Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 92

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

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

←

Miltiary Fiction Task Force

I notice that there's a new milfict TF, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force

Shouldn't that TF be shared/listed in the WPMILHIST sidebar navigation template? And be a shared TF with this WPP?

Also, shouldn't an option like "ficiton=yes" be added to the {{WPMILHIST}} banner?

That TF already apparently includes the WG Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force/Napoleonic fiction, which is part of this WPP...

- it would be like how War Films functions, being shared with WPFILM

76.66.197.17 (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle, this would be possible. In practice, we would need to negotiate the sharing of the task force with the Novels WikiProject; some of what they've done there is incompatible with how task force infrastructures are normally set up, and there's no neat way for us to adopt the task force as a result. (In any case, the editors there may not want our involvement—it's not a good idea to just assume that they'll be fine with us building our infrastructure into their task force.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is relevant to a question I have, but I'll post it separately. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Windsor now open

The A-Class review for Operation Windsor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940 now open

The peer review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Topic nomination for Gorgon class monitors

All interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Gorgon class monitor/archive1 as to its suitability as a good topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sound bearings?

In hope of avoiding an edit war, I invite comment here on the tone of this page, in particular the position advanced by Blair (described as NPOV). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, having tried his best to make out the page in question is "a hatchet job" & based solely on my opinion, Dukeford intends changing the page to reflect his POV; based on the talk page comment, he seems to be the only one with real concerns. And he has refused any effort to balance the concerns he seems to have, instead insisting on removing comments he perceives to be POV. For everyone's information, I do intend reverting them. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I invite comment on this edit. Removing cited information & claiming it's POV? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears nobody gives a damn, & since it appears removing sourced content is perfectly okay, so long as I'm not doing it, so be it. I'll have no more to do with it. It would be welcome to know guidelines actually apply to everybody. Evidently not. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Trek, I haven't checked, but did you try the WPSHIPS talk page yet? I'm looking at the article now, but having just come off of a 3RR block, I'm not jumbing into any contentious situations quite yet! - BilCat (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, leaving a message on WT:SHIPS would be a good course of action. I've commented there, by the way. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny

Without being callous, I don't believe this subject has notability for a separate article. Happy to be disagreed with. SGGH ^ping! 17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628 now open

The A-Class review for Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Smedley Butler now open

The A-Class review for Smedley Butler is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Does the book, Starship Troopers, fit in our criteria for inclusion

Does the book, Starship Troopers, fit in our criteria for inclusion in the project?

For the aid of readers here is an excerpt from the MiliHist project's scope:

Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose.

Note that the project generally covers only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable. A distinction is therefore made between fictionalized depictions of historical warfare and purely invented depictions of fictional warfare; topics sufficiently divorced from actual history that a discussion of actual military history would no longer be relevant to them—such as futuristic warfare in Star Wars—are not considered to be within the project's scope. However, songs and music with long military associations—for example, It's a long way to Tipperary and Lili Marleen—are within the project's scope.

Ryan4314 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I say no, as the first sentence makes it clear that we are dealing with military science fiction, not fact. Other elements of the story, as read through the plot, also seem to suggest that military science is not quite there yet, so this helps reinforce my 'no' train of thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I'd initially say no, although the fact that the film is often considered a satire of the modern army, and that this book is required reading for a few armed forces (interesting that, if surprising!) sways me ever so slightly. But that's because of its legacy, not its content. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering it is Science Fiction and not Military History i would say no--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Müch as I enjoyed it, & as big a fan as I am of RAH, I'd also have to say no. It does, however, make me wonder if military SF generally shouldn't be added. Speculation on forthcoming modes of warfare has been part of military historiography for decades; while this is further afield, it's also a projection. One might also say commentary on the period. The same could be said of, for instance, Dorsai (commentary on mercenaries) or Tactics of Mistake (which is self-explanatory). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

With permission I have "bolded" the comments of contributors for ease of reading, please feel free to revert. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point there, but such technology would have to come from R&D efforts, and R&D comes under the purview of the Science and Engineering task force. Its therefore technically covered, although the extent to which it is covered is open to interpretation. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I would disagree on it falling under Engineering & thus isn't needed here. If Submarine falls here, does "Das Boot"? "Grey Lady Down"? "Hunt for Red October"? By extension, then, does ST or Dorsai!? I'd say it should. Not to say they shouldn't also fall under Film or SF, but who's better to judge the quality of the likes of Harry Harrison than somebody familiar with military matters? (OK, you'd probably have to be an SF buff, or your grasp of the fiction would be deficient, but...) I agree with Kiril in ST (among others) being more esoteric examinations of military theory. It's been years since I've read it, but IIRC, that was Dickson's whole point with Tactics. Do we ignore it just because it's...unconventional? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:55 & 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, comment above was not so much aimed at this particular book as it was to point out that R&D work, such as would be covered by the Science and Engineering Task Force, would be the likely place for any such attempt to develop equipment described in the novel. What I was getting at in my post above is that those who work to bring us tomorrow's technology today are usually people in science and engineering fields. For example, our nulcear weaponry in poular culture article notes that:

Nuclear weapons are a staple element in science fiction novels. The phrase "atomic bomb" predates their existence, back to H. G. Wells' The World Set Free (1914) when scientists had discovered that radioactive decay implied potentially limitless energy locked inside of atomic particles (Wells' atomic bombs were only as powerful as conventional explosives, but would continue exploding for days on end). Robert A. Heinlein's 1940 Solution Unsatisfactory posits radioactive dust as a weapon that the US develops in a crash program to end World War II; the dust's existence forces drastic changes in the postwar world. Cleve Cartmill predicted a chain-reaction-type nuclear bomb in his 1944 science fiction story "Deadline," which led to the FBI investigating him, due to concern over a potential breach of security on the Manhattan Project.

