Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 87

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90

Question

Security question: How do we judge openness vs. military security? If I served in a unit I can write-up more than enough info on the unit to push an article to b-class or higher. Maybe the NOR policy solves this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe407 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

From where I sit that balancing act would be done via citing information to reliable sources; if the information can not be cited, or can not be cited to reliable sources, then it would be removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Security is not an issue, but the verifiability of content is. There's nothing wrong with writing about something you know about as long as the conflict of interest guideline is observed. EyeSerenetalk 08:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tom and EyeSerene: WP:V and WP:N are the relevant guidelines, but also bear in mind the need to write in summary style and don't add too much detail. It goes without saying that any of the security laws and regulations which apply to you also need to be followed! Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ziaur Rahman FAR

I have nominated Ziaur Rahman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Help required with "Battle for Albania"

Hi. The article Assyrians in the United Kingdom mentions Assyrian participation in British forces in the "1944 Battle for Albania". I can't find any evidence of this battle, so I'm wondering if it has a different name. The operation is mentioned in this newspaper article. If you have any suggestions, your comments would be appreciated here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its a battle, i reckon it is the involvement of British forces in Albania during this period of WW2. British military missions were sent into the whole region during the war and especially during 1944. Maybe the Assyrian participation was with these missions. See Military history of Albania during World War II. Tristan benedict (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Muar

A peer review is requested for Battle of Muar as i think it is no longer a start class article. Tristan benedict (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's still a start-class article for us under our B-class criteria; it needs a few more citations. Apologies, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks for having a look, we will be back when we think its ready. Tristan benedict (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok Ed we've done more work to the article, if you've got time could you have another look at it. Much appreciated. Tristan benedict (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC on date-autoformatting and the linking of date fragments

These issues have been the subject of an ongoing ArbCom hearing, and a further RFC (after those held in November at MOSNUM) is under way to settle important details.

Which ever way you feel, it’s important that the current RFC capture full community opinion. You may wish to participate. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey all. I've been working on a barnstar for Airborne Warfare, to be given to editors who work on articles related to the subject. It's just a first try, and I've no experience with barnstars. What does everyone think? Any comments/help would be gladly received. Skinny87 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks nice ;) I spent a while this morning trying to find a suitable image per your post on my talkpage, but couldn't :P Maybe the parachute pic could be edited to make it less "US" and more generic, and combined with a barnstar? (Happy to have a go if you like) EyeSerenetalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd love for you to have a go, please! That was the least 'biased' image I could find - nearly went with the British Pegasus flash. Anything you could do to help would be awesome. Skinny87 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, will do. EyeSerenetalk 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Second the point about generalising the image, I would say that's explicitly USian. It might be worth looking at it in the round, para is only one part of airborne ops.
ALR (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Done now (see {{Airborne Warfare Barnstar}}). It's still a parachute I'm afraid, but a generic one ;) EyeSerenetalk 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I did have the lightbulb in mind actually, so that works out. :)
ALR (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Igor Kurchatov

Was a Russian physicist charged with the Soviet Union's first nuclear bomb efforts during WWII. I've added the basic {{WPMILHIST}} template but would also appreciate some eyes on the article itself to see if everything seems accurate as the sourcing is generalized instead of inline and we're dealing with some non-English translating. Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have DeGroot's Hell on Earth which has some stuff on him if I remember correctly, and I'm doing an MA on the Cold War, particularly focusing on the creation and use of nuclear weapons. So hit me up on my talkpage so we can talk specifics; I'd do some stuff now, but I'm already behind on an essay :) Skinny87 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, no rush, no worries! -- Banjeboi 15:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time FAC

Fountain of Time recently had one of the fastest A-Class promotions I have seen. I believe that means the project strongly supports the article. At has not been favorably reviewed at FAC. The recent oppose does not seem justified to me, but I am looking for feedback. The oppose suggest the article needs serious copyediting. Please come comment at the FAC and copyedit as appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces

This article has been defective since Q4 2007, because an image it relied on for the JGSDF rankings was deleted due to licensing specifications not being specified. Currently, the other two rank charts (for the ASDF and MSDF) have licensing specifcation problems as well. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Roy Cobb

The article Roy Cobb was recently de-PRODed for deletion, I believe. I've examined the article and gone through my sources, but have been unable to find out anything about Mr Cobb. I'd rather not send the article to AfD if he is notable (is being in Band of Brothers notable?), and my resources are not all-encompassing, so if anyone could help out and see if anything can be found, I'd be greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this about 18 months ago. The consensus seems to be then that some of the major characters in BoB are notable by virtue of the media attention that the television series attracted, such as Richard Winters, Ronald Speirs, Lewis Nixon (U.S. Army officer) and one or two others. A few may also have obtained notability independently, like Robert Sink and possibly David Kenyon Webster. However there are a number of articles on minor characters that don't seem to have consenus and I think Roy Cobb is probably one - as far as I know the only secondary source on him is BoB itself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
From memory, an article on one of the soldiers in Band of Brothers was deleted through an AfD late last year. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Roy Cobb has 1,370,000 hits on Google. Hugh Dowding has 23,100 hits. I would say that Roy Cobb is definitely notable on that basis. Wallie (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
...and 583,000 hits for Wallie, probably not a conclusive means of assessing notability. Fwiw, 66,100 on my name, so you win! (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
You should try "Roy Cobb" -wikipedia which gives approx 2,500, against "Hugh Dowding" -wikipedia 13,900. On the first 10 returns in each case 3 Roy Cobbs are not the one we are interested in, but all the Hugh Dowdings are. QED GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(od)Wallie, G-Hits is neverreally a decent idea of notability, and I'd imagine Roy Cobb is a rather common name. Skinny87 (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. G-hits alone are ignored when they're cited in AfDs. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
They may do. However, remember when the one lawyer brings up a point, and the other says "objection" and the judge says "sustained", the point is still made with the jury. :) Wallie (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What does that even mean? Those G-Hits point to hundreds, if not thousands, of different Roy Cobbs and don't prove notability. Skinny87 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources and 2000 year old historians used in FA/A class articles

I know it is quite common even in Roman/Greek A/FA articles, but what is the rationale for using primary sources/chronicles or ancient historians as sources? Why are they exempt from the general reccmmendation against relying on them, especically as moedern histroians can read the chronicles and rework them into modern works in conjunction with archaeological material etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The modern historians all refer to primary sources and many works cite the same passage in a source. So it's quite comfortable for the reader if undoubted information is derived directly from the primary sources while comments, interpretations and ambigous information come from secondary works. And 200 year old historians can still be up to date. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Certainly, it would be an odd article on, say, the Peloponnesian War that did not discuss Thucydides' history of it at some length. It's still considered a pretty definitive work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alert

I should say, alertS, as the following articles now have been the subject of controversial changes (some astute observers may notice a pattern emerging [LOL]):

Well, to be fair to the editor in question, not all of them controversial, and User:Wallie does make a lot of useful edits. However, I would like to make a request that some sort of discussion about Wallie's more controversial edits be started here once again. I'll try and gather diffs, but I'm never quite sure how to do that on wikipedia. Skinny87 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, and you are right to say not all edits in the aforementioned list have been controversial, but perhaps not well-thought-out or not going through the usual consensus path. FWiW, discussion is taking place in a BRD sort of way. Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
This is the third incident recently, and starting to look like tendentious editing to me. Props to you if you can talk him down, Bzuk, but my patience is definitely wearing a little thin :P EyeSerenetalk 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed of this discussion. Obviously some are not happy. I have been concentrating mainly on the non-British participation. Anyone in contention with me, I have discussed the issue. Some people get a little personal at time. I think it is fair to say that my perspective (everyone has one) is somewhat different than others. I got into a situation like this on the Second World War article. At the time, the Germans were being refered to as Nazis. I thought this was not correct. If I make a controversial edit, this can be discussed. Isn't that the best way? Wallie (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be, Wallie, that you aren't taking in what other people are saying - for example, you're still somewhat pursuing your whole nationalism thing, and still claiming that editors have various biases that are obscuring the truth or denying one figure or another their place in an article/history. That really needs to stop. Skinny87 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Skinny. I do not claim editors are obscuring the truth and do not think so. As for bias, we all have this! However, I don't think that the editors are more biased than others. As far as countries are concerned, I have sometimes done more research, and found out what countries the people are really from. Wallie (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Wallie, following the sage WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) which I hope you are also patterning, it might be time to gain some wiki-friends and even a mentor or two. Let's see if there are any takers? FWiW, I am not particularly offering but also not particularly adverse to the premise that a discussion via talk pages or email can be a useful means to clear up contentious issues, although I am a better talker than listener (or so my wife pointedly tells me!). (forwarded to your talk page, as well) Bzuk (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
Wallie, please listen to this well intentioned counsel. I've been lurking following your actions and I'm rather surprised and annoyed by your unwillingness to compromise. Please be aware that among those whose patience is wearing thin (very thin, in my case, seeing some of your edits to Keith Park) are administrators. Buckshot06(prof) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure I am willing to compromise. Thanks for the advice. Wallie (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with my edits to Keith Park. I had no idea that anyone was upset about this. There is no comment on the discussion page. How am I to know? 10:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Your usual trick Wallie: allegiance to British Commonwealth was more appropriate than 'NZ' and I speak as a former NZDF employee. Buckshot06

(prof) 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Never! You have me all wrong. I though allegiance to British Commonwealth was more appropriate than 'British'. That was a while ago. I had it explained to me that allegiance was to the service, and that was the RAF. It is correct now - New Zealand for his NZ service and British for the RAF service. Wallie (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have started a Cfd on Category:Scottish air marshals to test the category's appropriateness. Any one interested in addressing the category please comment, including (especially) Wallie.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too fussed. You can delete it, if you want to . I understand there is another one for Scottish admirals. I note that Wikipedia has placed these with the air forces they were associated with. Wallie (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
One could make the assumption that is because during the historical past Scotland had a navy, although following the 1700 something it would be somewhat erronous to present British admirals, born in Scotland, there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation query

I've just stumbled across Category:Meritorious Service Decoration (Canada) - the article itself is at Meritorious Service Decoration, no disambiguator, and it doesn't seem to need one. Do we need to take this to CFD, or can it just be fixed with a quick run through? Shimgray | talk | 10:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

RM notification

To interested Wikiprojects (Polish, Lithuanian, Milhist): Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Requested_move.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse

I have nominated Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Enigma machine FAR

I have nominated Enigma machine for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Vote on article name for 2008 South Ossetia war (aka August War, Five-Day War, Georgia-Russia Conflict, Russia-Georgia War ...)

The name of that article has been disputed almost from the second it was created. Following lengthy (but unfortunately unproductive) discussions on the talk page, we are currently holding a vote to settle the issue and stop it from being a constant source of distraction. Since there was an incident of vote canvassing, comments and votes by neutral outside editors are especially welcome. --Xeeron (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bump for last day of voting. --Xeeron (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Alexander Cavalié Mercer now open

The peer review for Alexander Cavalié Mercer is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [pf] 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Category notices for decorations and awards

Hi all.

I've just replied to someone who emailed us via OTRS asking why our "article" on the recipients of a particular gallantry award was incomplete - it seems they had interpreted the category page as being intended as an article listing all the recipients, and was wanting us to add someone to it.

This is not the first time I've had to do this - over the past three years, I think I've dealt with emails from five or six people who've got this impression, and strangely it's almost always to do with military decorations. Looking at the category pages, we also have a lot of cases of people trying to add relatives (usually) to the "article" by editing it directly.

On a couple of cases, I've added a headnote to the article to try and explain this, eg:

This is a list of people with Wikipedia articles who have been recipients of the United States military decoration, the Purple Heart medal, for being wounded in combat. It is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of past recipients.

Some have since changed into a much vaguer statement:

This category is for recipients of the Legion of Merit, a military decoration of the United States armed forces which is awarded for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements.

So, my thought. Would it be worth coming up with some kind of standardised template we can add to the tops of such categories, nicely formatted and so forth, which manages to explain clearly and concisely that this is just an index of Wikipedia biographies of people who've received X, rather than a comprehensive list, and please not to add more? It'd also give us a nice prominent point to link to the article on the award itself...

Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've often thought along the same lines: a lot of biographical categories seem to have this problem and I think the solution is some form of the blurb mentioned above. I'd provide a link to Wikipedia:Categorization some where in there though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Concur. We'd soon be swamped if we tried to list everyone with a medal, and a little explanation might go a long way. It's not always clear that a category listing is nothing more than an auto-generated article index. EyeSerenetalk 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Resurrected from the archives, 2009-03-29

I've created a mockup of a template for this at Template:Medal category, which gives us something like:

for {{Medal category|award=Purple Heart}}

Any thoughts on wording (or on a better way of presenting it) before I roll this out? Shimgray | talk | 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it, clear and concise. You might want to make the image smaller, though, so there isn't so much blank space in the template. – Joe N 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I was originally expecting there to be more text :-). Done! Shimgray | talk | 20:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I like it. Presumably this can be adapted for use with all decorations, including those non-miltary related?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I assume so, but I din't know if it'll require more flexible wording that way - do you "recieve" an honour, for example, or are you "awarded" it? Shimgray | talk | 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure of the exact terms of address. I think it'll have to be considered on a case by case basis. If I did want to adapt it for a different type of award (say by creating a new box with slightly different wording), would that be possible and how would it be done?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If we have defined usage cases (for a medal it needs to say X, for an order of chivalry it needs to say Y, etc) then we could do it with variables - we'd just need to figure out what all the possible options would be. Shimgray | talk | 22:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I think "recipent of the XXXX" works in almost all cases (and I really like the box by the way). The only exception I can think of at the moment is the Orders of Chivalry, in which case the correct term is "invested as a XXXX". Otherwise the wording is fine.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Very good idea, nicely executed! I've tweaked the wording slightly on the template (please revert if you disagree with the changes) to accommodate countries and units that are recipients.  Roger Davies talk 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten there'd be a few cases like that - though I suppose they're rare enough we could get away with saying "people". Now, the question is, how do we roll it out? Manually, or can we use a bot? Shimgray | talk | 01:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sticking to recipients, without saying "people", avoids the problem ;-) Probably best rolled out manually, that can't be that many of them, surely and any other little problem could be fixed at the same time.  Roger Davies talk 02:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've made it a bit more complex, so that it can now handle modifiers - {{Medal category|award=Victoria Cross|nationality=Australian|period=in World War I}} generates this:

It's now in place for all the Australian decorations; any thoughts on problems there before I go further? Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

& now (so I don't lose track) - Belgium, Canada, India, Italy, Poland, Romania, Rhodesia, & Sri Lanka. Shimgray | talk | 12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
...Pakistan, Vietnam, USSR, South Africa, NZ. Russia. Only the three big ones left - Germany, the UK, the US... Shimgray | talk | 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

PIAT

I'm gathering references for a future attempt at expanding/improving the article on the PIAT, that wonderful British anti-tank weapon, but I have to admit it's hard-going. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what the article could use would be some more on its development. More general info on its use, number issued per platoon, theatres of use and so forth. Who used it, by implication it's UK and Commonwealth but which nations, when and where. what about other Allies formed up under Commonwealth armies or divisions? By its nature as a short ranged tempermental weapon it seems that most any good hit against a German heavy tank made the user into some sort of hero but while we could possible fill the article with those examples, perhaps content on training and tactics would be more use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, development and tactics is definitely required, as is a much more expanded use section - the whole article needs work. It just seems to be a matter of actually finding the sources - a book dedicated to the PIAT would be a goldmine if anyone knows one. Skinny87 (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find anything on the Australian Army's use of the weapon in the South West Pacific. It seems to have been issued late in the war and was used at least in the Borneo Campaign, possibly in quite a different way from how it was used in Europe given that the Japanese didn't have any tanks in the area. Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a short piece in Quartered Safe out Here where George Macdonald Fraser talks about having been assigned to give training in the PIAT somewhere in Burma - it seems to have been used, or at least intended to be used, as a kind of light artillery, suitable for attacking pillboxes or river barges. Shimgray | talk | 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've got John Week's book on AT warfare, Hogg's coming soon, and an article on the PIAT from the Britain ant War magazine. But it seems like for the rest I'm going to have to piece it together from literally dozens of books/articles. There doesn't seem to be anything written about the PIAT in any great length. Skinny87 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A-class reviewers needed

Most of the current A-class reviews have been active for well over a week and require further votes and comments so that they can be closed. In particular, the ACRs on Raymond Brownell and the Australian light destroyer project have received two support votes and need a further support to be promoted (as they have no outstanding comments or oppose votes - though both are encouraged if editors have concerns about the articles) and Roman–Parthian War of 58–63, SMS Seydlitz, Wolfgang Lüth Ton That Dinh, Operation Deny Flight and Samuel Burston have each received a single support vote and no opposes. It only takes a few minutes to review articles and/or provide comments and your efforts would be greatly appreciated by the editors who have nominated articles for A-class status. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

French battleship Richelieu present at the surrender of Japan?

