute to the Robert E. Lee article

I am looking for guidance as to how to contribute to the article Robert E. Lee in the section #Lee’s views on race and slavery.

The reliable sources referenced directly in my now reverted edit as discussed on Talk:Robert E. Lee show that the regular U.S. Army Corps graduated from West Point in the antebellum period did not involve themselves in political questions (Skelton), and that Lee adhered to the principle of apolitical behavior (Fellman) with silence on the subject of slavery (Foner). There is no WP:SYNTH conclusion in the draft language removed, only sourced information allowed by WP policy. But in discussion now extending into three sections, here seems to be a misunderstanding that wp:synth can be used to exclude reliably sourced information in WP articles.

Another issue relates to using chronological order to organize the section overall, rather than promoting a quote of Eric Foner for the lead that is out of sequence as it relates to narrating Lee's life, and that quote suggests that Lee should have joined other white Southerners publicly advocating for Abolition in the antebellum period as a serving regular U.S. Army officer in Foner's opinion.

I would appreciate any advice on how to proceed without an edit war. Is it good practice to use the WP:dispute resolution noticeboard before a wp:Request for comment? Any other options, sequencing or suggestions? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Something like Lee's views on slavery will always be seen as controversial, and any attempts to change the tone of the article may lead to accusations of POV pushing, revisionism, etc. WP:SYNTH is an important policy, but can be abused by people who interpret sources their own way and don't want to agree with your sources or conclusions. When writing controversial content such as this, try not to interpret sources, don't try to put things into context or draw conclusions, as anything not taken directly from the sources is likely to be challenged by detractors, and we all know that Lee not only has his more conservative supporters and liberal opponents, but that there are historians with no biased views with regards to his thoughts on slavery, and just want to see a balanced POV expressed. So I would suggest that any sources by quoted in verbatim, with no attempts made to "read around" the meaning of the quoted text. And if possible, try to use sources which present the same argument/opinion but are not considered "fringe" material, because if someone can't attack your quote, they may attack your choice of source, such as the historian, his evidence, political views and biases, etc. in order to scrub his quote. In order to offer a "reliable source" it must first pass the test of a reliable source. Just citing a title means nothing, the author must have been objective and your extracts must be equally objective. Trying to describe Lee's views on slavery is fair enough, but be careful when trying to swing the article's POV and try not to give it undue attention. Mostly, it requires applying a lot of common sense, distancing yourself from the topic, and listening to other editors' concerns whilst trying to determine if their objections are actually justified or an attempt to maintain their POV over yours. Because of all the fuss over rising white nationalism and knocking down Confederate statues in the U.S. at the moment, this is a heated subject with a fragile socio-political landscape – don't stir the hornet's nest, but don't be afraid to be bold and contribute with carefully-constructed edits that are less likely to be reverted. An editor needs a good reason to challenge your material, and you simply have to listen to their issue and deal with it. Look out for circular arguments and editors who oppose your edits but don't offer valid reasons, particularly those who don't appear to have looked at your sources, as they tend to be from the "I just don't like it" crowd. — Marcus^(talk) 20:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"that quote suggests that Lee should have joined other white Southerners publicly advocating for Abolition in the antebellum period as a serving regular U.S. Army officer in Foner's opinion."

I am not certain of Lee's political concerns prior to the American Civil War, but suggestions of what a historical figure should have done often translate to the historian's fallacy: "The historian's fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision."

Several supposed historical blunders took place because the decision makers were acting on erroneous information or personal beliefs, were preoccupied with other matters, or did not perceive flaws in their plan making.

In Lee's case, Foner is suggesting that a plantation owner from Virginia should join the abolitionist cause. Not only would Lee have to offer manumission to his own slaves and those owned by his wife, but he would have to give up the Arlington estate (which he was administrating since 1857) and to publicly oppose the laws of his home state. "the Virginia legislature ended the ability of slaveholders to independently free their slaves and required each manumission to be approved by an act of the legislature." What would be Lee's incentive for this decision, what did he have to gain? Dimadick (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite so. (Although it did happen - see for example George Henry Thomas). Lee's reputation over the years has changed, but has not really been controversial until very recently. During the late Jim Crow period (1930-1960) Lee was cast as having abolitionist sympathies, largely based on fake sources. Scholars in recent times have attacked this position. The fact that Lee is controversial now, means that material is becoming available, and that the readers deserve an updated article; but, as Marcus says, it also means that the POV warriors will be out in force, and Randy in Boise is likely to argue for the account found in old children's books. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"The fact that Lee is controversial now" All prominent politicians and military officers involved in the American Civil War are controversial. They are endlessly either hero-worshiped or vilified in written sources, largely depending on the perspective of each historian or fiction writer on the war itself. The problem with Lee is that he was the subject of a hero cult:

• "In Homeric Greek, "hero" (ἥρως, hḗrōs) refers to a man who was fighting on either side during the Trojan War. By the historical period, however, the word came to mean specifically a dead man, venerated and propitiated at his tomb or at a designated shrine, because his fame during life or unusual manner of death gave him power to support and protect the living. A hero was more than human but less than a god" Dimadick (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the cautionary advice. I am no fan of hero cults. But Lee should be portrayed with some complexity in my view, rather than being caricatured in one dimension — before, during and after the Civil War.

At present the point of contention is whether apolitical silence on Lee’s part on the subject of slavery before the Civil War is to be presented as a character flaw relative to Foner’s unnamed crowd of “some white Southerners”, or as three sources would have it, behavior consistent with little “r” republican ethos in the U.S. Army office corps which saw an apolitical duty to submit to the rule of elected civilian officials by their silence on controversial issues.

The issue on the article Talk page is muddied by charges that my proposed language is WP:SYNTHESIS when there is no conclusion drawn in the text; there are only three related sourced statements that (1) the U.S. Army Corps of Lee's time was apolitical, (2) Lee was apolitical before the Civil War, and (3) Lee was publicaly silent on the subject of slavery -- a nationally contentious issue in the 1850s (which I did not source, as it is common knowledge).

Thus unless I misunderstand something here, there is an attempt to prohibit sourced information in an article contribution by misapplication of WP:SYNTH. I was hoping to hear more about the relative merits of Dispute Resolution alternatives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that the "attempt to prohibit sourced information" is due to your views on Lee's "apolitical silence" being considered some form of WP:Fringe theory which is then being cast down as "original research" or "synth" by other editors more familiar with how to misconstrue an editor's contributions as something less than they are intended to be? I would suggest that Dispute Resolution should not be followed at this stage, but rather you should try to broaden your argument, since some "fringe theories" (intention or not) can have merit if presented objectively. For a start, you said the "subject of slavery ... which I did not source, as it is common knowledge" should not be considered Wikipedia:Common knowledge, or rather it is "common knowledge" but it is not as commonplace as WP:BLUE and that leaves you room to explore the topic. By expanding your research to incorporate the background information, and then segue from "the subject of slavery" (supported with sources) to "Lee's views on slavery" (also supported with sources) you might be able to form a stronger argument and avoid the nay-sayers, so long as the argument you present is transparent, lacks personal interpretations and cannot be construed as WP:FRINGE or WP:SYNTH. It's a tricky topic, and will require finesse for Lee to "be portrayed with some complexity", even with support from a dispute resolution, you can't expect to go in to the article with a hammer and chisel and carve out a new line of reasoning just like that. At the same time, trying to force the issue via dispute resolution at this stage may be seen as an attempt to WP:GAME the system, since the current level of dispute is fairly low, as there hasn't been a ton or edit warring, discussion on the talk page has remained civil, and the number of editors involved in this dispute is low. You don't want to be seen as trying to POV-push via DR channels as that might backfire. It might be better to evalute the strength of your sources and any conclusions drawn from them and try to reassert your edits with more balanced views. The best way to do that, IMO, would be to thin-down Lee's views and consider his voice as one of many at the time, rather than a decisive opinion. If, as you say, Lee's silence was due to him submitting to "republican ethos" and not being outspoken on the issue, then to focus heavily on his views may be considered WP:UNDUE by some editors, whilst sourcing the only known sources on his views (I'm not clear if the three sources you mention are primary or secondary) and trying to draw conclusions from them, might amount to SYNTH at some level. Again, I'd say it's too early for dispute resolution, as I don't think it would achieve anything given the weight of the material. The argument for Lee's views needs to be developed further and more favourably, as it seems to me that other editors object more to your handling of the sources, rather than the sources themselves. I realise that User:Snooganssnoogans has reverted your edits 5 or 6 times, and this might be frustrating. I advise sticking with WP:BRD for a while longer, before going to WP:DR, and see if you can make any more headway. If another editor is constantly reverting your edits, they have to be clear why they are doing so, otherwise it just becomes disruptive and unproductive; so keep on his back within the talk page and maintain a dialogue before bringing drawing a crowd that risks clouding the issue further. — Marcus^(talk) 19:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the discussion. As though great minds run in the same track, Rjensen seemed to agree with you. He added three more explicit citations on Lee's apolitical silence during his U.S. Army career that were more focused than mine, including one from an author whose book I have not read in full. I do agree I need to learn more about Lee as background preparation to better inform the article with further contributions -- they will be on my Christmas list.