Given such examples, of which this is only one, it would be plausible to assume that some of what is penned in Starship Troopers would inevitably become real-to-life military hardware at some point in the future. When exactly is the issue, but the transition between pages in a paperback novel to real-to-life equipment would likely be effected through R&D projects. (Merry Christmas, BTW, I hope yours is as good as mine.) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

We're at cross-purposes, then. I was thinking of the use of (in ST's case) battlesuits, & how they influence tactics & strategy. Which, I argue, is within scope, here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the article was originally included not as a fictional depiction of warfare, but simply because of the prominence of the novel within U.S. military circles; see Starship Troopers#Popularity with U.S. military (I think it's still required reading at West Point). I'm not entirely certain whether that should qualify it for inclusion in and of itself; but I don't think we should limit ourselves to evaluating it merely against the criterion for fictional depictions—it can also be viewed as a work of military theory, albeit a more esoteric one. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are enough reliable secondary sources that treat it as a work of military theory, then perhaps. Durova³⁸⁶ 17:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No we ignor it because it is not history (it has not happend yet). We cannot say at this distance if its a prescent fortelling of future millitary delelopments, or just a peice of average SF (by the wat shouod we include 'Bill the galatic hero' as a counter point?, it has much to say on the millitary and propoganda?Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Although it's tempting to add fiction and particularly SF (I've just finished the latest book in The Lost Fleet series, which has great space battles), I think it would be uncontrollable. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with the skepticism. But not many works of fiction are taken seriously enough as military theory to become required curricula at an important military academy (is that really so?). There's at least something to discuss here; question is whether there's enough substance to expand that into a significant part of the article. As things currently stand I'd say no. Durova³⁸⁶ 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this then case with other fiction that is required reading in the millitary? for example The Red Badge of Courage makes no mention in its article that it is required reading in the USMC. Moreover why is Starship troopers required reading, its tactics? Technology? or as an example of men under fire? So if we are to included Starship troopers then we sould include all fiction that is considerd required reading by the millitary.Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we also cutting out wargames? (I don't know.) By definition, they aren't real, either, yet they do involve actual military theory. (Even chess. And yes, I know, they're also covered elsewhere.) I think of H. G. Wells' works on wargames, & wonder if his fiction would then be in/excluded. Also, if we're going to exclude SF as "hasn't happened yet", then any fictional treatment is also out of bounds. Does that leave out "Midway"? "Pearl Harbor"? By the "it hasn't happened yet", military simulation and operations research are out of bounds, too, because they both involve prediction. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Still Xmas Eve here, but a Merry Xmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa {or whatever's appropriate ;p} to all. 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

In general I would agree with whoever said that while historically based military fiction should come under this projects auspices, science fiction / fantasy military fiction should not as they do not deal with real world military history. However in this specific case (and probably a handful of others), I think that the use of the book in an instructional/educational capacity by the academies of a major military force gives it enough of a connection to real world military theory etc. to be included by this project.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link to support this fact? Moreover in what context is it read>Slatersteven (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree that one mere fact (even if true) would do it. If sufficient reliable third party sources exist to write a substantial article section that discusses it as a serious work of military theory, then that would be worth considering. Passing mention isn't enough. We don't tag Eton College for MILHIST even though the Duke of Wellington said the Battle of Waterloo was won there. Durova³⁸⁶ 19:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That’s partially my point about context. Exactly what is it used to demonstrate? Tactics, strategy, (as a friend of mine put it "justification of the bombing of civilian targets"), the responsibility of solders within wider society? or something I have not thought of. We have to be able to demonstrate that it is used because it is a work of military theory (and called such by RS) not just that some high ranking solder thinks it a good book and wants others to read it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Tactics and strategy as they relate to the modern military could be within the scope of the project, but that still leaves of with the issue of to tag or not to tag a fictional book. I still think the book should not be tagged, but the strategies and tactics could be added or linked to relevant articles within our scope. I note that some of the concepts covered by the article - such as powered armoured combat suits - already have articles and are tagged as being within our scope. If we extend our coverage to this novel then I fear we may be compelled to extend it to other plausible SF series like Ghost in the Shell. From where I sit we could reasonably pass on tagging the article and not lose anything of great importance since its key military points appear to be covered in other articles on site and linked to from this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Um guys? If we adopt the military fiction task force with WP:NOVELS, all military fiction books, whether fiction or non-fiction, are going to be categorized under our scope somewhere... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why whether there exists a section or not would matter in tagging, since if it does not contain a section, it is deficient in its military history content, of the article, not of the subject.

On "Starship Troopers", and any other reading list material, I think they should be included in the project, and a section on its impact on the military be added to the articles if they are missing, since they clearly do have a reason to be on the reading list, and it would be a military one. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured List review for List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients

I have submitted the List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients for review as a featured list and I would like to invite any comments.--Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to again solicate reviews the this article, this List has been out there for a week with only 2 reviews so far and I would hate to see it fail the FLC process due to insufficient reviews. --Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WWI cultural response and project scope

I've raised a question about scope here, on the WWI task force talk page. I also touch there on issues about how literary and other cultural responses to war get handled as far as WikiProjects go, and am asking whether it is in scope or not. I read the scope bit on the main WikiProject page, but it seems there is a wide range of stuff and it is still not entirely clear. I see there is a war films task force, and a recent section on this talk page talks about fiction. There are a wide range of other cultural responses to war, outside of documentaries and historians, including art, poetry, photography, theatre (plays, musicals), music, and so on. Is it possible to clarify the bit about "historical accuracy", and how cultural responses as a whole are handled (i.e. overview articles, as opposed to articles about individual books, plays, films). Part of this feeds into a question I raised here at the talk page for the WWI Centennial project. The way that the legacy and aftermath of wars is handled, and where the scope begins and ends, is not always clear, but it is an important part of the coverage of the topic, I think, even if it is not always strictly military history. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been adding more examples here to the list of articles that may or may not be in scope for this project. There has been no response there so far. Would it be possible to get some opinions on those examples? Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

List of ongoing conflicts

The article Civil war in Afghanistan and its confused state is causing difficulties for the article List of ongoing conflicts. There have been a series of edits where people (including myself) have changed the listing of Afghanistan on List of ongoing conflicts to War in Afghanistan (2001–present) on the basis that the current (and ongoing phase of conflict in Afghanistan is not a civil war and is unrelated to the preceding conflicts in Afghanistan. A particular user User:Kermanshahi keeps changing the reference back again. Does anyone here have any views about how this should be handled ? Marlarkey (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

From a legal perspective I can see his point. The ongoing activities are essentially policing activity under the direction of the legitimate Afghan government, executed by coalition forces. None of the main contributors are at war, despite what the media might say. In that sense it can be described as a civil war, although I'd say that the protagonists are different, given the perceived legitimacy of the government in Kabul (propped up by Washington or not).

One of the snags is that the article that you're discussing is written from a US media driven perspective, not an international legal perspective.