A question has been raised as to whether Richelieu was present at the surrender of Japan or not. Interested editors are invited to comment, and RS' that give information on this are very welcome. Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

List of wars involving the United States

Your input is requested on a move proposal here. Neelix (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC in Siege of Leningrad

Could you please comment the RFC! Bot removed it already once and we have received only two comments to the dispute. Please! --Whiskey (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the RfC listed at WP:RFC? (I couldn't find it) EyeSerenetalk 08:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

New Page

hey, I don't think the creator of the page did this, so I figured I'll do it for him. There is a new page about Brazil's efforts during WWI. It's still needs some expanding and sources, please help, (also, assess the article). Brazil during World War I. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I can help with the naval aspects of the article (glad I wrote Minas Gerais now ;). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Project scope?

Was wondering whether Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mary Anne Clarke falls within project scope. Best if someone else makes the call; sure is funny. DurovaCharge! 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My take is that she's a bit too peripheral to be within scope unfortunately. Nice restoration though :)  Roger Davies talk 08:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I looked at this and wasn't sure. As a person I'd say no, but the picture itself is relevant to Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, which is a milhist bio. However, I'll defer to the guv'nor ;) EyeSerenetalk 08:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Bagh :) I did it the other way round, based on the article it's currently in. If it were part of Prince Fred's article, I'd agree with you.  Roger Davies talk 09:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, well it's obviously not at the moment, but it easily could be. EyeSerenetalk 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
And, by a strange coincidence, now is.  Roger Davies talk 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Definitely within scope.  Roger Davies talk 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

:D EyeSerenetalk 11:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys. :) DurovaCharge! 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for copyeditor

The FA nomination of Capture of Fort Ticonderoga is going reasonably well, but one of the reviewers is requesting an outsider to copyedit the writing. Is there someone here who could make a pass over the article to tighten its language?

Thanks! Magic♪piano 12:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look over... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Magic♪piano 14:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Sub-lieutenant

The peer review for Sub-Lieutenant is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

President Obama -in his infinitely late wisdom - is sending more warships to the Somali coast to help the hostage situation there. Last night one TomStar81 expanded your Bainbridge article, but now word has it that USS Halyburton is heading to the scene as well. I do not know how things work here, but I think it would be a good idea to expand the other article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.56.121 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm very sorry to bear the bad news that a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia has impacted articles of interest to your project. Previously, I had thought it only impacted articles related to gastropods and mollusks. The short story version: User:GrahamBould, now blocked, copied text from books and non-free internet sources into literally thousands of articles over a span of perhaps three years. In its early days, the matter was addressed at the administrators' noticeboards, twice: here and here. Conversation about it is now taking place primarily at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. I do not yet know to what extent your articles are affected, but I have verified that at least one article still contains text copied directly from a book which I can only access in snippet: Pillbox affair. If you have interest in contributing to the evaluation or clean-up of these, or helping devise a constructive approach to the problem, please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't apologize for doin a good deed, Moonriddengirl, sometimes the bearer of bad news is the one that get the ball going on an important project. Owing to both the severity and the importance of the matter I will move a copy of this to the coordinators talk page and leave messages on each of the coordinator talk pages to get them up to speed on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for HM Bark Endeavour now open

The peer review for HM Bark Endeavour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos from the Australian War Memorial

Feel free to use these images. User:Benlisquare/Gallery#Australian War Memorial Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 07:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Missile farms

We seem to be missing an article on missile farms, significant to both ICBMs as well as ABM systems. Would be nice to be able to link it from various articles on missiles, weapons and defense systems.Student7 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to the list of requested articles of the Weaponry task force, that's the best place I could think of for it. – Joe N 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

archivebox

Exactly why can't I access the archives of this talk page? the {{archivebox|auto=yes}} was removed because it's not necessary ??? If I want to look up sequential archived talk, the search box cannot do that. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't imagined anyone would ever want to look through the things sequentially. I've added the box back for your use. Kirill [pf] 05:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Article on RN's LCAC(L) needed

Does anyone have any interest in creating an article on the British Royal Navy's Landing Craft Air Cushion (Light) LCAC(L), and/or any material for such an article? There has been some confusion of the LCAC(L) with the US Navy's Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC class}, with some users actually adding the Royal Navy as a user of the USN LCAC! (They were exported to Japan.) A dedicated article would help alleviate this confusion greatly. I can create a stub from the RN's web page, but I'd like to use more sources. However, I've been unable to find any more comprehensive info on freely-availabler internet sites. Thanks. (Also posted at WT:SHIPS.) - BillCJ (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be a militarized [2000] in which case there's an article at Griffon 2000 TD hovercraft. I suggest following that line of info. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
page suggests the same but doesn't give a source.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
seeing as the Griffon article cites the 2003-04 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships as the source of its info, looking into that or a more recent edition of Jane's may help prove that the British craft is a militaised 2000 TD (or will alternately demonstrate that the British craft is a derivative of the USN design). Does anyone have a copy at their fingertips? -- saberwyn 05:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World (link to Google books page) (which is in many ways better to Jane's IMO) calls these craft Type 2000 TDX(M) assault hovercraft (LCPA), as does the Landing craft of the Royal Marines article. The hovercraft were built by Griffen Hovercraft and the Naval Institute book provides their full stats. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks very much! At least that helps to clear up what it is. LCAC(L) seems to be a recent designation, and part of why there's confusion with the USN's LCAC. Comparing the pics on the RN website gives no doubt it's not a US LCAC. I'll make a redirect from LCAC(L) to Griffon 2000 TD hovercraft. It might be worth a variant article in the future, or at least a separate one for the military hovercraft. I know next to nothing about hovercraft, but I created the Landing Craft Air Cushion and Air cushioned landing craft pages simply because they did not exist, and I knew we ought to have articles on them. Thanks again for the help! - BillCJ (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

CFB Holberg/CFS Holberg

Now decomissioned but still in need of an article: I came across it and redlinked it on Holberg, British Columbia earlier and decided to post notice of it here. I think its counterparts northwards such as CFB Masset/CFS Masset may already have articles. Or not?Skookum1 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition for content reviewers

Good reviewing is the lifeblood of the project, providing the critical feedback so essential to improving an article's quality, particularly in our Peer and A-Class reviews.

Our top reviewers over the past three months are Joe N (55 reviews), The_ed17 (49 reviews), Cla68 (38 reviews), TomStar81 (37 reviews), Nick-D (34 reviews), Abraham, B.S., Wandalstouring, YellowMonkey, Cam, Ian Rose and Woody. In gratitude, they have each been awarded the WikiChevrons.

The following editors have been awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for their help and input: Catalan, Skinny87, Bellhalla, Jim Sweeney, Jackyd101, Patar knight, Hawkeye7, EyeSerene, Harlsbottom, MBK004, The Land, Piotrus, Binksternet, GraemeLeggett, IceUnshattered, Lazulilasher and Parsecboy.

We would also like to thank the following editors for their contribution to our review department: Eurocopter, Hlj, Lawrencema, MisterBee1966, Nudve, Patton123, Tpbradbury, AdjustShift, Amore Mio, AshLin, Bachcell, Buckshot06, Ceedjee, Cool3, Dapi89, EnigmaMcmxc, Fnlayson, Giordaano, John Smith's, Kevin Myers, Kyriakos, LinguistAtLarge, Maralia, Mjroots, Nigel Ish, NuclearWarfare, Perseus71, Piotr Mikołajski, Randomran, Redmarkviolinist, Saberwyn, Stepshep, Shimgray, Sniperz11, Tartarus and Una Smith.

If you would like to help review, simply go to Peer or A-Class in the review department and start! If you've never done it before, simply look at other reviews to see how others have approached it. You'll soon pick it up!  Roger Davies talk 15:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War reassessment

Hey, I came across that the Iran-Iraq War was a start class article. I'm not that good at assessing articles, but the article looks that it could be a B, GA, or A class article. Can someone reassess the article? Deavenger (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The current assessment is indeed correct. The article does not meet our B-class criteria as seen by the checklist in our project tag on the article's talk page. Since this project does not use C, and the article does not meet the B-class criteria, it is indeed a Start-class article in our assessment scheme. -MBK004 18:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for checking. Deavenger (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Heraldry and Vexillology

Hi! I've come over from WP:HV because I'm working on some stuff that is at least partly relevant to here.

  • Firstly, I'd like to make sure that anyone who might be interested in WP:HV has that link.
  • Secondly, I'd like to ask whether 'Province of' Prussia article fall under the scope of this project, for some of them could definitely need improvement.
  • Thirdly, it's likely that because heraldry was largely a military thing, that there may well be sections in, say, material covering the Province of Oldenburg that is relevant to the area's heraldry. Details of colours, flags, banners etc. may be present - I'd like to ask that this material be posted on these pages, particularly sourced, so that the WP:HV department can work it into relevant H&V articles.
  • Are there any good websites covering the individual histories of the consituent states of the German Empire?

Thanks, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for help re: Terminology of Battle of Britain

The designation: "Battle of Britain" is normally capitalized, and it was my understanding that the use of the term thereafter if shortened, as in "the Battle" should also be capitalized. The RAF use this form, is it correct? This stems from an anon that insists that only the full term be capitalized. See:Battle of Britain (film) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

online ressources for research

I changed my subjects to include some history besides archaeology. So I learned that there are several research tools for historians online that can be freely accessed. Should we start a list of these in the logistics departement? Wandalstouring (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:German punitive operations

Is it just me or is that name a bit strange? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Requests

  • It’s good for background info and such, but horribly incomplete, especially in the hard technical data. I know no two Monitors are the same, but at least some basic information could be collected. The PBR and Swift boats are totally different craft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.68.186 (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais now open

The featured article candidacy for Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:External media nominated for deletion

Template:External media, which is used in quite a few articles within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Editors who have an opinion on this template can comment at: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:External media Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles filtered by date in Virtual earth applications

I'd like to update folks here on something they may find interesting. Some time ago, Google earth and other applications agreed on a syntax in KML for specifying timespan coordinates that are passed along with coordinates to map applications. Although Google uses the general term "historical imagery"[1] to refer to the use of this data[2], currently Earth only uses the slider to move back to earlier aerial photos. But as more kml layers become available it doesn't take genius to anticipate them introducing such a slider not to switch the map views, but to filter wikipedia and other markers with timestamp information. So for instance the user could see all WP articles on events in Northern France in the 1940s.


The only app I know where you can today enter and view this information is in google earth (see pushpin properties view tab), but clearly all the virtual earth applications are going to try to offer it if folks find it cool. And I think they will, because it is like Mr. Peapody's Wayback machine. Anyway, it is technically possible to pass this date information to Google earth and see it, so by the time they and other applications put in timeline sliders that use this information, we could be in position to have Wikipedia articles prominently featured using this hypothetical timeline control. Military event articles are excellent candidates for this. I think I can just scrape the information from the military conflict infoboxes.

This sort of thing doesn't have anything to do with microformats or date template syntax, since the perl script would just use the wikitext not the microformat stuff and because the perl would be able to parse dates whatever template they used. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Hi all; We have a new article History of Adolf Hitler as well as the established Adolf Hitler article. The new article History of Adolf Hitler seems to be well written and referenced. Can the community have a look at both, I cannot see a need for both articles. Possibly we can merge them ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The new article seems to have been a straight copy and paste from the main article. I've just converted it to a redirect as it doesn't have any unique content or reason to exist but is a possible search term. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

{{expert-subject}} (Military History)

You might want to work article tagged with this into your open tasks. A number of article in the backlog at Category:Articles needing expert attention since January 2007 are tagged for Military History so no one one seems to be working through them at the moment.--BirgitteSB 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Gladiator in scope for MILHIST ?

Today's featured article Retiarius is not tagged for MILHIST , same for Gladiator are they in scope for MILHIST ?

Text copied over from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Classical warfare task force
Rogers comments left in as I believe it deserves a wider audience

I must say that I'm surprised that today's featured article Retiarius is not tagged for MILHIST , same for Gladiator. Have they just slipped the net or is there a reason ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the reasoning here is, actually. They could be considered sport-related topics rather than military-related ones; but jousting, for example, is considered in-scope despite that fact. This may warrant a discussion on WT:MILHIST. Kirill [pf] 05:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I do hope this discussion wasn't initiated just to get the pun in about slipping the net :)  Roger Davies talk 05:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That had also slipped the net --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have assessed Retiarius for milhist, considering that, as stated in the article, most of them were ex-soldiers in the Roman military. I think we should do the same for Gladiator. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Gladiator has been tagged for MILHIST by a unknown user so seems to have been sorted but I believe the count on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Classical warfare task force need updating with one FA --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. Gladiators were entertainers. They are not military history.

Some gladiators were ex-soldiers. So are some modern entertainers (e.g. Michael Caine, and Sean Connery).--Toddy1 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree; they seem to fit perfectly into the MILHIST spectrum. Skinny87 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo and

There is a long running debate about how to present some information in the Battle of Waterloo. The battle has extremely strong national POVs in many of the secondary sources. Some Dutch editors would like to replace some British slanders with the facts as presented in Dutch histories. It would help if more editors would get involved in the debate.Please see the sections:

--PBS (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force  Roger Davies talk 06:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Capture of Pirates and Vessels off Somalia

How should these articles be named? By the name of the ship? By date (Incident of dd mm yyyy)? Any suggestions? Pustelnik (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in a single list, and then by date/vessel? If the individual sections get too long, they can always be broken out.  Roger Davies talk 06:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic photos available

New Zealand's Alexander Turnbull Library has placed some historic NZ photos on Flickr The Commons with no known copyright restrictions. These include some battleships and other navy vessels and some photos from the WWI victory parade in London. Very easy to upload to commons using the Flickr tools. Gwinva (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There are some good pictures there! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Some really good pre 1900 images too. Just a cautionary note: Before you get your heart set on any particular one of these images, NZ copyright law is the authority, not the Flikr notice of "no known copyrights". Take a look at New Zealand copyright rules here [3]:

Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works are protected for life plus 50 years under the Copyright Act of 1994.