As a footnote, it is Snooganssnoogans and a very few others who have recently altered the tone of the article with half-truths -- for instance stating Lee caused a slave to be cruelly punished by whipping and deleting the qualifier that it was not out of Lee's capricious "dark motivations" of personal dominance of others as one editor posited at Talk, but rather as a customary consequence of a slave running away, administered in the Norris case by a civil officer of the court. --- As an alternative to selling him away South, a customary practice in the 1850s in the tens of thousands.

Does it need to be sourced that Lee knew of the forced outmigration of tens of thousands of slaves from Virginia to the booming cotton belt Gulf states when it is so consequential that Virginia actually looses U.S. Representatives in its Congressional delegation? He writes a letter to the New York Times denying he sold any slaves South, and all of the Custis estate slaves including Norris were manumitted in 1862 in northern Virginia counties where Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not take effect. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

All claims about a person needs to be sourced or they can be challenged and/or removed. Given that the "whipping" matter has been discussed in detail on the talk page, I'll let that discussion stand for itself rather that start the debate anew here without context. But it would seem that some editors had the same concerns regarding WP:SYNTH affecting your contributions on the matter. Again, what I said above should be applied... develop your arguments from more sourced background, with less trying to focus on isolated/controversial incidents that require you to come to conclusions that can affect the tone of the article, as they will draw the attention of editors questioning the validity of the material introduced or your methods. Good research speaks for itself and doesn't need stressing for effect. I don't know what qualifier you meant, but if others saw fit to remove it then they may have a legitimate reason, for example, qualifiers can be seen as a form of editorialising when used improperly. — Marcus^(talk) 14:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"As a footnote, it is Snooganssnoogans and a very few others who have recently altered the tone of the article with half-truths". Holy crap, what a blatant lie. You have absolutely clue what you're talking about or are opting to lie to these people. My first edits to the Robert E. Lee page were literally extensive direct quotes from several historians. I added these extensive quotes precisely to make sure that the nuances in these historians' assessments were all accounted for. I added these extensive quotes precisely because the topic was controversial and I knew that it would be challenged by unethical and deceptive editors who had a stake in either depicting Lee as the devil or whitewashing him. These extensive quotes were later paraphrased in a way so as to account for the substance of the sources without having to rely on an endless list of quotes. All I can say is that I'm extremely saddened and disappointed to hear you tell blatant lies about me on a separate forum (without even the courtesy of tagging me so that I can defend myself). The text about punishing slaves adheres exactly to the source cited. You deleted text that adhered to the source and added completely unsourced text of your own, which like all your edits to the Robert E. Lee page has sought to depict Lee's views and actions on the issue of race and slavery in the most positive light. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"stating Lee caused a slave to be cruelly punished by whipping and deleting the qualifier that it was not out of Lee's capricious "dark motivations" of personal dominance of others as one editor posited at Talk". This is a blatant lie or an example of absurdly bad reading comprehension. What you're referring to is another editor challenging your unsourced WP:OR text on the Lee's punishment of slaves. The editor repeatedly tried to explain how your edit was WP:OR and then to try to make you understand howWP:SYNTH works (because nothing seemed to get through to you) by using the hypothetical of an editor adding text saying that Lee punished slaves because of a "dark inner need". You of course somehow completely misunderstood the other editor's point just as you seem confused about everything else. It's either that or dishonesty. Pinging the other editor: User:A_D_Monroe_III Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, I must agree. Saying that I am assigning "dark motives" to R.E.Lee without evidence is basically assigning dark motives to me, which I take exception to. TVH, you should either bring that serious allegation at some administrators' forum, or retract it. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well that escalated fast, and I'm rather disappointed with both responses.

• @Snooganssnoogans: – as you say, being tagged is a courtesy it is not a requirement, it's only mandatory to notify an involved editor to the conversation at ANI, so let's not get side-tracked by spouting assumed protocol, it only wastes time. You've found your way here, one way or another, and that will have to suffice; since this is just a discussion and no action has been taken you haven't lost out be coming late to the party.
• @A D Monroe III: – I fail to see how @TheVirginiaHistorian: has assigned "dark motives" to you, I feel you have taken the remark too far and that there is no "serious allegation" except for the one implicated in your mind – in fact, I see your call for him to take his remark to ANI as a form of baiting, because anyone can see it won't hold water there and he'd only make a fool of himself if he did, so let's not have any more underhand gaming like that here. I see no need for a retraction of the remark, since the assumption is yours, IMO it was not an attack on you, it is only necessary for you to respond to the comment with regards to how it applies to edits about Lee's "dark motives", rather than introducing pretenses to defend yourself. Your exception is dramatically over-stated and wastes time also. As with Snooganssnoogans, there's a ton of discussion above, and you've decided to take one non-essential remark and make it about you instead of responding to the concerns regarding the article.