ALR (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We had this conflict between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. The US joined forces with the Northeners and overran the country. Now they're fighting together with allied Afghans the Taliban in a guerilla war that isn't a war. And a small fraction of the theatre seems to be directed by al Quaida. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's where I look at it differently. I don't see that the US invasion was anything to do with whatever was going on there previously. The US wanted Osa Bin Laden and invaded and overan the country regardless of whatever was already happening there. So the US invasion and war with Afghanistan was nothing to do with whatever civil war was ongoing. It was only at the end of the conflict when the US, realizing that they didn't have an exit strategy, looked around the country for allies and latched on to the local factions that they could dump their mess onto. And therefore the US exit strategy has initiated a resurgence of civil war in Afghanistan but the US invasion was not part of the same thing. Marlarkey (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You should check your sources. The US had allies. These allies had been fighting there. Whether the US invaded for bin Laden, that is the official casus belli, or for other reasons is open to dispute (look here). Wandalstouring (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be worth spending some time investigating a much longer period of history in Afgh, say 300 years or so. History doesn't segment neatly, individual periods don't exist in isolation, and current activities are intimately associated with the political situation following the Soviet exit. If you reread my comments above you'll note that I've said that protagonists differ, I apologise for making the assumption that you are familiar with the legal basis of conflict and not being clearer. What's happening at the moment is not a civil war, therefore the use of the term is inappropriate, however I can understand why someone might describe it as such. History is also very dependent on ones own position with respect to events.

The regional politics are very relevant to current activities, and what preceded. The structure of the government is closely associated with the structures during the NA/ Taliban conflict, and some do see the current situation as an extension of that. The NA couldn't prevail prior to the coalition invasion, but do now. Equally the coalition invasion couldn't have succeeded in the way it did without the support of the NA, from the very beginning this was communicated as a partnership, although largely with NA assets tagging along rather than contributing a huge amount of military effect.

ALR (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for James Whiteside McCay now open

The featured article candidacy for James Whiteside McCay 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Siege of Jerusalem (637) now open

The A-Class review for Siege of Jerusalem (637) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Siege of Damascus (634) now open

The A-Class review for Siege of Damascus (634) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Yarmouk now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Yarmouk is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) now open

The featured article candidacy for Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) 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! Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Petlyakov Pe-8 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Petlyakov Pe-8; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll get on it, for one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for HMAS Sydney (R17) now open

The peer review for HMAS Sydney (R17) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Edward Turner

I was creating the disambiguation page for Alfred Turner, and came across Sixty years of a soldier's life by Sir Alfred Edward Turner. It looks fascinating, and it is definitely military, so I thought I'd drop a note off here in case anyone wants to write anything on that. There is a requested article area somewhere, isn't there? Would this be the sort of thing I could request there? Carcharoth (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian

Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 11.

76.66.197.17 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Winterthur (1799) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Winterthur (1799) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940 now open

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fort St. Charles

How many Fort St. Charleses were there in the United States? There is also a Louisiana historical marker that discusses a Fort St. Charles. It seems to be different than the Fort St. Charles in Minnesota..? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Saw (video game) now open

The peer review for Saw (video game), 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! Ground Z3R0 002 01:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tons of stubs for Dutch East Indies milhist

I've been doing various translations, looking for areas where other wikis are developed and en.wiki is not. Been going to lots of languages and mining their articles on their own cultures' colonial history, and hit a real jackpot with nl.wiki and the history of Dutch colonialism. Most of the below articles are stubs with an "expand from the Dutch" tag, but many have cool images, and help to fill in an area where en.wiki is not particularly strong.

If anyone else wants to help in this particular effort, usually ledes are straightforward enough that you can't go too wrong with GoogleTranslate and some minor cleanup, keep the sources and cool images, and mark with the {{expand Dutch|(name of Dutch article)|history=yes}} at the top. Here's my recent list:

I'd also appreciate any help better-categorising or wikilinking the above. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of those images are very cool! Dutch East Indies is Indonesia, isn't it? Commons recently had a massive donation of images from the Tropenmuseum, which includes some photographs that may cover some of the eras in question. Have a look here and see if there is any military stuff? Try this search which seem to bring up lots of really good stuff. There is a great image here, but what article it could be used in, I'm not sure. And there are 1,176 pictures that have been categorised or keyworded "military" in some way, in the Tropenmuseum collection. Hope that helps! Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for doing First Division 7 December. I've done some work on it. That fills a bit of a gap in the Dutch army's history. Now we just need the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Divisions... Buckshot06 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dutch East Indies is Indonesia, yes, from 1800 to 1949. Prior to that, it was administered by the Dutch East India Company. The Tropenmuseum donation has been a jackpot hit for the Indonesian WikiProject, and we're discovering "new" old photographs every day. We do want to see articles on the Military history of the Dutch East Indies and continuing in the Military history of Indonesia someday. Arsonal (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be salient for any enthusiasts to see what happened to a lot of these when they hit the Indonesian alex bot list - at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia#New_Edits_-_Indonesian_military_history - please note despite the slaughter - we always welcome new additions - and where possible some checking for associated or linkable topics and issues - cheers Satu Suro 09:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Johnson Beharry

Could we have some more eyes on Johnson Beharry please, despite references from the British Ministry of Defence, a couple of IPs are disputing that he served in Northern Ireland on the basis he doesn't appear to wear the relevant campaign medal, and also quibbling about whther technically he served in the Iraq War (I think this is just a matter of definition, our article treats it as an ongoing conflict, again for campaign medal purposes, there are specific dates laid down as to precisely what medal and clasps you get). I've reverted a few times already, and am in danger of breaching 3rr. I've started a talkpage discussion now, and tried to point the IPs in that direction, but I don't know if they'll take it up. David Underdown (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

War on Terrorism vs Overseas Contingency Operation

Hey all. I'm asking users from this WikiProject and other WikiProjects to weigh in at the talk page for a question about the War on Terrorism page: specifically at this section. Currently, the page says the war ran from "October 7, 2001 - January 20, 2009", where it ends because the Obama administration has discontinued use of the term in favor of the "Overseas Contingency Operation". However, Overseas Contingency Operation currently redirects back to War on Terrorism. The way I see it, we need to either a) create a new Overseas Contingency Operation page that encompasses everything that has gone on since 1/20/09 with the Obama administration and the war on terror, or b) Incorporate toe OCO stuff into the existing War on Terrorism page, in which case the date would be "October 7, 2001 - present". I personally can see merit to both ideas, but I'm not the expert, so I'm seeking input from people more qualified than me to see if we can develop a consensus. I'm hoping we can War on Terrorism page: keep the discussion here so the discussion doesn't split into multiple discussions on multiple WikiProject talk pages. Thanks all! — Hun ter Ka hn 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Shows what a vague and ill-defined concept it was to call it a "war" in the first place in my view - a war that you can't define when it starts and ends. Marlarkey (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Robert Peverell Hichens needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Robert Peverell Hichens; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Red Tail Project needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Red Tail Project; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviews that need some attention

A couple of peer reviews that could use some more attention:

Any comments at these would be very appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class Reappraisals

There have been two A-Class Reappraisal reviews recently opened:

All editors are invited to participate in determining if these two articles still meet the A-class criteria or not. -MBK₀₀₄ 10:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR

I have nominated Iowa class battleship 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for some help

Editors who are avid followers of Wikidrama will know the background to this request, but it's not important.