So everything prior to 1900 is probably fair game, but the +50 years after death makes even the WW I stuff problematic unless you can document the death date of the photographer. Fortunately, those names are provided. Sooner or later, Commons will boot any image without proper rights, it would save everyone a lot of wasted time if you do your homework up front.
Good news though- if the photographer was working for the NZ government, any photo prior to 1945 is PD.source. "Henry Armytage Sanders was the official New Zealand photographer and cinematographer in France and Belgium. He took all the NZEF historical photographs with serial numbers in the H series." Other official photographers: Thomas Scales, Malcolm Ross source -J JMesserly (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The NZ gov site has very high rez versions of the flickr images, but you have to look at them through a keyhole. It is possible to paste these portions of the high res image together from screen dumps, and maybe some people will try that for some of the more rare images. Rather tedious though. Sooner or later the high res versions are going to be published. Why not sooner. In their infinite wisdom perhaps the NZ government could do like the German government and just give the foundation the high res versions, via dvd or access to a server. -J JMesserly (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that JJMesserly. As discussed at the Commons village pump, the National Library themselves offer these images as "no known copyright restrictions" and invite people to make use of them, so indications are that they'll be alright, but it is certainly worth adding any more information that we can to the description pages. I've concentrated the images I know of at commons:Category:Images from the New Zealand National Library. Gwinva (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the images are by William Hall Raine who died in 1955. According to commons:Template:PD-NZ, works by creators who died prior to 1959 are PD. Gwinva (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bayonet needs cites

Bayonet is peppered with "citation needed" tags, with statements that aren't tagged as needing a cite but nevertheless do, and the overall article has been templated with "This article needs additional citations for verification" since July 2007. Anybody interested in working on this? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied to weaponry task force talk page  Roger Davies talk 06:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Project tag

Please feel free to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Doc Blanchard#Mil hist tag in regards to whether or not the WikiProject Military history banner belongs on the related article and if the subject is within the scope of this project. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Operational Plan Three the 1903 German plan to attack america original documents question

In reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Plan_Three there is the citation of Jonathan Lewis, The First World War DVD, Disc One, Part Three: Global War, (Image Entertainment, 2005) I have just watched this and the show had fleeting glances of the operational maps and the plan. These looked to be the original german documents from 1903 and I was wondering where these orignal documents may be viewed . Of course I hope that they would be online somewhere but a after an afternoon of searching I have come up empty

Windshadow (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv would probably be the place to start. David Underdown (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Panzer commanders and aces

Category:Panzer commanders and aces has been proposed to be split into Category:Panzer commanders and Category:Panzer aces. See Category talk:Panzer commanders and aces#Split.

76.66.196.218 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ace Of Aces

Ace Of Aces seems to contain a lot or O.R. I am not aware of the use of Tanker Aces or Submarine Aces as a name to describe the best tank/submarine commander or is it crews. Anyone got any thoughts or proof that the term is in common use and after a quick check the articles for the tank and submarine Aces do not claim they were an Ace --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I can answer your question but I have my problems with the article on a different level. We already have lists of "aces", we have them for fighter pilots, in all flavours, per country and per conflict and we have lists of successful U-boat commanders. I'm not sure what value this list adds; especially since currently it surely isn't complete. I don't want to come across biased but surely some British, French, etc. Aces should qualify here as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article appears to have little value; the criteria for inclusion are unclear (Who awards the title? How? Is it 'official'?) and the information does appear to be subjective. My personal feeling is to turn the article into a redirect or disambig page. EyeSerenetalk 07:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

African Union Mission to Somalia

Checked this given the donors' conference and it needs updating. Would anybody interested please join me in bringing this up to scratch? Kind regards to all Buckshot06(prof) 20:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New Milhist image

File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg - I leave it up to you if you want it (or details from it - it should be trivial to take some details of the battles from the PNG version) in any articles other than the ones it is currently in. It cleaned up very nicely. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great find. Good job! :-) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Copied to American Civil War task force  Roger Davies talk 09:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

British Army establishments during WWII

Does anyone on the off-chance have a source describing the establishments of British Army units during World War II? I'm specifically looking for the number of PIAT anti-tank weapons issued to every platoon, company, battalion, brigade and division. If anyone can help out, I'd be extremely greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I do, but unfortunately not to hand - as I recall, British Army Handbook 1939-1945 (George Forty) has some fairly good tables of this sort of thing, if you want to try and track it down. Shimgray | talk | 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it counts as a reliable source, but this website is excellent and when I used it for wargaming it always checked out with other sources. orbat.com might also be worth a look and is very reliable. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Indian Air Force now open

The peer review for Indian Air Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Albert Kesselring now open

The A-Class review for Albert Kesselring is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian battleship help needed

I'd go with whichever your gut feeling says is the more accurate source, or failing that, with something general, like "was launched in September 1908.". Then, add a verbose footnote to explain the different information and the discrepancy - "...was launched on 9th September 1908.<ref>Report in the NYT, 11th September. The date is given in some secondary sources, eg X and Y, as the 10th.</ref>" This lets you keep the text quite clean, whilst chewing the sources for the benefit of anyone who might be interested. Shimgray | talk | 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The Times 11 September report of the launch is dated 10 September: "Launch of a Brazilian Battleship". News. The Times. No. 38749. London. 11 September 1908. col B, p. 8. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) An editorial on the tenth commented on the coincidence that Minas Gerais was launched on the same day as the dreadnought battleship St. Vincent: "The Launch of the St. Vincent". Editorials/Leaders. The Times. No. 38748. London. 10 September 1908. col E, p. 7. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) So the New York Times is just plain wrong.
As to commissioning, a report of 6 January categorically states that the ship was handed over by Armstrongs to the Brazilian Commission on behalf of the Brazilian government, with the ship's company mustered on deck (the launch date of 10 September 1908 is also repeated): "Naval and Military Intelligence". Official Appointments and Notices. The Times. No. 39162. London. 6 January 1910. col D, p. 4. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm now thinking that the NYT either had a typo or there was a miscommunication between the writer of the piece and the publisher? Who knows. :) Am changing that now.
As to the commissioning, I'll add that article in as a reference. Thank you both for your help! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, sorry Ed - major correction - I was so tired last night I omitted the very important fact that the handing over ceremony was on 5 January! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 08:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
...oh. Lovely. :-) So there are three possible commissioning days? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and a question: define "Brazilian Commission" for me so I can add it to the article? :)
I chose the 5th as the most likely date; the Miramar Ship Index agrees with that date as well. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
And one last thing. :) The sentence you added about gunnery trials—when were they? Before or after she was commissioned? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
What about asking the Brazilian Navy directly? They should have a PR or Historical dept. I don't speak portuguese, but whoever has understanding of spanish can make an educated guess of what their website says. Cheers! DPdH (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the handing over would have to mark the commissioning. I will investigate this Brazilian Commission tomorrow. I have no idea when the Gunnery trials were held; I will attempt to work it out by process of elimination (or Times article!) because Tupper, the man whose reminiscences I quoted, was in command of H.M.S. Excellent, the Royal Navy's premier gunnery training school. The most interesting part concerning this is that Tupper supposedly personally tested the blast effect of super-firing turrets from a sighting hood in Minas Gerais - and only had his hat blown off apparently. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(@ DPdH) - website can easily be translated using Google Translate. ;)
(@ Harls) - Ok. Thanks for the help! This could get really interesting now...I have now in my possession a copy of a very old Scientific American article that says this about the gunnery trials:

The gunnery trials created unusual interest, and the representatives of several powers were present thereat. The trials served to dissipate conclusively many apprehensions that had formerly been entertained. For instance, there was considerable discussion as to what effect would be produced upon the gun crew in the lower barbette of the fore and aft 12-inch guns when the weapons immediately above were discharged. In the first test the crew were withdrawn from the lower gun house when the upper pair was fires. It was found, however, that the roof of the lower house offered a complete protection against the blast, and that the crew could safely stay in the lower house without experiencing the slightest ill effects of the tremendous blast some five feet above their heads. It was also considered that the principle of setting the fore and aft guns one above the other and at a distance of 36 feet center to center was objectionable, on the plea that the upper guns would be interfered with from the flash of the guns just below, but here again practical trials dispersed any objections.

—Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There's still a Brazilian Naval Commission in the United Kingdom. Don't know any contact details, but it's located on Upper Richmond Road in Putney, about where the top right of the box marked A205, just below Putney Rail Station is on this map. David Underdown (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be its official webpage (English version) http://www.cnbe.mar.mil.br/Portal/bladerunner.asp?PortalID=Portal&ContentID=Ingles David Underdown (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How to "tag" an article for expansion/translation?

Hi All, I've noticed that the article Kriegsakademie in this wikipeida is just a "stub", however in the german wikipedia is quite extensive and also seems reasonably referenced (AFAIK, as i don't read german). Is there any "formal" way of tagging an article to show that it needs expansion thru translation of a similar one existing in a different languaje wikipedia? Or any related "tab" or "list" in this project's page?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Expand German may be what you're looking for as an article tag, but I don't know where you'd list it after that. -- saberwyn 02:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It should list itself at Category:Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia once the template's in place. I have no idea how actively the category is monitored or responded to though. EyeSerenetalk 08:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces

The article Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces was created by User:Malin Tokyo in July 2008 and has been a matter of contention between her and several other editors ever since. Some core issues are how ranks compare to those of other countries in actual usage (rather than by OR/OF codes), whether such comparisons are suitable material for the article at all, whether to use the term NCO, etc. It's a nice little mixture of ownership, COI, personal attack, OR and POV allegations. A huge problem is the horrible talk page layout, making its 62 sections very hard to follow. As this is a very active project, people here probably have experience with other articles on ranks, and outside views would certainly be welcome, I hope someone might have the insane amount of spare time required to look at it. —JAO • T • C 09:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Nordic military history task force  Roger Davies talk

Stout-hearted volunteers needed for endless task

WP:MHA#BACKLOGS

The backlogs are getting large-ish again. What we really need here is several more editors following the dynamic links as part of their daily routine and pouncing on them as they swell. Any volunteers?  Roger Davies talk 12:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll chip away as time permits. Looking at the unassessed articles category, there are one or two that don't look like they belong with milhist. Can we just remove the project template? EyeSerenetalk 13:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks! And feel free too :)  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll volunteer. I'll keep an eye on them and knock off a few and hopefully get them back doown towards zero. Kyriakos (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Good man!  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I knocked down a few, and will try to look in on them more often. Magic♪piano 13:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've started doing a few of th etaskforce ones - for museums, do we have a consensus on whether it's appropriate to include them in an "era" taskforce assuming that the contents of that museum relate (at least in part) to that era, so eg the regimental museum for a unit that fought in both world wars would be included in the era taskforces? David Underdown (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Will do some when I have some spare time so we dont duplicate work I will start on the Category:Military history articles with no associated task force from Z - A --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've knocked out all of the forts, which seems to have cut the numbers a bit. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've marked up a museum or two - who'd have thunk that the museums project would rate the Royal Armouries as low importance.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been removing a few articles from milhist, notably those concerned with the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. While the Park itself clearly comes under our purview as the site of the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse, I'm not convinced that some of the sub-articles on the houses in the village (Peers House, Plunkett-Meeks Store etc) are especially relevant. However, I'd welcome a second opinion. EyeSerenetalk 08:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right on, EyeSerene. One thing you might check are the categories on the articles in question to make sure that there's not one that will trigger retagging by a bot in a future run. I noticed that somewhere along the line several articles on cities named "Fort Something, Statename" had a "Forts in XXX" category added (even though they were clearly only about the town), which had prompted the tag. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hadn't thought of that. Thanks Bellhalla, I'll go back and double-check. EyeSerenetalk 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone! The backlogs are now back to single figures. If everyone could keep this on the radar with occasional visits, it will remain manageable. Thanks again,  Roger Davies talk 04:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "Yorktown class gunboats"

The following articles:

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Reinhard

Does this event belong in MILHIST scope (if so, it is not tagged), and does it belong to Category:Military operations? Please note it is a subcategory of Category:Nazi SS, which clearly belongs to MILHIST, and please note that Category:Operation Reinhard does not belong to any "organization" overcategory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As it primarily involved the military, I'd say it is within scope.  Roger Davies talk 04:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree - I've added a couple of cats and tagged and assessed the article for milhist. EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "Boston campaign"

(Belated mention, it's been posted for a little while now.)

The following articles are under consideration for Good Topic status:

Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. Magic♪piano 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Weston Jarvis

I have just created a very stubby article on Sir Alexander Weston Jarvis (1855-1939), who was briefly a British Conservative Member of Parliament.

However, with a bit of googling I found this webpage which suggests that he bhad some sort of role in the Boer War. I'm not sure of the reliability of http://www.angloboerwar.com/ , and military history this isn't my territory, but I hope it's OK to leave this quick pointer here in case anyone can either expand the article or add a few categories or whatever which might flag up the article for the attention of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! I'll try and look into it in more detail later. Shimgray | talk | 10:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-written articles on Italian World War II combat aircraft

A new editor has been active in systematically changing all articles that pertain to Italian aircraft in World War II, see Fiat CR.42 Falco, Macchi C.200 Saetta,Macchi C.202 Folgore and Fiat G.50 Freccia as examples which I do not see as a problem. However, the same editor has also re-edited the Curtiss P-40, Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane articles inserting contentious claims of superiority of Italian types. Each statement. albeit always referenced, refers to individual actions. There could possibly be a situation where an Italian biplane actually downed a more modern fighter but that does not really does not address the issue that the editor stated to me, i.e. in redressing the current view of Italian World War II combat aircraft as being inferior. He implicitly stated that a forty-year history of historians who saw Italian aviation in that light have to be challenged. I am sensing an intervention here... (LOL) FWiW, can some of the more experienced hands here take a look at the contributions of this editor Bzuk (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

I've left the editor a note; I haven't removed anything from the articles you've listed as there's been a bit of activity since the edits and I'm not particularly familiar with the subjects, so feel free to work your magic to redress any WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues introduced. I'll keep them watchlisted too, but please repost/nudge me on my talk page if problems continue. EyeSerenetalk 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Able Archer 83

User:Socrates2008 has nominated Able Archer 83 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I regret to inform that the article history lists TomStar81 as the user who promoted the article to FA status, but a check of TomStar81's page reveals he is absent, and indeed he has edited sporadically since mid April. Is there any way we can postpone this FAR until TomStar81 returns? It seems bloody unfair to have the article undergo this review with him gone for at least a fortnight. 75.18.123.130 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all - very happy to postpone to allow him to participate when he's back. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Where am I supposed to ask a question like this?

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators  Roger Davies talk 04:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Downes_(naval_officer)

Among the Essex's many prizes was the whale ship Georgiana, "which Captain Porter fitted as a cruiser, with sixteen guns, named the Essex Junior, and placed under the command of Lieutenant Downes who retained this place until the capture of the Essex and the conversion of the Essex Junior into a cartel, 28 March 1814."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_(1799)

The next five months brought Essex thirteen prizes, including Essex Junior, (ex-Atlantic) which cruised in company with her captor to the Island of Nukahiva for repairs. Porter put his executive officer John Downes in command of that ship.