Both of you are experienced editors, but I see these two claims as phoney attempts to derail the focus of the debate and make the editor appear to be acting in bad faith, or to encourage him to make misguided reports against you in hopes they will boomerang and discourage his efforts, thus allowing you to evade the scrutiny he is applying to the article's content with regards Lee's attitudes on slavery. We will get back on track right now and say no more about it. Please continue to address the editor's concerns directly, since one of you has reverted TheVirginiaHistorian's half-a-dozen times already I think he deserves to have his case heard fairly and without any more of this blatantly obvious tag-team side-tracking which can only spiral out of control if allowed to continue. And please don't waste your time and effort retorting back at me because I don't give two shits. Just get on with discussing the topic and learn to handle yourselves with more restraint. I have given TheVirginiaHistorian a lot of advice from a neutral position on how to approach his edits objectively to avoid OR/SYNTH challenges, but I also remarked on how certain behaviours might be seen as "gaming the system", such as running to WP:DR without sufficient discussion to enforce a POV. However, it seems to me that if you two editors are not willing to debate the issue at hand and would rather bitch about speculative behaviours of the editor and I see that as gaming from a different angle. I consider it distractive and potentially uncivil if it persists. If you have concerns about TheVirginiaHistorian's contributions and claim to have no agenda/POV of your own, which seems to be implied from his "half-truths" remark, then please focus on those concerns directly. SNAFU. Thank you. — Marcus^(talk) 04:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans seems to misunderstand the premise of WP as a collaborative enterprise. Rather than allow a review of her out-of-chronological mishmash in “Lee’s few of race and slavery” with her cherry-picked snippets from reliable sources — each on inspection, showing in themselves at the cited links some complexity in Lee’s character, which she seems anxious to scrub from the article — Snooganssnoogans would have me start a new section of my own. I fear that the primary issue here may be one of misplaced WP:OWNERSHIP.

User:A D Monroe III insists on my home Talk page that I will rue the day I used "sarcasm" on an article Talk page, or on my home Talk page, or wherever, and while I offer to remove the offending passage now three times, he has not been able to point to any such instance for me to act upon. Egos need to be dropped on all sides, but I’ll not be driven off the article by simple WP:BULLY.

I am reluctant to proceed along with behavioral remedies. Having taught the emotionally disabled in a public school setting for twenty years, I have developed a preference for discussing issues among others with patience rather than applying coercion. Reason and learning can overcome great obstacles given enough time and collaborative resources. I was thinking about a wp:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or wp:Request for comment to begin, if the new-start section I am trying on Talk with the proposal does not gain traction, now with two citations for each of the three sentences in the text, in collaboration with contributions from Snooganssnoogans, A D Moore III, Rjensen and Gwillhickers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC is probably the best place to start an open discussion which involves other editors, because it should focus more on the topic and should get results. A dispute resulution is more likely to hinder progression and lead to tit-for-tat sniping about each other's behaviour and get no closer to dealing with the matter at hand. I have taken a quick look at the thread where User:A_D_Monroe_III insists there was some form of "sarcasm" but I fail to see any myself. Given that he appears to be in the habit of reading text emotionally and then loses focus on the topic, I would simply advise that you not waste your time responding to claims that select remarks come across as offensive, sarcastic, etc. It seems to be nothing more than a subversive tactic to draw undue attention to cherry-picked terms, apply subjective emotional attributes to them and then attack that person for holding a bad faith position: in short, it's a well-constructed but poorly executed form of the Strawman Argument and chances are even he isn't aware he's doing it. Deal with it by ignoring it. — Marcus^(talk) 11:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry if I'm seeing things that others don't. I withdraw my comment above. But I'm hardly emotional; that's a snap judgement. You can read the entire talk page if you want to see that.