What I am looking for is some generous person who will be willing to contact the US archives (mainly military, mainly USMC) to help out with sourcing or replacing images. A sample of the kind of requests we need help with:

Is there a US military image to replace File:Antulio Segarra2x2.jpg?
Is there held by NARA or the LOC to replace File:Carlos E.Chardon jpg.jpg?
Can anyone confirm that File:Bougainville-mud.jpg is, as looks to be, a USMC official photograph of the Bougainville Campaign?

There are lots of these and it would be certainly be good if there were more than one bold volunteer willing to help out. If this isn't the right place to be asking this, please move it to where it ought to be. Many thanks for taking time to read this and a thousand thanks in advance to any volunteers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I live next to Quantico, Va and I already talked to someone about getting images for the Medal of Honor recipients. I am going to take them some CD's (they said it will take several, yeah) and they are going to give me all the images that they related to this subject. Several of which have never had any image on WP. And in fact don't even have an article yet. Once I get them I will post a message here because I am not a WP image expert so I am not sure how to post them out here without them being flagged for deletion. Especially, since I cannot "prove" were I got them and some may have an unknown origin. --Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the basic text I sent them:

I am not sure who I should send this request to but I thought your office might be able to help me or tell me where I should go. As a hobby I edit wikipedia, of specific interest to me are the Medal of Honor related articles, particularly recipients. Since wikipedia is an open source, freedomain website, and is a nonprofit organization I was wondering what the requirements or procedures are for requesting images, to be uploaded to wikipedia. I am specifically looking for images of Medal of Honor recipients or events related to them, but I would take any images that I am allowed to upload.

I am also went to the Navy archives today (I work down the street) and they said they would be glad to help but the person I needed to talk to was gone today and I will contact the Army as well. I also contact the Visual section of the Library of Congress but I got a canned response to the effect of "not all of our images are free" so I gotta work on that one some more. If I can just get 1 group I think it will help. If you think of any other group I didn't mention let me know and I'll see what I can do.--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of proving it Kumioko, you could use WP:OTRS. Ask someone with a background in images about how to use it, User:Durova should be of help with this. She is very successful in dealing with images, particularly milhist ones. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, thats a great idea. --Kumioko (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit in case you hadn't found it.) Woody (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, again, I also sent an EMAIL to the Medal of Honor society requesting images so well see what pans out there. I only hope that along with the images comes something that says at least some of the Who, what, when,were and why's. --Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention all editors interested

This is just a friendly notice to inform everyone that the international response the Haitian earthquake is finally starting to take some shape, and as would be expected a number a military units are part of that effort. It would appreciated if all of us could keep an extra pair of eyes out on the 2010_Haiti_earthquake#International_response section, and make sure the articles linked in the section that fall within our scope stay presentable. I expect that these pages will see increased traffic for the next week or two at a minimum, which is fine; however, the media blitz offers an opportunity for our articles to fall victim to WP:NOTNEWS edits. Making sure that information on the tragedy is properly processed into milhist-related articles would go a long way to preempting that problem. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked editor Top Gun (talk · contribs), whose fondness of making up casualty figures, creating vast lists of casualty reports and edit warring against any changes to them will be well known to many editors within this project, is also targeting this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the alerts (and who should I block as a Top Gun sock, I wonder?) EyeSerene^talk 11:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They've been editing from IPs starting in the 89.x range since I blocked their most recent sock (User:UrukHaiLoR). Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing topic

General Line Officer and general line (military) are missing. I attempted to do something, but my expertise was sufficient only for the disambiguation of "general line".

By the way do you have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article requests or something? This page actually redirects to {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}, which has no apparent slot for new article requests. So I failed to find a proper place to post the above. BTW, apart of this, I amazed with the organization of this WP. Military discipline, I guess:-) Dzied Bulbash (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We used to have a single list for requested articles, but it grew too large to be useful. The current system is to maintain requested article lists at the task force level instead; in this case, for example, you could list them with the military science and technology task force. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Petlyakov Pe-8 now open

The featured article candidacy for Petlyakov Pe-8 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Windsor needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Windsor; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

British-Pathe news clips

I recently discovered the British-Pathe archive website ([1]), and it has some fascinating clips (the previews are free, the full-resolution you have to pay for, but the previews are still good) on historical matters. Mainly British and French, 1890s to 1970s news and stock film footage, with various military stuff as well. The military stuff is primarily WWI and WWII, but some other military stuff might be there as well. News clips of the funerals of some eminent soldiers are there, for example (I found the funeral of Lord Trenchard, founder of the RAF - see here and here). I've posted here (the Military memorials and cemeteries task force) as an example of the sort of thing that some brief searching can uncover on that website, and am posting here to let people know about this resource. I also posted a notice at the Village Pump (1) and the external links noticeboard (2). Depending on the response here (this appears to be a very high-traffic talk page), I may cross-post to some relevant task force talk pages (WWI, WWII, British). Would that be a good idea (the cross-posting to the task force talk pages)? Carcharoth (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting site - might be worth adding to the resources section on the task force main pages? EyeSerene^talk 08:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've previously used clips on Basil Coad, so there's also stuff on British/Commonwealth involvement in the Korean War. David Underdown (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Alexander Pentland now open

The A-Class review for Alexander Pentland is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Imperial Japanese Navy

I have nominated Imperial Japanese Navy 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. -MBK₀₀₄ 11:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Bodiam Castle now open

The featured article candidacy for Bodiam Castle 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! Nev1 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles in need

The assignment is a 50,000-110,000 byte article. They can use a stub or a start, but it has to reach GA/A quality, or FA if possible. They have to abide by the MOS, and all its quirks, and go through at least one project peer review. They are not required to do a MH article. And I'd like them to stick to the 20th century, but they don't even have to do that. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned this in the thread above, but I'll go ahead and do it again. Do not forget to register the assignment with WP:SUP. There have been some unfortunate outcomes with projects that have not been noted there when the flood of new or poorly-expanded articles shows up on the administrative noticeboards. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I've done that. I'll have to come up with a way to keep tabs on them, too. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not the most key topic, but it would be nice to see a good article on Brazil's Revolt of the Whip (Revolta da Chibata). It doesn't look like there is a plethora of English sources, but there is still a substantial amount. If this student speaks Portuguese, well, there is a ton. See the bibliography for this: [2] (pdf) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Any way to help mentor their research? While most will want to cover "popular" topics, a few will obviously want to investigate something unusual. I can offer suggestions on sources for Ethiopia/Horn of Africa topics, & warn them if they want to tackle something there simply isn't any easily accessible material for. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I somehow managed to miss this until now, but I see this as an outstanding opportunity to gather research data of our own here for our military history academy. We desperately need information from the newest of the newcomers as to what they found confusing and what they would have liked more information on, and this could be a win-win situation. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there would be a way to mentor their progress. Some of them are very gung-ho on a military topic, and I've suggested they join this project, and that this is a good place for help. Some are going to want to write the history of a weapon, or a unit, and that would work. They are not limited to 20th century topics, either. If you want to chime in on the talk page for the project, go to User:Auntieruth55/Shaping the Modern World Class Project and click on the talk page. Post a suggestion, if you'd like, or offer mentorship, partnership, etc. If I knew how to cross copy this set of posts to that talk page, I would do so.... but I don't. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) now open