In the above it appears to me that the ship named Essex Junior had two different former names being the HMS ex-Atlantic and a whaler named HMS Georgiana. Which of those two re-named is correct and where should I have posted this question if not here?
The above was posted elsewhere and it was suggested that I ask in WP:SHIPS I am not familiar with this area and do not know where questions of this kind are supposed to be asked so I finally settled here. —Brother OfficerTalk 02:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The classic British text on this subject, William James' The Naval History of Great Britain agrees with the Atlantic story. Given that Downes has no references and the Essex information is taken from the ususally reliable DANFS website, I think Atlantic is more likely to be accurate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

POV Push on Battle of Mogadishu (1993)

Someone with an obvious interest in Somali history is pushing POV on the Battle of Mogadishu. The person is unable to separate the Battle of Mogadishu 'Irene' from Gothic Serpent as a whole. Insisting that because Task Force Ranger didn't capture Aidid during the Battle of Mogdishu, that the TFR didn't meets it's objectives to be a "tactical victory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.171.106 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the article is backed up with citations, but most is not. This needs fixing.

As for neutrality - that is a difficult area - you cannot solve it with the sources that currently exist - but allowing people with different points of view to edit the article will produce improvements, providing that they are forced to back up what they say with proper citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Australian Defence Force now open

The peer review for Australian Defence Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question?

User:MisterBee1966 has three articles up for an A Class review. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine , Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service

All are FLC does that not mean they are already presumed to have passed an A class review, or is it different as they are lists ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no formal relationship between featured content review and A-Class review; something that passes the former without going through the latter sits above A-Class on the assessment scale, but its actual A-Class status is undefined.
(We're discusssing the precise circumstances here, however.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems we have a bit of a dilemma as I read it if an article skips A class and goes straight to FA/FL and is then demoted it drops to B class. Just doesn't seem right --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
As Kirill implies, that problem is that in practice there are two assessment scales: our WikiProject scale (Stub/Start/B/A) and the community-wide scale (GA/FA). It's unfortunate that they're shoved together in the quality scale, but attempts to reform this have so far been in vain :P However, if an article hasn't been through a milhist ACR, I don't think we should in all conscience award it the rating (although there are arguments for doing so). EyeSerenetalk 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe N 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for No. 410 Squadron RCAF now open

The Peer review for No. 410 Squadron RCAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – TARTARUS talk 01:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Operation Perch now open

The featured article candidacy for Operation Perch is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Ancient Egypt

The article Military history of Ancient Egypt has been tagged for years, and still needs a ton of work. I did a bit but lack the sources to write a complete article. For example, there is almost no mention of any conflicts, the only weapon/soldier type discussed in any detail at all is the use of projectile weapons, images are lacking, sources are absent from several sections etc. Again, I can try to improve the prose but since I don't have access to sources at this time, someone with resources should give a bit of attention to this article to improve its quality. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg

This image is currently up for FPC, and it would appear that the people there have been hit by a brain-sucking virus. I for one think that our only colour image of Grant and our only image covering Grant's early military career is highly useful to this article. Not to mention that it's made by one of the major artists of the American Civil War, whose contemporary lithographs are the lead image for many of our battles, such as Spotsylvania.

However, evidently, contemporary images that use contemporary styles of art - this sort of layout was very common for lithographs and engravings - should never appear in any encyclopedia article. I swear. Three people said that.

This is why I think that FPC is completely and totally broken.

Crossposted to Talk:Ulysses S. Grant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting question

In an article section I'm working on, I'm reinforcing how wrong a large a number of historians were on one point. The only problem is I've got a long line of inline citations which looks ungainly, i.e. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] And it's only going to get longer. Is there any way round this? Cheers, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 19:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I might put it all in one footnote, like <ref>Among the historians who have made this mistake, are Smith, p. 256; Doe, p. 64; Johnson, p. 45; etc.</ref> Just an idea :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Parsecboy. Inside the ref open and close tags, links can be placed if you want, and if it ends up looking better, break tags can be used instead of semicolons between the various wrong historians. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You could also but all of that into an extended note using one of the methods outlined at WP:REFGROUP. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would have gone with "Though often stated to be...... <ref>including noted historians x, y and z in the books 1, 2, and 3 on the matter </ref> the case was that....because..." then the ref stating the cases. Though it would be easier if you reffed a single source that stated that a bunch of historians were wrong - stating it yourself smacks a little of OR. If the matter is disputed you might have to phrase it as a difference of opinion between sources. (most say, "x" but so-and-so says "y" and then state why) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines of "it has been often been stated "ref","ref","ref","ref" or suggested "ref","ref","ref","ref" that..." and then "but x says y because" and then include the definitive argument. I quite see your point about OR. The facts as laid out with the final reference will be pretty definitive though. Thanks Ed - I didn't know you could have refs inside a ref group note before - that'll make things a lot easier! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, they are rather useful... :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Farkhor Air Base in Tajikistan

Farkhor Air Base in Tajikistan is presented in the main article as synonymous with Ayni Air Base. To the best of my understanding, the Farkhor Air Base is on the southern border of Tajikistan, "130 km south-east of Dushanbe". The Ayni Air Base is in the suburbs of Dushanbe, just 10 km west or south-west of the capital. If I am right, the two air bases should be disentangled into separate articles. Can anyone help? --Zlerman (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, they are two different bases. Here is an explanation of their relationship: "India's initiative to refurbish Ayni followed the earlier establishment of its first military "outpost" in Tajikistan at Farkhor on the Tajik-Afghan border. The 'quietly functional' Farkhor base was an extension of the field hospital India established in the late 1990's as part of its role in helping Afghanistan's Northern Alliance in the fight against the Taliban regime. Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, targeted by assassins, died in the Indian-run hospital two days before September 11, 2001." Askari Mark (Talk) 04:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the other aspect is that it's a bit essay-like at the moment. The geopolitical implications of the site are pretty speculative, as is quite a bit of the preceding material.
ALR (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tucker class destroyer now open

The A-Class review for Tucker class destroyer is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for K. Subrahmanyam now open

The A-Class review for K. Subrahmanyam is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Teddy Sheean now open

The A-Class review for Teddy Sheean is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cavaliers and Royalists

(I did ask this at the British Task Force talk page, but I feel that the broader spectrum of readers here might give a better indication of where consensus lies. I've also refined my question, making it more specific in light of some research I did myself.)

Anyhow, here's my question: in the context of the English Civil War and related conflicts, three terms are used in contemporary and modern sources to describe the supporters of King Charles I[1]:

  1. loyalist, a term used at the time, as a self-reference (I've just added a brief reference on the disambig version of that sorry page);
  2. royalist, a term used occassionally at the time self-referentially, apparently with a sort of 'foreign' connotation, that has taken hold much more in modern times (article is itself a disambig, directs visitors to:);
  3. cavalier, a term used solely by the Parliamentarians/Roundheads (I'll save that debate for another day), with (derogatory?) lifestyle connotations, perhaps a subset of the supporters of the king (finally, an actual article about the people, though not FA class)

It's seems an odd arrangement to me: are people more likely to look for cavalier or royalist in these modern times? Is using either term inherently NPOV? Would it be best to collaboratively rewrite Cavalier to feel more like it represents all three terms? All views appreciated. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that roundheads and cavaliers are the terms usually used in history classes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ This google book
Am currently studying the civil war at uni; the term Parliamentarian or simply the term parliament i.e. Parliament’s army etc I have only scanned through the book, checked the glossary and index – there is no mention of Roundheads. Likewise there appears to be no mention of cavaliers again it’s the King’s army or the King’s supporters etc (The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, Anne Laurence)
I don’t believe the colloquial terms should be used as the article names but once established that a supporter of the King was called a cavalier I wouldn’t object to it then being mentioned throughout the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to think how we apply WP:NCCN, those whose historical knowledge basically comes from secondary/high school education are likely to be more familiar with the Roundhead and Cavalier terms, so we need to be sure that those get Wikipedia readers to somewhere sensible, even if only by redirects or dab pages. Royalist certainly ahs a modern political interpretation, in for example debates about the position of the monarchy across the Commonwealth Realms, ad presumably in other countries which maintain a monarchy. David Underdown (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Although cavalier does seem to be a word with a paticualr meaning and not representative of all of the kings supporters. If this was going to be used as the article name for the entire Royalist side of the civil war would the term be established within the opening para that it was a nickname and then there technical term etc established i.e. a cavalier was a nickname ..... Kings supporters considered themselves ...... etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Coincidentally I'm reading a bio of Marlborough at the moment, and Richard Holmes uses "loyalist" pretty much consistently for the King's supporters (Cavalier/Roundhead doesn't appear once in my recollection, though I do remember the terms from school history lessons). EyeSerenetalk 14:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, taking "Cavalier" as the most common name for them in English, why does own own article constantly refer to Royalists? Bloody hell that's confusing to the man looking for more general information about the royalists. Could someone who knows a bit about the period / has sources available please take take a look? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
A further source: Peter G. Wallace 'The Long European Reformation' refers to the supporters of the King as Royalists (p. 139)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that Cavalier is the most common term - Royalist would seem to be better supported by the sources. EyeSerenetalk 14:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Some more material for you all:
Austin Wollrych writing the article ‘Shifting Perspectives on the Great Rebellion’ in the History Today magazine in 2002 only refers to the two parties as the royalists and parliamentarians not once does he use the colloquial terms (well one does tell a lie, in the further reading section there is a book called ‘Roundhead Reputations: the English Civil Wars and the Passions of Posterity’). Just to note the university states that Austin is much respected in this field.
Additionally there is a book on the subject, sort of, called ‘Royalist Conspiracy of England, 1649-1660’ by David Underdown.
Editor Rachel Gibbons uses the term Royalist, I don’t personally see Loyalist or Cavalier, in the chapter on the Civil War in her book ‘Exploring History 1400-1900: An anthology of primary sources’
Now am by no means an expert or even that educated in this field but one would argue that the use of the term ‘Loyalist’ is erroneous; Royalist appears to be the correct term that one would venture a guess was in common use.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to avoid possible confusion, as noted on my user page, I am not that David Underdown mentioned as an author above. David Underdown (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, what about creating Royalist (English Civil War), at the start importing material from Cavalier and English Civil War (an article which refers to royalists 41 times throughout and cavaliers precisely never), then giving cavalier a few tweaks? Seems like a plan to me. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish forces in WWII

Further to a debate on Talk:Falaise pocket, do we have a consensus way of referring to the Polish forces that fought under various Allied commands (including their own) during the Second World War? This is mainly relating to the infobox, which has been changed from "Polish forces" to "Poland". Some points to consider might include:

  • A Polish government-in-exile existed, but although it was recognised by the Western Allies can it be said to represent Poland - at the time an occupied country - or just those Poles that had escaped the occupation?
  • The Poles made one of the largest contributions, even after their defeat, to the Allied war effort.
  • A distinction is generally made in the case of the contributions of other defeated nations. For example, the French forces under Allied command are referred to as the "Free French Forces", not the "French Forces".
  • Wikipedia uses "Polish Armed Forces in the West", but this is a bit of a mouthful for the infobox.

I'd like to try to come to some consensus if we can, as I've noticed an increasing amount of pro-Polish 'tweaks' to articles recently and I think a project-wide decision to point to would be helpful. EyeSerenetalk 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Brief comment for now: Polish government-in-exile represented the Polish Underground State, hence many more people then just the ones that escaped the German-occupied territories.. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
One could see there being three different parties representing Poland: those fighting with the Soviets, those fighting with the West and those of the Home Army. Prehaps use the most relevent article in the infox box but renamed as Poland i.e. [[Polish Armed Forces in the West|Poland] etc?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Polish fought mainly with the British. They proved to be great pilots in the Battle of Britain shooting down numerous fighters. Also, in the Battle of Monte Cassino they where the 1st ones to reach the monestary. They fought with the British since the Polish-government-in exile was based in London.--Coffeekid (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevence of what they achieved as to do with this?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since Poland was the 1st country to be invaded by Nazi Germany the Polish wanted payback for invading Poland. They felt proud when they reached the top of the monestary same with the Battle of Britain.

'Poland' seems adequate and reflects the legal status of these forces and what they're commonly called. Large numbers of Poles fought with the USSR, by the way, (the Polish Armed Forces in the East) including two full Armies. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Poles fought with Soviets in the Battle of Berlin. Sorry didn't added it/--Coffeekid (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems we're largely agreed on 'Poland' plus a pipe to whatever article best fits the specific forces for that article. Thanks all! EyeSerenetalk 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok next question. What flag is correct to use for the Polish force fighting along side the Western Allies, the Polish flag with or without the coat of arms?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have heard that they used the same Polish flag that they used today--Coffeekid (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

They used the same flag. Soviets desided not to touch Polish flag of the Polish forces in the East controlled by them, so they could mislead ordinary Polish soldiers that they are actually fighting for free Poland (as most if not all of them thought) and to win public support in the "liberated" Polish territories.--Jacurek (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So what is the correct one to represent the country, the one minus the coat of arms?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, just white and red without the coat of arms.--Jacurek (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How did the Polish Forces help the Free Polish forces in Poland?--Coffeekid (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Frank Bladin now open

The A-Class review for Frank Bladin is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Yorktown class gunboat now open

The A-Class review for Yorktown class gunboat is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Magic♪piano 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) now open

The featured article candidacy for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan military history task force

A new task force has been formed. If you're interested in particpating, please add your name here.  Roger Davies talk 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the instigators of this TF is a sock of the banned Strider11 (talk · contribs). The other is an SPA... hmmm YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait, if a sockpuppet and an apparent SPA can form a taskforce with no real members, can I form an airborne warfare taskforce, which will have more articles and (hopefully) more members? Skinny87 (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Was there any discussion regarding the creation of this task force? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Not on any page I'm watching. I assumed I just missed it, but if you haven't seen any either I don't know where it came from. – Joe N 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
the Strider sock, like many Pakistani users likes to remove mentions of India whereever possible (except when negative) Looks like he created the Pak TF so he could delist a whole bunch of stuff from the India TF. A few other banned Pakistanis like to go around doing that sort of thing. Maybe that was why Teckgeek started teh TF. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another fellow is on my talk page asking if the TF and the other token WikiProjects that the Strider sock created can be deleted. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting it might be justifiable, but probably isn't worth it in practical terms; the rump task force does actually cover an area where we have a gap in task force coverage, and people do seem to have gathered a fair number of articles for it. My suggestion would be to just let it sit there inactive rather than deleting it outright; we can always clean it up if/when we go through a general task force reorganization, if it hasn't gathered any real activity by that point.
As far as airborne warfare is concerned, that seems like a good use for the new working group model (since it can be parked under military aviation initially) rather than the independent task force one, but I have no strong feelings either way. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The TF can probably be made to work with a bit of effort. We do, after all, have plenty of Pakistani editors. I'll give it some thought and attack the problem once I have a little more time.  Roger Davies talk 07:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A working group seems like a good idea, thanks; I'll look into it. Skinny87 (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

Please fix this stub. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How would you like it 'fixed'? Skinny87 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you could turn it into a Featured Article by next Monday, that'd be great. —Kevin Myers 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain it should not be a page at all: it seems to be exactly the same as the battle/siege described at Battle of Jamrud (1837), and should therefore, be turned into a redirect. Is this not the case? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Redirected. EyeSerenetalk 09:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The question is, is there another Battle of Jamrud that requires this one to be disambiguated? If not, the current article should be moved to the undisambiguated location. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think so: same place, same year, same armies. Given that the stub contained about two sentences, this seems as likely as we are to get. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I was asking if there was a "Battle of Jamrud" in 1563 or whatever that would necessitate the current article being at Battle of Jamrud (1837). If there isn't, then the article should be moved to the plain Battle of Jamrud, because we don't disambiguate articles if there is no need to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I had actually considered that independently, good poin; I have no idea. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Brigadier General or Brigadier general?