Despite some weirdness, there is finally some (delicate) progress being made on talk. I'm not sure an RfC is best at this moment, just when we're trying to get some actual proposal worked out, rather than repeatedly debating what SYNTH means. But if an RfC is started, please make sure it's carefully worded for a very specific change, without hinting about how the article (or the editors) is being unfair to the truth. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RFA Darkdale

I've expanded the RFA Darkdale article a bit. Not 100% sure re armament, so further eyes on the article and any corrections / additions of wikilinks appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

EveryoneRemembered on Wikidata

Those of you who follow MilHist matters on Wikidata might like to note that there is now a property, Everyone Remembered ID (P4551), for IDs from the British Legion/ CWGC's "EveryoneRemembered" project. For example the Wikidata item for Wilfred Owen, Wilfred Owen (Q212719), has a link to https://www.everyoneremembered.org/profiles/soldier/336417/ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Andy. It certainly can't do any harm to link these things up. I don't have a use for it at the minute, but I'm sure someone will find one! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New online CWGC archive

Dropping a note here to point out this edit I made regarding the new online Commonwealth War Graves Commission archive, as I thought it might be of interest to some that watch this page, particularly the digitised minutes and older annual reports. Carcharoth (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Loc map question

Seine-Maritime department relief location map

Is there a formula for putting this loc map in *{{Location map+ |Seine-Maritime department relief location map |width=300 |float=right |caption={{centre|Le Havre}} |places= {{Location map~ | |lat= |long= |label= |position=right}} }}

here? Trial and error is getting me nowhere. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Le Havre

class=notpageimage|

Le Havre

Hi Keith-264. It's a bit of a faff, but where the map module hasn't been generated you have to create one yourself to denote the base map to be used and the edge coordinates. I have created one named "Seine-Maritime" which should work for this map. Example showing Le Havre at right. Code is: {{Location map+ |Seine-Maritime| AlternativeMap = Seine-Maritime department relief location map.jpg|width=300 |float=right |caption={{centre|Le Havre}} |places= {{Location map~ | Seine-Maritime|lat= 49.49|long= 0.1 |label= Le Havre|position=right}}}} - Dumelow (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Aah so that's why I couldn't do it. Thanks very much, it's for a section on Operation Astonia (1944) in my revamp of Infantry Tank. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

LiveJournal

Hi, there is a discussion here about whether the LiveJournal blog site is wholly unreliable as a source or whether some users such as bmpd.livejournal.com are regarded as reliable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Obligitory: "LiveJournal still exists?" - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a bit like saying "are some users on facebook reliable" ad while I suppose they could be, there is always a better place to get the information. Dysklyver 21:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

SOLDIER question

I thought I'd drop a query here about Draft:Eva Romero Jacques, who seems to be just short of meeting my interpretation of WP:SOLDIER. There's a reference from the Library of Congress, but it's not super-detailed, and the other sources provided don't give much more. Thoughts? Primefac (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you might be better looking at this form a feminist rather then military angle.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Really, she only needs to pass general notability anyway.★Trekker (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sort of what I was saying, she is more likely to be notable as a woman and Hispanic then as a solder (but I have to say, I did not see a lot on that either.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ★Trekker, at the moment she doesn't, that's why I'm asking here. I'll ping WIR though. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked at google books and I only found the ref that's already in the draft, sadly.★Trekker (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She does not meet the WP:Soldier notability guideline standard; but, may meet GNG for other reasons. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Definite SOLDIER fail. From my BEFORE I think she fails GNG (one book hit. She was/is an illustrative musuem exhibit - this seems to generate most of the google hits which are not so many). Note that first Hispanic Woman US soldier is actually not so easy to verify (though it is claimed here by possibly RS, hisoanics were present in the US even back in revolutionary times).Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: change NSOLDIER and drop the rank to SSG... for reasons...that in no way...could ever affect me personally... GMG^talk 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

😃★Trekker (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

So anyway, would there be any chance of sources being available in magazines or newspapers? If not does the draft get deleted or what?★Trekker (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll be declining the draft on notability grounds. If more sources (which, for the record, I was unable to find) are used in the draft, then it can be resubmitted and (presumably) accepted. It will only be deleted if no one works on it for 6+ months. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Typographic ligatures in squadron pages

When fixing pages with glyphs such as fi, ff, fl, ffi, and ffl in their body (like these) I found a relatively high concentration, ~2.5% of the total, in this group of WP:MIL pages. As other users has discovered on my talkpage, copy & pasting from pdfs and/or some other text editors will produce these artifacts, which impede searches & regular expressions looking for their plain-text variants. I haven't tried to find how they got there, but just thought I'd let the project know so as to try to minimize their creation.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

ARA Comodoro Somellera (A-10)

The "Argentine Service" section of the ARA Comodoro Somellera (A-10) article needs improvement to referencing. Spanish speaking members of this WP may be able to verify info from Spanish language sources already in the article. Also, information in the infobox re dimensions etc needs to be added to the "Description" section and referenced. Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)