The peer review for Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class reviews need more editors

There are several currently ongoing ACRs that could use some additional editors to determine if these articles meet the A-class criteria of this project or not:

ACR for Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628
ACR for Siege of Damascus (634)
ACR for Siege of Jerusalem (637)
ACR for Battle of Yarmouk
ACR for Battle of Winterthur (1799)

The editors who have submitted these articles for the reviews would be appreciative of any and all comments and or reviews that are offered. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FA-Class review for Helmut Lent needs some support

May I ask the community here to visit the Helmut Lent review and provide some feedback. So far the article has two supporters. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Germany now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Bombardment of Papeete now open

The peer review for Bombardment of Papeete is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cedric Howell now open

The A-Class review for Cedric Howell is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River now open

The peer review for Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Colonial American military history

An article called Colonial American military history was created today. It does have some sources, but is basically a stub/start at this point. I've tagged the tlk page for MILHIST. It likes like a legitimately-needed articel, and I haven't found any overlapping articels yest. However, I'm not familar at all with the topoic, or with WP's coverage of the topic. Any help watching the articel while it comes together would be appraciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added an assessment and task force parameter. EyeSerene^talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

FA-Class review for Helmut Lent needs your help

May I ask anyone here to give the article a look? The review has been inactive for two weeks now. I fear that it may fail due to lack of interest. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Lion (1910) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Lion (1910) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry Dolan

Good afternoon. I've got a question about WWII ace pilots. Are they considered notable because of a certain number of kills? Is that written somewhere? The person who disagrees with my notability tag on this specific article uses the rationale that "notability is established by award of an honor" but I do not see an award, only a number of kills. Can someone please clarify?--v/r - T P 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Henry Dolan is a World War I ace pilot who was awarded the Military Cross. His honor is noted in the info box on this stub article. Georgejdorner (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In principal, I do tend to believe flying aces are notable, providing that there are reliable sources available of course. However, per WP:MILPEOPLE and consensus in previous AfD debates, the award of a Military Cross is not enough to assert notability as it is a third level award; only the award of a first level decoration, such as the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor, or several second level decorations are deemed notable enough via the bestoyal of an honour criterion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So does that mean Henry Dolan does not meet Wikipedia standards? I've seen discussions on military awards before and their assertion of notability but I am not sure where the line is drawn. As far as my posting this question, I was unaware at the time that he even had the Military Cross.--v/r - T P 04:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view, if there are reliable references available on this person, then, yes, he is notable and does meet the standards for inclusion. If not, however, then he probably does not. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, notability all comes down to the quality, depth, reliability and independence of the source material. My personal opinion, looking at the article, is that there may not be enough there to justify a stand-alone article; the sources seem fine but are very limited. It might be best to merge the content into another article (perhaps No. 74 Squadron RAF?) EyeSerene^talk 10:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The MC alone is not generally sufficient to establish notability, however, in this case sufficient has been written about WWI aces as the pioneers of air combat that sufficient third-party sources can be found (I believe that the aerodrome website already cited itself draws on a number of published sources for details of kills etc). David Underdown (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are more sources that mean the article can be expanded, that would certainly address my concern. At the moment I don't believe there's enough content to justify a biographical article (comparing it to, for example, Edward Mannock at the other end of the spectrum!) EyeSerene^talk 13:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

~~So in your opinions, does a notability tag seem justified at the very least?~~Per improvements, I retract my question--v/r - T P 18:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Smedley Butler now open

The featured article candidacy for Smedley Butler 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Thomas Baker (aviator) now open

The featured article candidacy for Thomas Baker (aviator) 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) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviews needing attention

We have two peer review requests which have been open for some time without any comments:

If anyone could find some time to comment on these, it would be very appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday

Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday (April 20, 1939) is probably of interest to the Military History project, as a major military parade took place in Berlin on that day, and many contemporary press reports comment extensively on the weapons that have been displayed. Also, the article is being considered for deletion here. Cs32en Talk to me 06:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

NORAD

Could some members here keep an eye on NORAD and it's talk page. I haven't looked too closely myself, but from what I understand, there's a 9/ll truther editing from an IP trying to introduce doubtful material and another editor opposing him more or less alone. It would probably help the page if more editors weighed in on the controversy to help establish consensus one way or the other. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the editor has admitted using the article to push this fringe theory on the basis of their own 'research'. The indefinite semi protection of the article seems appropriate. I've watchlisted the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Alexander Pentland now open

The featured article candidacy for Alexander Pentland 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! Ian Rose (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of focus on key articles

I am concerned that there is a lack of focus on the quality of the most important articles in scope of the project. Can we incentivise work on key (essentially high-hit rate) articles in the competitions? I see a lot of reviews of marginally notable topics and if I was cynical (ha!), I'd say it was because they are easy to get passed, exactly the opposite of the incentive we want. Getting something like WWII to FA is a truly Herculean task and should be acknowledged as such. Dhatfield (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your points, and I suspect anyone new to wiki would wonder why some obviously key articles aren't to the highest standard. Unfortunately I think they are also the hardest and most controversial subjects - minor disagreements can last for weeks or even months before a decision is made. Marginal articles allow editors to write about subjects they have a deep interest in (we are volunteers after all!) without getting involved in endless debates about which style of English is most appropriate or what to call Germany. I imagine there is probably a better balance of sources to fall back on for smaller subjects as well, whereas you'd need to hire an entire library for something like a World War. So yes, they probably are easier to get passed, because the breadth of knowledge is narrower and the facts easier to ascertain. Just some thoughts. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ranger Steve as to the difficulties associated with elevating the quality of the most wide-ranging topics. But how to encourage people to do that? And exactly which articles should get the incentives, the most popular ones or those with the broadest scope like WWII? WWI already has a good incentive, but nobody's stepped forward. I suppose barnstars, or extra points could be awarded for the various contests, for such articles, but how would they be selected? Size, popularity, combination? And who does the selection? I suppose Eurocopter could decide those for the WWI contest, since he's running it, but that doesn't help much for the rest of the project.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An anniversary seems like a good reason to focus on something in my opinion, and there are a lot of 70th Anniversaries approaching for individual WWII engagements... Ranger Steve (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this debated. I've had the impression for some time that most of the project's effort is devoted to going into more and more detail (or more articles about less and less), rather than looking at the big picture. Obscure minor battles, vehicles, weapons and units get articles while big topics get neglected. Articles on "soft" subjects such as tactics are particularly poor. I'm trying to do my bit by (very slowly) improving Trench warfare! Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments already formed in this post. In terms of the anniversary question we do have the WWI centennial project to bring the core topics of WWI up to scratch. I also agree that sometimes we divert our energies to subjects that perhaps aren't the traditional encyclopedic subjects, and as a project we can get caught up in a circle of endless drives. But, what we have to remember here is that this is a volunteer project, and as such, the volunteers will work on what interests them the most, be that ships or the VC in my case.