I'm confused, is it one or the other? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

Barring any sort of official rules of usage, I would use brigadier general (in all lower case) for referring to the rank and Brigadier General (initials caps for both) when used as a title. Examples:
  • John Smith was promoted to the rank of brigadier general on 12 May 2009.
  • The appointment to the position was filled by Brigadier General John Smith.
Hope this helps. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, now look at the article Brigadier general- is that correctly titled? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
Going off other ranks such as Maj-General and Lt-General i would say the second word should be capatlised along with the first; allot of historical works support the two examples used.
A few websites also support this hypothesis. Do a quick search on the below pages for the term to see how they have spelt it:

http://www.army.mod.uk/signals/museum/9859.aspx http://www.army.mod.uk/6285.aspx http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/general-interest/891-structure-army-british.html http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/BritishGunnersHelpAfghanArtilleryFireUp.htm http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/FittingTributeToWwiiPolishAirmenUnveiled.htm

The below book, available on google supports Bellhalla:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KWrLJj-iTlAC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8

For example "Brigadier-General Anthony Wayne's two brigades were successfully pushing back the British left," (p.6) and "But, unlike the American use of the grade as a substantive rank, brigadier-general had developed in the British army as a positional grade" (p. 8)
Hope this helps--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it kosher to move the article to the more accepted spelling? FWiW, this may need an admin to administer his/her/their/its power... (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression the wiki software automatically capitalises the first letter of the article title regardless. EyeSerenetalk 07:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's at the appropriate location now, and since Brigadier General redirects there, see no compelling reason it should be moved. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Military career of L. Ron Hubbard now open

The peer review for Military career of L. Ron Hubbard is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Barnet now open

Battle of Barnet has entered into the featured article candidacy phase and awaits your participation. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine if the article meets or is capable of meeting the criteria for featured articles; all editors are welcome for their input. Thanks! Jappalang (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lockheed PV-2 Harpoon No. 37396

I just started a stub for this specific plane, a variant of the Lockheed Ventura, which was recently added to the National Register of Historic Places. I wondered if someone with more aircraft/military knowledge that I might enjoy developing it. Lvklock (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

New ordnance references available.

The Historic Naval Ships Association (www.hnsa.org) has added some key references for Naval guns and ordnance that should be of help to a variety of editors (both Naval and Air, they have bombs).

http://hnsa.org/doc/

Navy catalog of Gun Mounts and Turrets that includes almost all the U.S. Navy WW II equipment. Close to 600 pages. http://hnsa.org/doc/guncat/index.htm

U.S. Navy Projectiles and Fuzes, was created by the U.S. Navy Bomb Disposal School in June of 1945. Over 400 pages. http://hnsa.org/doc/projcat/index.htm

British Bombs and Fuzes 1944 http://hnsa.org/doc/britord/index.htm

Pekelney (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent find! And since the manuals are works of the US Government, the photos and illustrations therein are definitely suitable for uploading to Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, nice! :) Has anyone notified Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) about this? He's the only one that I can think of off the top of my head that does a bunch of naval weaponry articles... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Title for Fifth Battle of Ypres is incorrect

I believe the Wikipedia listing Fifth Battle of Ypres should be changed to Fourth Battle of Ypres. There was no official 'Fifth Battle of Ypres' in World War One. It was officially called the "Fourth Battle of Ypres". People who call it 5th Ypres do so because they mis-name the Battle of the Lys "4th Ypres". Since Wikipedia correctly lists the Battle of the Lys, and since there is no Wikipedia listing for the Fourth Battle of Ypres (other than the incorrect link to the Battle of the Lys), I think this ought to be adjusted to match the official nomenclature.

Mis-naming the battle "5th Ypres" confuses anyone looking for the battle, which may be part of the reason the entry has not been significantly expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.213.51 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Working groups

In order to make collaboration among editors easier in cases where a topic is not broad enough to sustain a separate task force, we're introducing the model of "working groups". A working group will be an informal cluster of editors collaborating on a single topic within the scope of an established task force; they'll have much less infrastructure set up than full task forces do, and managing them will mostly be up to the participating editors.

A list of current working groups, as well as a form to create new ones, is available at WP:MILHIST/TF#Working groups. Everyone, please feel free to join any of the current groups or create your own for the topics that you're involved with. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just created a sixth one, the Airborne Warfare task force, concentrating on all articles associated with airborne warfare. Skinny87 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Super Punch-Out!! (Super NES) now open

The peer review for Super Punch-Out!! (Super NES), an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! MuZemike 00:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre at AfD

The Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre article was discussed by members of the project when it was created. It has now been nominated for deletion, and the AfD discussion is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "Tucker class destroyers"

The following articles:

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Siege needs more refs, or it could lose FA status

Hi! The article Siege needs inline citations. Or else it could lose its featured article status. See Wikipedia:Featured article review WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for whoever did the TFA

Thank you to whoever suggested Operation Uranus as TFA, whether one of the editors or Raul. Summer is here and I only have one calculus class, so I might have some time to take some of the articles I left at A class to FA. We'll see. :P Wikipedia is addicting, and I rather not rebuild the addiction! In any case, thank you for everything. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Catalan! Long time no talk. Nice to see that you still check this every so often. :-) Congrats on the TFA; I think that Raul did it, as I didn't see it on WP:TFA/R. Cheers dude! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Sd.Kfz. 10 now open

The A-Class review for Sd.Kfz. 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unit Disambigs

A small question has come up over on the talk page of the 101st Airborne Division that I thought could serve as an example for the overall question about naming conventions to the rest of the MilHist community as well. About the unit naming conventions: they were designed largely to prevent confusion between similarly named/numbered units throughout the world. A case has been made that conformity would call for the 101st Airborne to have the (United States) disambig attached since most other numbered units have the country, too. I've made a case against its inclusion since the 101st Airborne Division is unique and therefore the distinguishing country is unnecessary. And then the question was brought up about other things in parenthesis. Technically, the 101st Airborne Division has (Air Assault) attached as part of its official name. However, the unit naming conventions don't seem to make room for parenthetical exceptions like this and if I recall from years ago when we were discussing this to begin with, any parenthetical addition besides the country or branch of service if necessary was discouraged. I don't recall the consensus of that discussion, however. So what do we do in cases where units already have parenthetical attachments added typically to their official name but are not country or service branch in nature? Are they allowed and/or necessary? A couple of other units have a similar situation and it would be nice to get a final word on the subject. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally I dislike the disambigs so long as there's no possibility of confusion between national forces. Units like the 101st or 13th Panzer or 76th Guards Airborne Divisions have unique names and don't need disambiguations, nor are they ever likely to do so. I'm a little conflicted about using the full formal name, including parenthetical titles, as opposed to the shorter more common name because it's a PITA to build links to pages using the full name when you just want to reference the unit and drive on. But as long as there are disambigs set up so that people can find the article using the unit's full and short names both, I suppose it doesn't really matter. On a related note GraemeLeggett and I were discussing naming conventions for equipment over on the Talk:Panzer 35(t) page and I pushed for the full German name of the tank rather than the short Panzer x name we're currently using. I'll admit that the Germans didn't usually write out the whole thing, rather using the abbreviation of Pz.Kpfw. x, but Panzer x wasn't much used during the war, people often using the British Mark x. So if you want to go for the most common English name that should be used rather than the shortened Panzer x used because most of us are too lazy to spell the whole thing out. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
(Simultaenous post) I was going to say - IMHO, stick with the (short) common name, include the parenthical in the opening sentence and infobox, pick up alternative spellings and combos through redirs. Meets all MoS and guidelines. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson now open

The peer review for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of History of the United Kingdom during World War I open

The peer review for the History of the United Kingdom during World War I is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and, as ever, any input there would be much appreciated. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Henry Burrell (RAN officer) now open

The A-Class review for Henry Burrell (RAN officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Strategic Bombers: indian POV based vandalism of articles

Hi Guys

Can you please help with protecting these articles from vandalism:

The Problem

Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M) to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. The above listed articles are continuously vandalized with blatant misinformation, such as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" and "The indian Tu-142 and Il-387 are already fitted with nuclear payload delivery systems", (which we know) are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.

Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M.

Can anyone please help, as for any good reader, this type of systemic misinformation campaign (by large number of indian-orgin users) on an interesting article is very very annoying.

Thanks -- Ash sul (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded at some length in the Indian WMD article and am watching it. I don't expect more of the same in the other two, but if it does, please let me know on my talk page. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Vanguard Industries, Inc.

I think you guys want to be in the loop before we delete an article like this one, so I've added your project tag, and opinions are welcome on the article talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw, while I'm here, I notice that you guys don't have your WP:Article alerts page in the default location (maybe it's somewhere else), but you do have a link on your project page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. If some of you actively check for articles in the deletion process but you don't check prodded articles with your project tag, then I'll be happy to put in a request for a bot which will look for articles that are in both cats (prodded, MILHIST) and slap a deletion-sorting tag on the talk page; do you want that, or would you rather check the Article Alerts? - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The article alerts are on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks; but I'm not sure whether people prefer to use that or the deletion sorting subpage.
(It might be nice, incidentally, to somehow combine the two separate pages into one; but I haven't come up with any neat way of doing so yet.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm coming to the same conclusion; some people look at deletion sorting but not article alerts, and some look at article alerts but not deletion sorting. I think we probably need a bot that makes sure the relevant notifications appear in both places; I'll add it to my bot wish list. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Biography of a Living Goat

Hi there.

Ref. William Windsor (goat), a Lance Corporal in the Royal Welsh, retired 20 May 2009.

I would appreciate it if anyone could take a look at this quirky article, which is currently very much in the UK news.

I think it fits within the remit of Mil Hist; I have nominated it for a DYK, and would appreciate any help - perhaps adding it to this project, and assessing it?

Many thanks for your time,  Chzz  ►  06:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate, interesting article. It probably needs a photo to make it to B class. Also you could maybe add an infobox as per other biography articles, including details of years of service, rank etc. That would look pretty good in my opinion. I would suggest expanding the introduction a little to explain why a goat would be serving in the British Army. The article is slightly confusing as it says in the lead that he is a 'goat in the military' which has been wikilinked to military mascot, however, later it says that Windsor is not a mascot but a ranking member of the regiment. This probably needs to be cleared up. However, the article is well cited and has decent amount of information. Grammatically there are a couple of short paragraphs that could probably be consolidated. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Just have to say that is a throughly enjoyable article :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
So the original goat wandered onto the battlefield during the American Revolution and wound up leading the Welsh colors by the end. Does that mean the goat was an American traitor? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all above for feedback. I will work on improving the article as suggested. I am trying hard to find a picture - I'm on the phone now to the UK MoD media folk. The article is now a DYK candidate here, and per my comment there, his retirement has generated significant press coverage. Thank you again,  Chzz  ►  16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Project input needed on notability issue

At USS Iowa (BB-61) a difference of opinion is emerging over the inclusion in the introductory paragraph of a line pointing out that Iowa was the only US battleship to have been equipped with a bathtub. We had a revert skirmish on the article earlier this year over the issue, and since its come up again I would like some wider input to establish community consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of the line. The line in question is in bold text below:

USS Iowa (BB-61) ("The Big Stick") was the lead ship of her class of battleship and the fourth in the United States Navy to be named in honor of the 29th state. Iowa is the only US battleship to have been equipped with a bathtub, and was the only ship of the class to have served in the Atlantic Ocean during World War II.

From where I sit this is notable enough for inclusion in the main paragraph, as I have tried with all of the Iowas to pull one or two interesting pieces of information for the lead, but as I noted since this one keeps getting removed and readded I'd like input from a broader audience before making any further moves on this. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's trivia and have commented as such on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nick-D on this one. There is no reason why this information cannot appear elsewhere in the article, but the lead should be a brief introductory guide on the most important aspects of the article's topic, and I'm afraid that there is no way that the presence of a bathtub falls into this category. Its a nice DYK hook, but in my opinion not relevant for the lead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The tub is "Curious facts" at best. Note that WP is not meant to be a collection of trivia, either. PetersV       TALK 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
While it's an interesting fact that should be in the article, having it in the lead seems a bit overboard to me. – Joe N 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

←Consensus has unilaterally been for removal, so I have retooled the introduction to reflect this. Thanks to all who offered input on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Forward air control

The Forward air control article is undergoing a massive retooling and expansion. While a good-faith effort, much of the changes are not inaccourd with WP standards, such as the use of aircraft infoboxes, no Lead, non-encyclopedic style, and several empty sections. It goes into great detail on individual operations; if this is repeated for every section, the article will be quite long. Due to the current half-finished nature of the article, it might be better if a preveious version were restored, while the current version is worked on in a userspace. I have not brought this up on the article's or the editor's talk pages, as I wanted to get other opinions on this first. - BillCJ (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree Bill - the use of the aircraft infoboxes and focus on US FAC units is inappropriate and strongly biases the article towards the United States. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree that for a rewrite of that magnitude, drafting in userspace should be suggested to the editor as the preferred way forward, if only to make life easier for them by stopping others from undoing his/her work while they are still working on it, while stopping the appearance of disruption for other editors or readers. -- saberwyn 05:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've left what was hopefully a friendly note on the users talkpage, detailing the above concerns and ocffering several suggestions. Skinny87 (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, you can pitch in and help me instead of picking at me. But be fair; my practice is to cite every source as I go, so there is no unconfirmed material. I feel it is fair to expect the same.

Georgejdorner (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article text for ease of communication. Georgejdorner, you're not being 'picked on'. There are just a few editors concerned with the manner in which your expansion of the article is taking place. It's an excellent job and you are to be applauded for beginning it - we just have some concerns over NPOV and MoS issues. That's why I suggested taking it to a userpage and building it there and soliciting editors help when and where it is needed, rather than continuing to do so in articlespace. Skinny87 (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

British WWII gliders Good Topic

I'm working towards creating a Good Topic for all of the British WWII military gliders, but I'm not sure what the 'parent' article should be. Should I create a British military gliders of World War II or somesuch as the parent? And does the Glider Pilot Regiment need to be in the topic for it to be complete, or is that a seperate article and focus? Skinny87 (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes to the first - seems pretty promising for discussing the evolution of one design into another and the overarching ideas behind them - and the second seems like it could go either way. It's related, but not vitally so... there'd certainly be no problem omitting it. Shimgray | talk | 11:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Should British military gliders of World War II (or should it be British military gliders of the Second World War) be a related to Military glider which has a small bit about British use. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
For we Brits it is the Second World War - pedantic i know :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It's the form usually used in article text, but categories mostly use "World War II" throughout the project - I suspect standard forms of titles might have an overall consistency as well. Shimgray | talk | 21:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Attalus I at FAR

I have nominated Attalus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

General Aircraft Hotspur - A challenge!

I'm on a mission - to get all the British WWII gliders to GA status for a future Good Topic, but I need your help! I've got General Aircraft Hotspur about as detailed as I can, but as it was only ever a training glider, it didn't see operational service, and so information is a bit on the thin side. So, now I'm turning to you, great MILHIST editors, for your help! Can any of you help me expand this article any further? I'm particularly looking for information on the Mk III - I know it existed, but details on it seem to be nonexistent, but they obviously need to be in the article for it to be comprensive. Details on the designs of the Mark I would also be appreciated, as would any expansion of the Mk II's specifications for the 'Specification' section. So, I set you a challenge - can any of you help? Barnstars will be awarded liberally, of course! Skinny87 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posted to Wikiproject Aviation, but I still need help; specifically, I need details on the Hotspur Mk III, as I know it existed but can't find any info on it. Skinny87 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Check my post there, Skinny. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this within the scope?

I've been working on an article about Don Chafin, sheriff of Logan County West Virginia and a key commander in the Battle of Blair Mountain. Chafin never served in the military per se, but the Battle of Blair Mountain was more of a military engagement than anything else. As such does his command in the battle place him in this project's scope? Cool3 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes, adhering more to the spirit of MILHIST notability rather than the word; though no troops were involved, it seems to have been quite an organized combat, and Chafin was key to it. Still, I'd like to hear what other coordinators think. Skinny87 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd vote yes as well. There was an interesting piece of work a few years ago looking at the Johnson County wars of the previous decade (chapter seven in David Cohen's "The Combing of History", 1994) which addressed the classification of those wars (or social conflict, etc.), and the effect of different classifications. But yep, I'd vote in favour of it having a claim on military history too.--Hchc2009 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Considering that his force passed under the control of the National Guard, this would seem to validate it as coming within our scope. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Well there seems to be general agreement, so I've gone ahead and added the MILHIST template to the article. Thanks for the input everyone. Cool3 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Rupert Downes‎ now open

The A-Class review for Rupert Downes‎ is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is interested I submitted List of Medal of Honor recipients for the 1914 United States occupation of Veracruz for FLC.--Kumioko (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Krag-Jørgensen‎ for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: the link to the FAR is here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check request

Can someone else review The Increment, created through a request at Articles for Creation. My inclination is that it can probably be culled as a hoax but I'm sure there are probably some tinfoil hat wearers out there who'll challenge it. fwiw neither of the two linked sources meet the provisions of Verifiability and the other two are to works of fiction.

Cheers

ALR (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have concerns, Articles for Deletion is probably the place to take it (nomination instructions are on that page). Hoaxes don't normally fall under the speedy deletion criteria, and the article does assert notability. EyeSerenetalk 07:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this looks like bollocks, but it doesn't fit into a speedy deletion category and needs to go to AfD. Clear-cut hoaxes can be deleted under CSD G3 (vandalism) by the way. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't think it looked blatant enough for that (though I agree with your assessment!) EyeSerenetalk 08:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the only way to prepare it for a clear cut hoax deletion would be to significantly edit it, which would reasonably lead to me being accused of arranging it that way.
AFD is probably the way to go, thanks for the eyes on though.
ALR (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinarny sourcing ... which this does not. The article would be more viable if developed to discuss the book of that title. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a hoax. Tomlinson made the claim on "Charlie Rose" the night before last, in answer to Charlie's question. Whether the org itself exists is another matter... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Inasmuch as it's not a real organisation, it's a hoax. Tomlinson makes David Icke look rational. And you'll need to amplify on what you mean by Charlie Rose.
Anyway, the initial claim for a source was essentially based on ephemera, not a published source, hence it's not verifiable.
ALR (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've ProD'd it for the moment. Don't imagine it'll stay there, then to AfD based on lack of credible sources, assertion of notability etc.
ALR (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of the peoples of the British Isles request for help

Hi, an expert to three is needed. There's an objection to the title of this article given the content which appears to be a list of British military activity (raised by me). The discussion has since polarized and stagnated (try to ignore the name-calling and the British/Irish split). The question to be addressed is whether the current article is named correctly. If not, why not, and what would the most appropriate name be. A secondary question is whether it makes sense to create an article on the military history of the British Isles seeing as how most other articles are named after a political entitiy or country. Please participate. --HighKing (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WOW nothing like jumping in with both feet never mind the Irish wait until the Scottish and Welsh see it, What about Military History of the people in the islands off the North Western coast of Europe ? only joking. We already have the History of the British Isles so [Military History of the British Isles] could work missing out of the peoples --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article is named incorrectly. The current title limits the article to the events that happened in, what is, the present day UK. The term "British Isles" covers both the geographical regions of the United Kingdom and the country of Ireland. Both countries, including the former states of England, Scotland and Wales; have had a long interconnected past i.e. The War of the Three Kingdoms etc. I would support the move back to the previous name, or something similar, if we want an article to cover the military history of the three kingdoms.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
My own opinion is that the term "British Isles" used to exist as a political term to refer to the areas owned and ruled by the British monarch. An article titled "Military history of the British Isles" would then only refer to that period of time. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
To my understanding British Isles refers to two biggish islands and a bunch of small ones - it's never had a political connatation to a particular nation. Particularly useful when considering the dark Ages when there where any number of Kings. The "of the peoples" is redundant.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Very good - that's the geographical definiton which we use on Wikipedia. But it most definitely has had a political connatation in the past. Wikipedia is full of the fractious disputes between opponents and proponents usage of this term (and in all honesty, I have form guv). My advice is to keep away as it's stressful, unproductive, and very unrewarding. But check out British Isles and British Isles naming dispute for info. --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
What those two articles show is that while there is a controversy over the naming and essentially from the Irish side (I suspect that most of the inhabitants of Great Britain aren't even aware of an issue) - the article is of little use on what the rest of the English-speaking world refers to it (certain named publications aside) and whether they would identify any political connotations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, some British based editors are very ardent in the pursuit of 'naming of articles', and much edit warring has ensued. Also many British editors take a heightened interest in Irish articles, and voting issues that arise from them. Purple ☏ 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Graeme - what are readers likely to search for, and what are the realistic alternatives? EyeSerenetalk 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that readers are most likely to search for "British military history" or "Military history of the United Kingdom" (naming convention like most of the "Military history of X" series. Unless they're looking for British military history specifically related to the period when people referred to the UK as the British Isles. For example, here's some military history of the British Isles - Sketches of the war, between the United States and the British isles written in 1815. --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It was at Military history of the peoples of Britain, and written accordingly, then an editor changed the title to the Military history of the peoples of the British Isles, and the content didn't suit the title. I therefor propose to move the article back to Military history of the peoples of Britain, or something in keeping with its content. The term British Isles is political in origin, and should only cover Ireland from 1603 to 1922, during the time period when it was a political term, although it is used in a geographical since Ireland severed ties with British rule. Purple ☏ 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Modern nationalist feelings should not outweigh actual history; Ireland has had a rather big role in the history of the rest of the isles well before the 1600s. Its rich heritage is not brought down any notches by using a simple term that defines a geographical region. I believe the actual term originates from the Romans – something like Britanniae used to originally define the islands to the north of the mainland. Using more modern term would appear to be giving into nationalist demands over a silly issue and would appear to alienate the past; the focusing of the issue in regards to the politics of present day Ireland and the United Kingdom have nothing to do with the ancient kingdoms (which one would assume would take up a large part of the article).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hispania is the name the Romans gave to the Iberian Peninsula, and that would be unacceptable today, the Roman argument is somewhat of a 'straw man'. I was bringing attention to the fact that the title was changed from 'Britain' to 'British Isles' by a British nationalist, but the content stayed exclusive to Britain. A bizarre situation to endure. The article should fit the title, imo. Purple ☏ 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Its not a straw man argument; the article covers events that have happened in the geographical area of what is known as the British isles - note in the article, for example, various wars the Irish people have been involved in (although the article could, imo, be expanded a bit to show a more varied range) not to mention wars and events that took place before the British nation was founded. Modern day nationalist feelings should not effect the naming of articles, the point I was making was that a ‘similar’ name was in use over 2,000 years ago to describe the islands off the coast of Gaul, nowadays it is socially acceptable to call this island chain, off the north coast of France, the British Isles. Considering the United Kingdom of Great Britain was only constructed around 300 years one asks in between the Romans and the evil British nationalists, coining a term to spite the Irish, what were these islands called – how best would one describe the multiple kingdoms that have existed here?
On that note wars that have taken place outside of these Isles, even if the populace of these Isles have been involved, should they really be mentioned in this article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The term British Isles is a political term that still has its connotations with British military might, it no more geographical than the German Rhineland, or the Swiss Alps. It is also quite offensive to Irish people, as historians estimate that up to 6,000,000 Irish people perished at the hands of the British, and I'm afraid that it's akin to labeling a Jew a Nazi, although the atrocities are in the past. The 'British Isles' became defunct in 1922 when Ireland left the UK, and the term is now avoided by organisations like the UN, National Geographic, British Government, Irish Government, American Government, and thousands of organisations throughout the world. It's generally a British 'thingy' to still use the term. Purple ☏ 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Am sorry but to compare hundreds of years of abuse from both sides is in no way comparable with the industrial genocide with the intent of wiping out an entire section of society via mass open air shooting and gas chambers! The comparison is appalling!
Although instead of attempting to guilt trip people into agreeing with you how about answering the question posed, modern nationalist feelings aside what has been the common name to describe these islands throughout the ages?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
"The 'British Isles' became defunct in 1922 when Ireland left the UK, and the term is now avoided by organisations like the ... British Government..." I would suggest having a look on the UK gov's website where there are quite a few references to such; stating the same that the Isles consist of the two soviegn states. Doing a few searches on the Irish govs website and one finds quite a few hits for the term including Irish projects discussing eras prior to 1600.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No, not trying to guilt trip you, as my own ancestry is both Irish and British, so I share some the guilt too, and what's wrong with honesty. Cromwell did not have the weaponry of gas at his disposal, and there were other tyrants too, to put it mildly. To answer your question, the British Isles from about 1600 AD when Britain more or less controlled Ireland in totality, but that would naturally end when Ireland left the UK. Yes you will find Google hits, even on IE.GOV website, and it's usually a quotation from third party writings, as permission would have to be sought from copyright holder to change words. Purple ☏ 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Share the guilt? I find it laughable that events that happened so long ago are being used to fuel arguments now; how many people here were around when the Gaelic Irish and Old English settlers starting massacring the newer protestant settlers? Or when Cromwell and his Ironsides were running amuck in Ireland? Changing the wording, that was used then, to fit in with modern day politics is just plain wrong. To go off your own example it would be like writing a book about early 20th Century politics and not mentioning the Nazis or Soviets because it might offend some people; we may mock the Germans on a regular basis but we don’t harp on at them reminding them of their “everlasting guilt” and attempt to rub out history. The United Kingdom didn’t even exists at the time of the War of the Three Kingdoms, there was no such thing as modern day “Britishness” prior to creation of the Union in 1707. If this article is covering a time period where a term was in use it should not be restricted from using that because of the Anglo-Irish war and the ROI breaking away from the British Empire.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
PS but Cromwell never massacred 6 million Irish people...he wasnt even "British"!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Cromwell was responsible for 1.5 to 2 million. The term British Isles is attributed to John Dee, an advisor to Elizabeth I, so that would make him late 1500s, that fits in with my timeline. "Massacring", is it? I won't comment, but that 1641 stuff is often discredited by historians, the jury is still out on that. The UK went to war with Germany because Germany stole Polish land, I'm sure the old Irish and old English were aggrieved that "foreigners" came and stole their land. The bottom line is, though the term BI does exist, it does not have the universal usage as some would claim it has, there is a bit of the Barbary Coasts' about it. Purple ☏ 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Overgeneralisation of what happened, the "land stealing" in Ireland had been going on long before Cromwell showed up or the Civil Wars even started; there is "guilt" on both sides for the events that took place it is never one sided. So you have established that the term was possibly coined before the War of the Three Kingdoms and was then made "defunt" following Ireland breaking away from the British Empire - so where is the fault using it in its correct time period?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
PS "Cromwell was responsible for 1.5 to 2 million" seems to be pushing it a little considering the footnotes on the Cromwell article regarding his possible genocidal actions.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)OK, my intention to ask for help here wasn't to provoke yet another "Nothing wrong with the term British Isles / Yes there is / No there isn't" debate. Many people have strong feelings on the term either way. Both right. My request for help is really asking for opinions around the following questions:

  1. Since "British Isles" was term in common use to describe the areas owned and ruled by the British monarch in the 18th and 19th centuries (a little like the way the term "Britain" is currently used synonymously with UK), does an article spanning a greater period of time than the "political" usage of "British Isles" make sense? It's much the same argument being used to say that the article shouldn't be entitled "Military history of the UK" because that title wasn't in use before 1700's. For example, the Military history of Italy covers the period before there was an "Italy" in the modern sense....
  2. Does it make more sense to keep military history articles aligned to current political areas? For example, the "military history" series appears to conform to what is largely current political blocks.

Thank you for all your help and opinions. Just trying to get opinions from experts on things of a military nature, not necessarily of an Irish/British nature (we've enough of those on other articles already). --HighKing (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Romans referred to the area as Italy/Italia, so thats not a good comparison.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In answer to your questions HighKing, 1) It all depends on the actual subject of the article (as opposed to the subject of the title). If the article is solely concerned with the military history of Britain then the title is inappropriate. If it is concerned with the military history of Britain and Ireland (i.e. the geographical British Isles) then there is nothing wrong in principle although it can lose the "people of" as redundant. At the moment it is a bit of a mess and its hard to tell exactly what it is trying to say. 2) It is normal for articles on general military history to confine themselves chronologically to seperate political entities, either in the past or present. However, I can see interest in and possibly a need for geographical articles too (if people are willing to write them) e.g. Military History of Iberia would cover Spain, Portugal and all the medieval kingdoms that existed on the Peninsula, without having to focus on one and could describe the interactions between them. Thus there may be a need for both, and I see little point in trying to limit editors to one or the other.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Military History of Iberia would seem a bit contrived, as if the area stood cocooned in a universe of its own. We would probably end up with a 'stunted' article of little real value, and guess that's why it's still redlinked. Purple ☏ 14:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a peninsula, so in a sense it is mostly cocooned by the sea; on what grounds do you consider that we would end with a "stunted" article? Such an article seems an ideal place to present a merged military history of Portugal, Spain and the other nations that occupied the pensinsula, which has fouught a great many wars that did not involve any nation outside them. An article is only as good as the people that write it make it and despite your assertion, I see no reason why an article about military history by geographic region (such as the one under discussion above) is inappropriate or unproductive.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be interested in people's opinions on point 1 above. --HighKing (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Anything that confuses the reader should be avoided. Nesting two subjects together would be a new way to go. That could to a whole plethora of articles like, Military history of Britain and France, Military history of Britain and Portugal, Military history of Britain and Germany, Military history of France and Germany. Interesting, is that the way Wikipedia should proceed? Purple ☏ 00:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused, are you advocating or criticising this approach? Assuming you are being serious, such articles would certainly be interesting but should be careful to avoid simply repeating France – United Kingdom relations etc. and focus very closely on the military aspects of relations between each country. The Britain - France idea is especially interesting as these historical enemies have been allies for (give or take) almost 200 years now, a transition that has been bumpy on both sides. As with all Wikipedia articles, their use and clarity depends solely on the ability, knowledge and interest of the editors writing them. I not certain however what this has to do with the question in hand?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no problem writing these articles if this is the way Wikipedia wants to go. There is a commonality between the subjects as laid out above. Purple ☏ 01:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for deletion. The AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of the peoples of the British Islands Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

establishing guidelines on placenames in West Bank/Judea & Samaria

Voting or commenting on each segment of the Proposed guidelines in relation to remedy 13.1 of the recently closed West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. Please comment here on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009.