As a project, I think we do have to push these core articles a bit more through the review processes that we have set up. The trouble comes with the sheer amount of work needed to bring these articles up to scratch and the sheer number of interested parties who have to be placated. I remember the efforts to clean up WWII a while back that ended up discussing every paragraph in minute detail and become bogged down in discussions about POV. This will inevitably discourage editors from working on these types of articles. I have yet to come up with an idea to mitigate these issues, and I haven't seen one in action on Wikipedia yet. Take a look at the FAC history of Roman Catholic Church for an example of how not to do it. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the long excruciating process of bringing a popular-topic article to FA is what happens to the FA articles after they are promoted: The became even bigger targets for the POVers! It makes all the time and effort seem worthless, and often the aricel becomes more of a mess than before. For me, the best incentive is one the project itself cannot provide at this time: Some form of protecton, flagged or traditional. Beyond that, I don't see the point of trying on the high-traffic articles. As long as anyone can edit anything, they certainly will! - BilCat (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, the problems are twofold: first of all, the most popular articles are generally those with larger scope, and which therefore have more sources available to consult. In order to cover the topic fully, it would be necessary to invest a massive amount of time and energy into it. The other problem is the other people. Larger scope, more popular articles generally have more people watching them, and everyone wants the article to fit their vision, or just wants to make trouble, advocate their point of view, or sees bias in every innocuous statement. – Joe N 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Classes start here on Thursday, and for my students' research paper, I have assigned them to write a wikipedia article. The course is a 20th century world history course. Although I would be reluctant to thrust them into a controversial topic, there will be 40 articles coming up in the next 2-3 months that I will have some influence on. Any ideas? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, perhaps responses to Ruth's practical question re. topics for her students should be a new subsection so it doesn't confuse the overall thread here. For my own part, Ruth, do they have to be brand new articles or could your class upgrade some stubs as well? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Outdent A very valid point, but in addition to the responses above I think it's worth pointing out that by their nature, the 'popular' or 'big picture' topics will already have a great deal of coverage in other encyclopedias/books/etc. Of course that shouldn't prevent WP producing its own versions of them as best it can, so this becomes more of a 'one-stop-shop' for knowledge, but in the greater scheme of things it's not like people will have nowhere to look if WP isn't the best place. On the other hand, WP is sometimes the best or only place you find decent articles on the more obscure or less popular topics, and I think that's part of its great value. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruth, do not forget to register your project with WP:SUP -MBK₀₀₄ 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did that. Didn't know about it, and was wondering how I was going to get this in front of various administrators. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's done a fair bit of work on 'big picture' topics, I agree that it can be a lot of hard work getting them to a reasonable standard. The pay off is pretty important though - for instance the World War II article, which was developed through several months of intensive discussion and editing, now does Wikipedia proud and should make a good impression on the 27,000 people who view it on the average day. It should also be noted that many of the most popular military history articles are at B or A class standard. From my experiance, once an article is developed to a reasonable standard it normally stays that way - unhelpful edits to the World War II article are lucky to survive for a few hours, for instance. The problem though is that the process of improving these articles attracts unproductive nationalist editors who want to push their views - something which largely explains why the World War I article is in a poor state. I'd also note that while it's harder to work on these articles than on more obscure topics, they do have the benefit of normally being covered by some books which are considered the standard works on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The big articles take a huge amount of time and effort because of the amount of sources available, the number of people watching a page, and the fact that a lot of people will have their own opinion on how the subject should be dealt with and the confrontation (often exhausting and frequently frustrating) that can ensue. There are easier targets than the big subjects, and I can understand why they are avoided. It's not just a problem here, about six months ago there was a discussion at WP:FAC about how to motivate people to write core articles rather than small obscure ones.

In short, writing extraordinary articles requires extraordinary motivation. No amount of barnstars or points is enough. When I began my rewrite of the castle article, it was because it was in such poor shape; it had a handful of references and one particular vandal was pushing a pro-Spanish/anti-Italian agenda. This person was very persistent and I felt that the best way to stop them was to rewrite the article. Without that incentive the article would still look like this. Keeping vandals out wasn't the only reason for improving the article, it's a subject I find interesting and so do about 70,000 others a month. If you're not interested in something, you won't be able to write well about it. WP:MILHIST may suffer from recentism, but people write about what they're interested in and I wouldn't want that to change. If it did, Wikipedia would stop being a fun hobby and become a job. Interest alone should be enough reason to develop the most important articles. A side effect of working on the castle article was that smaller articles on individual castles don't seem so daunting anymore.

I understand fears that high-traffic articles may degrade over time, but for what it's worth, now castle is a Featured Article it feels like the amount of vandalism has decreased (although this is based on personal experience rather than an in depth study); people are more willing to defend well developed articles than rubbish ones (again, one of the reasons a lot of POV was allowed to creep into the castle article. For the most popular articles, they will change even after the main contributor has gone onto other articles; but a well written article on something like the Hundred Year's War is worth hundreds of articles on tiny unknown forts in the middle of nowhere. Think about how many more people would benefit from well sourced, accurate information.

There are a myriad of difficulties when dealing with the most important articles. The main thing WP:MILHIST can offer, aside from peer and A-class reviews, is support and protection. The busiest articles will attract POV pushers and the like. To prevent an editor from feeling overwhelmed, they need someone else who can step in on their behalf sometimes, or who can chip in and say "I think you're right".