The more comments/votes/consensus, the better. We really need to firm up consensus by community input into some of these areas to reduce the drain on admin and editor resources in policing naming disputes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Battle of Bosworth Field open

The peer review for the Battle of Bosworth Field is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and, as ever, any input there would be much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Miles & miles & miles

I realize this is a fairly big job, but I'm troubled by the casual use of "miles" (here, for instance), & the presumption it means "statute miles" & can readily be converted to kilimeters. Navy writers (not least Morison) may habitually use nautical miles, especially in reference to sea distances.... So, what may be needed (& we would do with having IMO) is a) thoroughgoing check of mi/nm/km (which IMO is a major task) & b) standardization of usage where confusion may arise (presuming it doesn't already exist). My question amounts to, "What form is the source using, & has it been converted correctly?" Confirming it, or correcting the mistake, is important, IMO. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. According to Wikipedia:Units#Units_of_measurement all articles should specify the units of measurement used - using nmi or NM as the abbreviations for nautical mile and kn for knots. I have also seen a lot of spurious precision in unit conversions, deprecated by WP:Units. Cyclopaedic (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
TREKphiler brings up a good point. Personally, I haven't come across many uses of statute miles in ship/maritime articles I've edited, so I'm not sure how widespread a problem it really is. But it is a good reminder that many sources for maritime and ship articles provide distances in nautical miles and our articles on those subjects should give distances in nautical miles (when the source is not ambiguous).
Also, I highly recommend using Template:Convert—which bases its conversion on the number of significant figures, helping avoid the problems of excessive precision brought up by Cyclopaedic. And, as an FYI, kn doesn't have universal acceptance as an abbreviation for knots; I personally think its more clear to the casual reader to just to spell it out. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Could someone involved with Wikiproject Military history please explain to me why the project's template is on the discussion page of the article about this film? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was tagged in February via AWB, I'm assuming because it picked up on the mention of "World War I" in the plot summary. I've removed the project banner, since it's outside the scope of this project. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It could also be because some of the events of the film take place during World War II, including the ramming of a German U-boat. (Not that I think it should be within scope, though.) — Bellhalla (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think it fell within the scope of this project, which is why I asked. Thank you both for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of German Unification now open

German Unification

This article had a major overhaul in the past 6 weeks, and has had a Project Germany review, is getting the project history review, but needs the military history review as well. Comments are welcome, please. Also, I am completely baffled by the instructions on how to move/copy/relink an archived peer review from 3 years ago to this new review. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay now open

The featured article candidacy for Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Otto Becher now open

The featured article candidacy for Otto Becher is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

USS Texas

Will someone nautically-minded and experienced please consult the article's talkpage? User:IronShip is adding countless requests to the talkpage for info to be added and/or modified, but seemingly doesn't know how to properly cite it. Skinny87 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't even need to be nautically-minded, just able to fact check with sources for the DANFS stuff. Thanks in advance for any help, everyone. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ship categorization

There is a proposal for re-categorizing ships which may affect this project. Please see WT:SHIPS#Ship categorization. Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Article requested

Battle of the Selle is currently a redlink. This surprised me, as Battle of the Sambre (1918) claimed that "unprecedented" numbers of prisoners were taken at the Battle of the Selle. Sorry for posting this here, but I didn't see a WikiProject Military History page on which to request an article. Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Backslash Forwardslash's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, Backslash Forwardslash, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Backslash Forwardslash's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Great candidate YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ship is up for deletion

Template:Ship, along with other related templates like Template:Sclass, Template:USS and Template:HMS, have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to comment, please go to the TFD. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been closed as keep per WP:SNOW. —Ed (Talk • Contribs)

Good topic nomination for "O'Brien class destroyers"

The following articles:

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Werner Mölders needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Werner Mölders; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "U.S. 7th Infantry Division"

The following articles:

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Help!

would someone who is an editor of the "Military history WikiProject" please contact and advise me. i am trying to contribute to wikipedia. i wrote a template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Comparative_military_ranks . i attempted to add this template to template:US officer ranks. my template was called a "copy edit" and deleted. i have also run into trouble with template:Military ranks which just gives commonwealth info and is not in military format. one reason i want to contribute is that when i tried to compare the rank of my brother-in-law, a navy seal captain, the obvious searches turned up irrelevant or confusing info. thank you. diremarc (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Template talk:Military navigation. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Army of the Tennessee now open

The A-Class review for Army of the Tennessee is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for AHS Centaur now open

The peer review for AHS Centaur is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Shogun

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Shogun article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article does not currently meet the GA Criteria. My review can be found here. I will put the article on hold for one week and I am notifying the interested projects and editors of the possibility that the article will be delisted if it is not improved. If you have any questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrations

I would like to ask for assistance from interested task force members. In the last couple of weeks, I have received multiple talk page comments on American Civil War battle articles questioning the use of the term "demonstration." I created a brief article called demonstration (military) that defines the term in the military context, but it immediately received criticism and a proposed deletion notice for the reason of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." I would prefer to not have to define this term in context in each of the articles. Would anyone be interested in helping to expand this article? I added a brief paragraph about the demonstrations at the Battle of Gettysburg, but other examples of important demonstrations in military history might provide enough content to make the article legitimate. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've run into similar difficulties many times (most recently with "local adjustments") :P While we're rightly asked to avoid jargon, it is sometimes frustrating that the accepted term for an activity causes problems too. However, I view it as part of our mission to educate, not only our readers but also other editors. One alternative to creating an article would be to link the word to the Wikitionary definition - although at present this doesn't include the military meaning of "demonstration", since Miriam-Webster does it should be easy enough to add it to the Wikitionary article. EyeSerenetalk 16:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I've just added it ;) EyeSerenetalk 16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of the Coral Sea now open

The A-Class review for Battle of the Coral Sea is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe N 15:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Ticonderoga (1777) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Ticonderoga (1777) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Magic♪piano 15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Task force regeneration. Help wanted!

We are looking for volunteers to help recruit members for some of our smallest and quietest task forces. These are:

What you can do to help

The easiest way to recruit new members is to invite them personally to join the task force. To do this, pick a task force and you look through articles within its scope. Check the article histories to see who has contributed in the last few months, and leave them a message on their talk page. A suitable message might say:

Hi! I am contacting you because I see you are interested in XXXX and have contributed to articles about it or its armed forces. To help improve Wikipedia's coverage of this important topic, and to provide support and coordination of individual editors, the Military history WikiProject has a link to task force. If you would like to join up, please add your name to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/[insert task force name]#Participants|Participants' List]].

If you can help, please do so. All comments welcome!  Roger Davies talk 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of German World War II jet aces needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of German World War II jet aces; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How did it hit F-L without further review, or have i misunderstood the process?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Military history of Australia during World War II now open

The featured article candidacy for Military history of Australia during World War II is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger required

Could someone more knowledgeable than me please merge Republic of South Carolina and South Carolina in the American Civil War before the copy/paste and subsequent changes get out of hand? I suggest the first should redirect to the second. I'm sorry it's not my area of expertise (and the taskforces looked like it would too long to get a reply). The other thing is that the infobox for Confed states is a bit rubbish, but the data could and should be saved. Anything would be appreciated otherwise I fear it will fall as SEP. Thanks, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Helgoland class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Helgoland class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of George Washington

I have done a GA Reassessment of the George Washington article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need work on referencing. My review is here. I am notifying all the interested projects that this article is on hold for a week pending work that needs to be done. I don't think it will require too much to satisfy the GA Criteria and I sincerely hope that someone will step forward and take this project on. It would be a shame to delist what is in all senses but one, a good article. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Kammerlader - feature article review

I have nominated Kammerlader for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ford

FYI, Ford Motor Company → Ford - a WP:RM rename request has been filed. The discussion is occuring at Talk:Ford Motor Company. As the act of fording is an action commonly related in articles related to your wikiproject, this is an informative notice.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for German battleship Bismarck now open

The peer review for German battleship Bismarck is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy now open

The peer review for List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for List of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy now open

The peer review for List of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Ticonderoga (1777) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Ticonderoga (1777); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger Davies in the New York Times

For those who haven't seen it, our lead coordinator is quoted in this NYT story about the Scientology ArbCom decision. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Epic; positively epic. Cam (Chat) 15:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The author of that article did a great job; that was an engaging and interesting read. Congrats Roger, you're famous! :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Kudos, Roger – and the rest of the ArbCom team, for boldly treading where angels fear to go! Askari Mark (Talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice job. People mentioned in newspapers like the New York Times are Notable. :D --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean Roger gets a wiki article? :D Parsecboy (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Roger Davies is the lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject on Wikipedia, and the deputy coordinator of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, the highest court of appeal in Wikipedia. A European editor, he made his first edit on 03:14, 17 September 2005 to the Patrick Balfour, 3rd Baron Kinross article. In Auguest 2007, he was elected by WikiProject Military History to serve as an assistant coordinator under Kirill Lokshin. Since then, he gained rollback rights on 02:43, 10 January 2008 from YellowMonkey, and became an administrator after his unopposed RfA ended on 15:10, 05 February 2008. In the same month, he became the lead coordinator of the Military History WikiProject, a position which he still currently holds. Roger Davies also holds Checkuser and Oversight rights. In December 2008, Roger Davies was elected to serve as an arbitrator by the English Wikipedia community.
Yeah, I have too much spare time. :D --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Heh, and you could cite all of that with links to Wikipedia, the Wikipedia signpost and, of course, NYT. When a couple of regular Australian editors had their AfD comments quoted in major Australian newspapers last year one of them was 'rewarded' with a faked Wikipedia entry. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

John Benbow help needed.

Hello all, is there anyone who could help me with references and other work for this article. Recently discovered to be a very distant ancestor of mine, so thought I would take a bash at improving it. Thanks in advance, SGGH ping! 13:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia war renamed?

There is a discussion underway at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Requested move, which seems to be spending literally more space on Russia's war guilt, or absence thereof, than what English-speakers actually call this war.

I hope input from this project will help get the discussion back on track; I don't care what we call the war, as long as we consider our readers in the process. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Featured article candidacy for Battle of the Coral Sea now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of the Coral Sea is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Bosworth Field now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Bosworth Field is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Jappalang (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia

I have done a GA Reassessment of Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need considerable work on the references. My review can be found here. I am notifying the interesting projects of this review. I have put the article on hold pending work. If there are questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism on multiple milhist articles

I know how quiet it is here at the moment, so I apologise in advance for this. However, I've been involved with an issue today at WP:ANI that should be brought to the attention of my fellow milhistorians. A long-time editor has apparently been adding copy/pasted text from various sources - mainly US military ones - into a large number of US military related articles. While my initial concerns about large-scale copyright violation seem to be mostly unfounded, because the material is generally unattributed there are definite issues with plagiarism, and in some cases the copyright status of the original material is unclear. The related ANI thread is here, and a list of the editor's contributions can be found here. As WP:COPYCLEAN is run off its feet, I think this is our problem ;) Any assistance looking over the editor's contributions would be greatly appreciated. EyeSerenetalk 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The user is now blocked indefinitely, but there's a possibility that he'll get unblocked. Comments are still useful. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. As the blocking admin I'm staying out of the dialogue on his talk-page; I don't want to seem to be badgering the guy. However, thank you for your (and everyone else's) constructive comments there. It's a real shame that a long-term contributor with good edits under their belt has such a significant blind spot, but at least the situation isn't nearly as serious as the last copyvio emergency we had. EyeSerenetalk 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll put my two cents in, as most of my English papers are done and I have some spare time before I go cycling tonight. Cam (Chat) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Cam. EyeSerenetalk 12:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I discovered this after looking at other creations by the creator of Raids of Hadrian's Wall which should probably be a redirect to Roman Britain. Another new article by the same author Sieges of Haddington had me looking for a place for it, and I found The Rough Wooing. This read so professionally that I suspected copyvio, and I quickly found that most of it was copyvio from My wound is deep: a history of the later Anglo-Scots wars 1380-1560 By Raymond Campbell Paterson. I was going to delete it back to a stub, and probably will, but look who wrote most of it! Rcpaterson (talk · contribs). I've got no reason to think it isn't really the author, and User:Moonriddengirl is writing to him, but at the moment we have an article that is virtually all copyvio, and other contributions of his such as Battle of Stanhope Park which has a lot of material from another book of his [4]. Can anyone rescue at least The Rough Wooing which even in its form before I started to delete the copyvio had no inline citations.

Could I also ask that someone take a look at Scotland Rules (talk · contribs) who is an enthusiastic contributor to military articles and creator of a number of stubs which need help. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, two in two days. I hope this doesn't keep up. Perhaps the copyvioed articles from Rcp could be left for a few days until this is all sorted out? If we have no reason to believe that it isn't him, why go through the effort to change them when they don't need to be changed? (it's not like you can plagiarize off of yourself...right?) Plus, they've been here since at least 2006, so what's wrong with another 48 hours? :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
We have to ascertain that it is him and that he has donated his copyright - he may not realise that's he's lost the copyright in that text. He's been emailed, we'll see if he replies and what he says. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It never rains but it pours :( I'm taking a look at Scotland Rules (talk · contribs) at the moment - could be another editor who'd benefit from some mentoring, but the total lack of response to messages is worrying. EyeSerenetalk 13:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Not at all responsive, creating a lot of bad stubs, some of which even if they were better are content forks, eg Raids of Hadrian's Wall which at the moment claims that Pictish raids made the Romans leave Britain, with an infobox containing "180-410 Result Pictish Victory: Romans fled from Britain." Maybe a redirect would get their attention, but I think they'd just revert it. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
So Gibbon had it wrong all along? I've deleted the page (which may be a slight stretch of CSD but there's no chance AfD would have resulted in a keep, it had been previously deleted, a redirect seemed pointless as the title is grammatically incorrect, and it seemed an ideal candidate for IAR). I'll keep it on my watchlist, and I've left Scotland Rules a clear final warning. EyeSerenetalk 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. We shall see what SR does now. It would be nice if he/she started to discuss things with people. I'm waiting for a response about the username issue, if there isn't one then I'll do a username block. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's the appropriate next step if they don't respond. Thanks for bringing this up. EyeSerenetalk 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick update: as the editor has been active again in the same vein as before, and no response has been forthcoming, I've indeffed the account. EyeSerenetalk 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Review for Operation Sky Monitor now open

The A-Class Review for Operation Sky Monitor is now open. Please join in the discussion. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unique Barnstar for a any editor willing to take on an interesting task

Casliber (talk · contribs) is offering a unique "flaming wiki" barnstar award to anyone who can bring an article listed here up to FA status. Although marginal, there are a few articles that fall within our purview (H-bomb, for instance), and as the award is both unique and only offered for a limited number articles I thought I would post here to offer those within the project with an interest improving the milihist articles listed there for the award a chance to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I submitted Albert Einstein for FA.--Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the point was to improve the articles, not to submit ones you haven't worked on to FAC. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I admit I usually work on Medal of Honor recipients but whatever the intention I will get it to FA status, once I am done with this one I will work on getting Eisenhower and the Nixon up to FA unless someone beats me to them. In fact I think I will work on getting all the US Presidents to FA a couple at a time.--Kumioko (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
After a very distasteful experience with the FA process I have abandoned work on the Albert Einstein article. I have done a lot to it to get it up to status and if someone is interested they should be able to get it to FA status relatively quickly. Most of the remaining work is related to cleaning up and pruning down the references.--Kumioko (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war

This article is at AfD, it has been extensively reworked but still may not cut it. More eyes would be appreciated whether it is kept, renamed, merged or deleted some perspective from folks likely to know more about military applications would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Bosworth Field needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Bosworth Field; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Krag-Petersson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anthony F. McCloskey

This BLP is at AFD, could the good folks here have a peek and see if it can be helped and meets notability? -- Banjeboi 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Spaatz Association

Another article at AfD, I just added the milhist tag but no idea if it's rescuable or not. -- Banjeboi 09:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Human wave tactics

Could anyone interested please take a look at Human wave attack and my comments on the talk page? This has the look of an article that has run away with itself, with a lot of material added that may be generally interesting, but isn't about the subject as I understand it. At the heart of the problem is whether a "human wave attack" is any frontal infantry assault, or whether the term is much narrower than that. Most of the examples currently given seem to me to be retrospective application to historical tactics of a modern term where it has no place. Cyclopaedic (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

naming convention for military vehicles

I'm raising this issue as a result of the move, and discussion of the move, of Matilda tank to Matilda Mk II making the former into a disambiguation for both the "Infantry Tank Mk I" and "Infantry Tank Mk II" both being known as Matilda at some part of their lives. The discussion of the correct article name for the latter is on the talk page. Briefly it covers the issues of correct name/ common name (per WP conventions) and disambiguation of names as much as whether the latter Matilda is the primary topic. Currently as I have left it "Matilda tank" redirects to "Matilda Mk II" though it has been noted that this actually refers to a sub-model of the later Matilda, rather than the later Matilda in general.

The specifics of the Matilda case aside, one issue raised was whether a article named "xxxx tank" should be at "xxxx (tank)". An issue which potentially affects several articles (eg Crusader tank, Panther tank).

Currently there are no naming conventions for military vehicles. The convention for US equipment of Model Number and Name, as in M4 Sherman, seems to be well established. British naming creates unwieldy article names if followed to official practice. In the case of other countries, I'm particularly thinking Germany WWII-era, we have common names for most. Do we need a naming convention, or is better to work through each case on its merits? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To make a minor point regarding US equipment, the articles seem to generally follow the British naming conventions i.e. Sherman, Lee etc were all British nicknames applied to the tanks that ended up in popular culture iirc. There was a bit of similar discussion regarding weather the M10 Wolverine article should be called such too.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
For efficiency I prefer xxxx (tank) to xxxx tank because we can use the pipe trick when wikilinking. I think each case can be treated on its merits though - something like the Sturmtiger doesn't need disambiguating, whereas there have been lots of things named Challenger (including different tank models). EyeSerenetalk 17:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
For the current article in question there are two tanks called the Matilda, both were infantry tanks used during the Second World War. One was the Infantry Tank Mk I and the second the MK II. The name for the articles are Matilda MK I and MK II, which is incorrect. There is currently a discussion on the MK II page about moving the article. See (Talk:Matilda Mk II#Requested Move.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer to judge each case individually since many tank names can't be confused. But while we're here can somebody tell me why the US designations are almost all missing the hyphens between M and the number when that's not how they're designated on TMs and the like? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the efficiency idea, we can use piping for any article name eg round red or greenish fruit from trees. If anything it requires more typing to pipe - [[Chieftain tank]] vs [[Chieftain (tank)|Chieftain]] . Where is the efficiency? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was obviously unclear. The pipe trick automatically omits anything in brackets when displaying a wikilink, ie [[Chieftain (tank)|]] (note the inclusion of the pipe) is equivalent to typing [[Chieftain (tank)|Chieftan]]; they display the same: Chieftain vs Chieftain (see markup). It's a minor point, but I thought it was worth a mention ;) EyeSerenetalk 07:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for armed forces

There doesn't seem to be a specific naming convention for articles about armed forces, and the current usage is pretty inconsistent: we have Bundeswehr for Germany, Military of Italy for Italy, British Armed Forces for the UK, and United States armed forces for the US. Is there any consensus on naming all of them consistently (for example, "Military of <country>", or "<country> Armed Forces")? I'm asking here because there's an ongoing move discussion about moving Military of the Republic of China to Republic of China Armed Forces. Feel free to comment on that one if you have an opinion on the matter. Jafeluv (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Military" isn't generally used as a noun in British English, so the form Military of... wouldn't be right in articles written in BrE, and jars with us Brits. Where possible I would expect names to be the official names, or the most common English names - I'm slightly surprised we don't call it United Kingdom armed forces. For some reason German military terms (Bundeswehr, Luftwaffe) get assimilated into English more readily than any other foreign language. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ve have vays of making you use our language! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The form for joining up (Application for service) uses "Her Majesty's Armed Forces". Not one to please the republicans. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact in British english the term Military only realy applies to the Officer corps of the army.
I agree with GL, the term is HM AF, the crown adorns the uniform (we even let the light blue chavs use it on theirs)
ALR (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
LoL. "As a naval officer I abhor the implication that the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we now have the problem relatively under control, and that it is the RAF who now suffer the largest casualties in this area."(Lifeboat sketch) --PBS (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised at this. There is a reasonably clear understanding for how we name armed forces. If we know the actual name - whether we disagree over it, or not - we use it, thus Australian Defence Force. If we don't, we use 'Military of X.' From much editing and looking at many of these articles, that appeared to be the convention. Regards to all, Buckshot06(prof) 08:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Buckshot - aside from being logical, the official name for national armed forces is almost always the most common one as well. For instance, while Wikipedia generally calls the country of Timor Leste 'East Timor' (on the grounds that this remains the most common English-language term for the place), the article about its military is at Timor Leste Defence Force as its both the official name and the most common one as well - despite there being a lot of controversy over what to call the article on the country, there was consensus support to moving the article from Military of East Timor when I proposed it. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"Where possible I would expect names to be the official names, or the most common English names - I'm slightly surprised we don't call it United Kingdom armed forces." Why? The official name (and most commonly used name) is the British Armed Forces (or Her Majesty's Armed Forces). "United Kingdom" is not an adjective and is not generally used as such in Britain - I've never heard the term "United Kingdom armed forces". And as a proper name, "British Armed Forces" should always be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! It might be a good idea to add a paragraph to the style guide about the naming of armed forces so that people like me find it in the future. Jafeluv (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there any objection to me adding 'Within the Milhist project, root pages for the armed forces of a state are named, if the official name is known, by the official name's English translation, viz: Australian Defence Force. If the native language name is most commonly used, this should be kept (viz: Bundeswehr). Other national armed forces are only provisionally located at 'Military of X,' and should be renamed to the translation of the official name when available. Alternately, articles can be renamed if there is consensus over how the armed forces in question are normally referred to in common usage (viz: recent decision on United States armed forces.)'
Thoughts? Improvements? Buckshot06(prof) 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
That looks fine, although the "Within the Milhist project" part is implicit and doesn't need to appear in the actual style guide. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, unless there's any other suggestions, I will amend the style guide within about 36-48 hours. Buckshot06(prof) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The direct link to the discussion won't work correctly once the talk page gets archived; I'd suggest changing it to an external link to the specific revision in question. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for 45th Infantry Division (United States) now open

The peer review for 45th Infantry Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Maiden Castle, Dorset now open

The featured article candidacy for Maiden Castle, Dorset is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, Patar knight, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Patar knight's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment.  Roger Davies talk 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Winning British gallantry medals

In my professional hat, I was at a training session a couple of months ago when the necessary steps to be awarded a British gallantry medal were discussed, by members of the Armed Services, as:

  • the feat of arms in question has to actually be written up by someone
  • it has to be written up well
  • it has to be the most worthy candidate for that medal at that particular medals board meeting

Now, I can't add this to any articles because it's WP:OR. But does anyone know of other sources for discussion such as this which might be able to source this, and thus add it? Regards Buckshot06(prof) 10:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there be a military guideline or equivalent you can use as a source? I've seen point one in various places (for instance, its one of the reasons raised against retrospectively awarding the Victoria Cross to people from World War I and incidents in World War II where there are no surviving witnesses). Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading the act had to be witnessed by an officer, that being the reason why many who deserved an award never got one --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading simliar but wasnt that only a requirement for the VC, not the others?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling that anything that explicit would probably be ephemeral, temporary memoranda and the like, which may become more persistent if declared as a record. In fact I'd be very surprised if the first point is actually written down anywhere, it's very much implicit in the process which is citation based.
I suppose one would have to infer the latter two points from the reporting guidance and the specific guidance about each award, they are competitive so the report needs to be well written to make the cut.
I wrote up several members of my squadron after Telic 1 and what guidance there was came out of the 2*s outer office, although that was mainly about process. Writing well written reports is just part of the responsibility one has to ones marines/ sailors/ soldiers and it's ingrained from the first command lectures in officer training.
I can have a dig around in the files at my current unit, but would be very surprised it its usable.
ETA - were there handout notes from the session? Ephemeral I appreciate but potentially usable depending on the delivery unit. DefAc would be pretty authoritative.
ALR (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys, that was quick. No ALR, this was informal discussion and not the main subject of the meeting. Any other ideas? Memoirs of officers? Buckshot06(prof) 11:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if you could get hold of anything. The criteria are certainly classified and the exact process will vary between the services so you would have to generalise along the lines of the points you made in your first post. On the civilian side I think the police or fire service may have standard forms to complete; not sure if that's the case in the military, but they guide the writer towards indicating whether the candidate fulfilled the criteria. Also, gallantry awards do not have a complement so it seems a little odd that the boards you refer to would only take the best candidate at each stage. Talking of which, there is probably more than one board - I can't remember but I think each service has one, then there's an inter-service board. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Neither criteria nor process are classified, in fact the criteria are clear in every publication of a citation, although I have seen citations at everything up to TS.
Whilst there isn't a quota, these are highly competitive, so whilst I'd not be a restrictive about wording as above, there are very few handed out.
Generally there is a standard format, and it varies depending on the award one is nominating for. But in general I'd expect to see it in a formal letter, with an attached annex.
ALR (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The process won't be classified, but I'd be interested to see if you could produce a source listing the specific criteria for determining the level of a gallantry award. Certainly on the civil side these are not made available to prevent people from trying to bag a medal (there are occasional examples of individuals working out how to get an MBE and acquiring one by cheating the system).
"Competitive" doesn't sound right, but I'm not overly familiar with the military side - it shouldn't be like that imho - but I can imagine that's how it works in reality. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect we have an interpretation issue here, there are no specific criteria for gallantry awards, they do tend to be a bit subjective, hence the need for them to be well written. That contrasts with the range of fairly standard good egg awards, like the MBE, that do have fairly clear cut criteria. They still need to be well written, and there is a touch of right job, right place, right time; as an example a friend of mine got the MBE as an SO3 for filling in for his SO1 for six months. In contrast Mne Croucher threw himself on a grenade!
There is also a contention that the three services reporting systems tend to lead to bias, the Army tend to write lots more citations than the Marines and Navy so get a correspondingly higher hit rate. Equally reporting styles are very different, and that has an imact. I recall writing an appraisal on an Army WO2 that would have been treated by a Marine WO2 as pretty good, he was convinced that if I submitted it his career would be over it was so negative. Dark blue and dark green tend to be a lot more reserved about these things.
You're right, competitive isn't the best word, but I'm struggling to find an alternative. There is no quota, but to win one needs the act to be observed, written up and to get through a host of filters. Units will only send the one or two top recommendations up to the next stage, so there is a steady culling throughout. It's naturally restrictive.
ALR (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a dig around and can't find anything substantive, not even the temporary memoranda have any references, other than to the timetable.
Essentially there are quite a number of warm words about good report writing and thinking broadly about who might deserve an award of some kind.
Sorry there is nothing more useful.
ALR (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
All (surviving) British Army recommendations from 1935-1990 are online, see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/wo373.asp?WT.hp=Recommendations%20for%20Honours%20and%20Awards unfortunately there's not too much information about the process there (and generally you'll have to pay to view individual recommendations, for my own searching of these recommendations, it woul dalso appear that many for service in Northern Ireland haven't been declassified, though this isn't explicitly stated anywhere). I believe that for the VC and GC two witnesses are required (though I think the warrant still provides that if any action is directly witnessed by someone who holds the appointement of commander-in-chief, they may award the medal on the spot). The witnesses don't have to be officers, or even on the same side, Lloyd Allan Trigg, was awarded the VC purely on the recommendation of the surviving officers of the U-boat he sank! In the recommendations, for VC and GCs the witnesses' reports are annexed to the main recommendation. The page I linked to above shows some images of the WWII era form, the current army form seems to have been essentially the same since about the 60s, and as best as I can make out the form seems now to be an MOD form (for the 1990 version at least), and is tri-service. The first page has various boxes for whether the award should appear in one of the New Year or Queen's Birthday lists, Opertioanl lists, Immediate award and so on, full details of the person being recommended, full name rank (and any acting rank etc), number, parent unit, current posting; then the rank, name and posting of the initiating officer, and the award recommended. There are then a number of boxes for counter-signing by more senior officers, each of who also has to tick a box indicating whether they recommend, strongly recommend or very strongly recommend the award, there's also a small amount of space for them to make their own comment. The very bottom of the form has space to indicate the award's progression through the individual service, MOD and higher-level awards committees, approval by HM, and number of the London Gazette in which the award ultimately appeared (these don't always seem to get filled in). The second page repeats the name of the recommended person, the place where the actions for which they are being recommended took place, date or period during which the actions took place, the posting in which the actions were carried out, and if relevant information about numbers of flying hours. The very bottom of the page has signature, date, rank, location of the initiating officer, and the remainder (say four-fifths) of the apge is given over for the actual citation (with strict instructions that this space may only be exceeded in the case of VC and GC recommendations). I believe an officer has to initiate the formal process, but it was certainly reported in the case of Matthew Croucher that it was the other ranks who were on patrol with him who came back and told the CO that he should be recommended.
According to this National Archives research guide regulations regarding awards are usually in Army Orders, Fleet Orders or Defence Council Instructions. Older Army, Air Force and Navy Lists certainly used to publish the statutes for each award, I don't know if there was also info on the awards process. I'd suspect that King's/Queen's regs and equivalent would set out the process in some way too. I know there are copies of older versions of these at TNA, so I'll try to have a look when I have a moment. There's a brief outline on the MOD website too: http://www.operations.mod.uk/honours/honours.htm David Underdown (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The latest version of Queen's Regs on the open library shelves at TNA was 1975 (though it had been manually amended to take account of the passage of the Reserve Forces Act 1982 in March 1983). It wasn't particularly forthcoming, though there were references to an army pamphlet dscrbing the processes for initiating awards. David Underdown (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thinking back, the first signatory on most of the ones we did were at the SO1 (Lt Col/ Cdr) level, so the submissions were all written up and went to the 2*s outer office who then established our own batting order and then transposed those going forward onto the appropriate forms and circulated them for signature.
That approach allowed those of us actually doing the writing (SO2 and SO3) to have a common approach for uniformed and civilian recommendations, letting the outer office take care of the differences in process from there on.
I should probably add, what certainly won't be documented is the perception that the identity of the signatories carries some weight. That may or may not be true, but there is a hunt for the best signatures.
ALR (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_87&oldid=1232550959"