What might help is a feature in the newsletter. I'm thinking of something along the lines of a short interview about a broad subject within our remit. People can't be forced to be interested in something, but if they're given the chance to learn more you never know what might happen. Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. Beautifully expressed. I would just add that one of the benefits of working on big articles should be that you are not alone, and the rewards of working in a successful team should be greater than those of the lonely artist in his garret; which may depend on whether one is motivated by barnstars, or by a desire to achieve some public benefit. One of the frustrations of working on small articles is the feeling that no-one else is reading your work, let alone helping. Big articles shouldn't be solo efforts, and the POVers should be shouted down by a number of interested editors. There just aren't enough of us looking over any given article at any time. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that would really help for big articles is getting a resource together for the sources. It was mentioned above that "WWI already has a good incentive", which may refer to the $250 bounty or the centennial project, but I looked at the number of sources, and for any one individual to check and use all the main sources, the outlay could be well in excess of $250 (not to mention the time invested). It would help if people put their hands up and said "I have this book, and can check stuff if needed", or for others to get other books out of libraries, and so on. And to take things slowly, step by step. Maybe try and get WWI featured by the end of this year, but set a smaller target for the next few months? 07:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC) For my part, I'm considering getting the new book on the First Battle of the Marne. Working on that, and then seeing how that translates into a paragraph or section in the WWI article. Though I see Western Front (World War I) is already featured. I think I saw someone say that it is the Eastern Front stuff that is difficult to cover to a high standard. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a note about this, Western Front was featured in 2006, and just a cursory examination shows places where referencing could be improved. I think it would be better to also change the structure to break out the bits on Air and Gas warfare to another section instead of having nearly the whole article be chronological, so, even though it is FA, you could still help by working on it. – Joe N 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the $250 could be much of an incentive given how broad the topic is, and even if a person had a broad knowledge of everything the writing up would still be economical. As for the contests, they give equal weight to all articles and only look at the class, so writing a "comprehensive" 3 paragraph article on an enlisted man who is only notable for one even such as winning a Medal of Honor gets the same points as a general who did many coups and ruled for 20 years, let alone an article on a really big topic that may be controversial or the subject of many different analyses by historians as to the legacy of the event etc, or arguments over who planned and plotted what in a coup. So a contest with a flat all FAs/GAs/Bs are the same won't be an incentive. Even a 20X bonus for a major war compared to a non-complex biog or straighforward equipment probably wouldn't suffice if we are talking raw economic rationalism as means of altering people's habits. Mastering a very complex FA may earn respect from a few people, but if anyone wants a personal following or whatever, they would be better off playing politics and marketing themselves rather than trying to achieve excellence, I doubt any non-purist incentive can work. Also while some people see FAs as a means of getting 40,000 TFA hits and pushing their POV, the really big-hit articles wouldn't need an extra 40,000 and they would be better off spending 20 hours of cleanup/MOS time to write more nonsense POV articles. Any half-decent POV pusher knows this, and with rising standards, luckily, less POV pushers are willing to try and spend the extra time for presentation cleanups to get their propaganda on the front page (I can remember a few cases in the old days when some of these folks started their FAC noms with a soapboxing statement about how the subject of the article, an alleged massacre/injustice etc etc was so important and that the world needed to know about it) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are a few semi-sophisticated POV pushers going around who focus on articles of lesser, but strategic, importance to the topic and then use cherry picked or unreliable references to push their view. Articles concerning war crimes in World War II are frequently troublesome, for example. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I lost all interest in contributing to the key article on WW2 because of the endless debates on minor details. FFS, pages and pages on the name to call Germany! This also leads to the situation that minor edits are immediatly reverted, because there has been no discussion on them. This leads to an article frozen in time, where the current version is always considered the best over any change by the leading administrator of that particular article, even when a change is undoubtedly an improvement, and undisputed.JurSchagen (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine we've all been there (or at least in a debate close to it). We should remember though that POV isn't a dirty word; everyone has a different point of view on a lot of things, and the more resources there are the more likely that support for a particular point of view can be found (and the harder it is to find the correct answer). A lot of debates take place with the best of intentions in an effort to make our articles as accurate as possible. Of course there are some editors who are trying to push their own fringe POV, but these are usually caught out fairly soon. It's the articles where everyone is working in good faith that are the most awkward! Anyway, the net result is the same, editors get bored of debating and give up on the article. To be honest I'm not sure its something that can be fixed - one of the (ahem) 'joys' of wikipedia is that everyone can edit, and lets face it - the consensus strategy for making modifications doesn't always get things right. Discussions can quickly flare up into debates and then straight into arguments, insults fly and rather than trying to share and explain a position, people just end up trying to... win (I'm not saying all discussions go this way). Partly that's a problem with text based conversation; it's not like sitting down in a room or even a pub, it's more akin to an online game.

I suspect that the only way to get articles into a better state is to get people to voluntarily bow out of them, or agree to let one or two editors who work well together to write an article in a way they see fit before others copy edit it for factual errors (and less so for prose). Too many cooks and all that..... Ranger Steve (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think strong POV is more the norm in a lot of Asian countries, and other not-so-developed areas such as Eastern Europe. In many of these countries, history is still a bit comic-book like in that it depicts a struggle of a bunch of under-resourced innocent people (them) fighting the well-armed atrocity-committing bad guys (the neighbours) valiantly with bare fists. An us and them mentality is more prevalent in RL in those areas, and it shows on Wikipedia. I know one nation-based WikiProject including an admin where they all insist on using "freedom fighter" and "martyrs" to describe their military personnel and write articles describing "genocide"s of less than 100 dead. That WikiProject also had a few FAs, and I'm pretty sure if I researched the content of the history would be complete cherrypicked nonsense; those FACs always got 100% drive-by support from the members. Luckily a few of these FAs have dropped off the perch due to referencing, prose and presentation issues, saving the need to point out the POV, which would spark ethnic wiki-riots and accusations of racism from the members of that ethnic group. And generally, while in EE, there are a few folks (5-10) from each ethnic group at least, and therefore at least some resistance to anything controversial, in some parts of Asian topics some ethnic groups have no active representatives in certain areas, and 3-4 from one group can easily just monopolise an area in the absence of representation [or competent counter-attacking POV pushing] from the opposition race relating to the corresponding RL conflict/interaction; there's no way a person from a uninvolved race/religion would spend all their time stalking the ethnic chauvinist around full-time YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A similar problem is where the nationalist edit warriors don't allow needed changes to an article as this would dilute their POV-pushing. Without naming names, there was a recent FAR of an article on a military campaign which was core to the country's history which ended up with the article being delisted mainly due to the editors being unwilling to budge on removing a heavily POV section which duplicated the more neutral tone of the rest of the article. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing that YellowMonkey's comment made me think of is adopting the importance rankings used by many projects. We haven't done this for many years, and I've always assumed that this was because we just had too many articles and too big of a scope, but if we added it and gave points in the contest based on importance rank, with the number normally given multiplied by a certain number for high and top importance articles, we could give some incentive that might help. The problem, however, is that one person can't really bring one of these up to featured status, or even GA or A-Class, alone. I'm not sure if modifying the contest or even just adding the importance rankings would work, it's just a thought. – Joe N 18:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

With nearly 100,000 articles tagged by WP:MILHIST, I don't think an importances scale is practical, or even necessary (we all have ideas of what's important, and some such as WWI are indisputable). I'm dubious about the contest and how much points can motivate someone to work on something, but rather than "importance", why not use page views as a multiplier for points? Nev1 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with importance scales is their inherent subjectivity. Beyond the obvious core articles (WWI, WWII, War etc) then is down to individual task forces as to whether it is important. What is important for one is less important for another. I also think we have to be careful about alienating those editors who do work on "less important" articles. I agree with Nev that I don't see any amount of points being a motivator to work on the POV magnets such as WWI/WWII. The views might be something to look into, though that will lead us into issues such as George W. Bush being heavily viewed but not what anyone could describe as a core milhist article. Woody (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hit count as a multiplier works if we adopt a customer is king model, but it will also fuel more recentism than there already is YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One challenge that hasn't been discussed here with is key articles is that they tend to be complex subjects. (I suspect this has lead to a situation I've noticed throughout Wikipedia I call "the donut phenomenon": in any given topic, the better articles are about secondary or tertiary subjects,forming a ring around the core subjects which are less developed.) You can understand what I am talking about if you take the example Dhatfield mentioned above -- World War II -- & try to explain the subject in 500 words or less -- without leaving out any important issues. I doubt you could compile a list of the major topics in less than 500 words. In my corner of Wikipedia I've been focussing on subjects of lesser importance as a means to work towards those of greater importance: get the details right, and eventually one will be able to explain the greater plan. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I started on Ngo Dinh Diem and as I knew very little ended up reading in more detail various events and opponents he was involved with and will probably never finish with the branches before getting to the trunk. A lot of people, as they are mostly beginners will do it this way, as they have to learn things in more depth to understand, whereas an expert knows how the facets fit in and can put the overview together immediately. The donut effect is definitely more promounced these days as expectations have gone up; there were lots of old 2006 and earlier FAs where some amateur historian Wikipedians wrote some FAs on iconic heads of state and independence leaders by just cut-pasting and paraphrasing a few rough and non-scholarly mini-web-bios that were just mediocre tertiary sources (sometimes from the official govt website synopsis) without getting the detailed scholarly books and journal articles and systematically dissecting the key events they were involved in and then distilling it, possibly creating subarticles on the way. The new way makes the article quality better but will also deter a person from writing up boldly, having a go, and getting a parent article done more quickly as sometimes they are focused on the subarticles that they neglect to cut the summary of the completed subarticle and paste it back into the dishevelled parent article. Yes I'm guilty there! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

developing a solution

I agree with what has been said above. I also support the customer is king approach, because the high frequency articles are what people mainly see of wikipedia and would suggest to direct efforts into improving them. The problem is how. One key ingredient mentioned above is teamwork. The topics are large and difficult. For this teamwork, it would be helpful if we could organize our participants in such a way that although the whole thing is daunting, individual workload is manageable. My suggestion is, to create a framework wherein the different aspects of the article are listed and everyone picks out one aspect and writes about it. Considering a worldwar, we can break down by phases and fronts and by topics like gas war, homefront, events leading to the war and so on. We can also add supportive tasks like retrieving photos, scientific works on the topic from all around the world and so on. I don't suggest to start with the most daunting topic, but basically I think we can develop a technology for these articles that is similar to our well-organized drives. I don't think that such a team will have lots of trouble dealing with individual POV pushers and if they encounter an organized band with that purpose they might call the project for help. Opinions? Wandalstouring (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. For World War I, there is the current contest (which has been publicised as something to help get the centennial project going), the task force talk page, and the centennial project talk page. I'm sometimes unsure where to post something when I have a question about WWI articles that applies to more than just one or two articles, and have been using the task force talk page for general questions, the contest talk page for questions about the contest, and the centennial project talk page for longer term ideas, but the more talk pages there are to follow, the more focus can be lost sometimes. A general scheme for tackling broad and core articles would be very helpful for the WWI centennial project (which has as one of the aims to get the core articles all featured by 2014). One cautionary tale about selecting a list of core topics to work on is that the time spent deciding which should be the core topics is often better spent on improving articles (see the discussions around the core biographical articles for how not to do this - here there are discussions for changing a list settled on over three years ago, though admittedly Michael Jackson wasn't dead back then - and of the 200 articles selected, 22 are featured now compared to 17 featured back in December 2006 - compare the stats now to then). The discussion of the core topics should be brief, and work should begin almost immediately on one article, and the lessons learnt from that one applied to the next article, and so on, until a model for working on broad articles that actually works in practice, emerges. The other thing I noticed is that some project talk pages get overwhelmed by notices about reviews (see the WWI task force talk page for a current example). It is obviously important to attract reviewers to do these reviews, but the other discussions (that don't have anywhere else logical to go) look a bit lost among all the notices about reviews - is that generally considered a problem or not? As for the centennial project, I was very excited when I found it, posted on the talk page (this was back in December) and nothing so far. The timing of the posts there have been: December 2008, January 2009, February 2009, November 2009, December 2009, January 2010, so it seem some interest is slowly coming back, but unless more people get involved, it may just die out again, which would be sad. Is that level of activity OK at this point, or would people hope for more activity? I raise the point about activity, because to get a broad article like World War I improved, you need to develop a broad base of activity and discussion. Maybe all the discussion takes place on the article talk page? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as far as the POV words go, I asked Betacommand to do a word search for me in May 2008 and the results are at User:YellowMonkey/Words if anyone wants to get into it. My previous attempt to discuss with these folks didn't reach a consensus, they claimed that as historians [nationalists] in their country used martyr and freedom fighter, then my use of a more placid synonym was "original research" and one also said that my appeals to WP:NPOV could be overriden by WP:IAR as though IAR could trump NPOV among other nonsense [[3]]. I did ask another coord at the time if coords could invoke their status to order them to back down on the military articles, but didn't get an endorsement and was advised to maybe ignore the POV violation. In any case, the beneficiaries of this situation are mostly inactively atm, so there might not be much reverting, although they aren't likely to actively take down POV that benefits them YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

World War I or World War II?

I have somewhat of a different approach for peoples' ideas. Some time ago we attempted to raise the quality / finish off World War II. That was done by a couple of eager enthusiasts doing most of the writing (including User:Oberiko, who did a lot of hard work) and several people trying to run interference on all the drive-by editors/POVers etc. I don't believe it can be done broken down in bits. I believe the way forward to see whether there are enthusiasts who are willing to take on either WW I or WW II - depends on their personal preferences, then collect 8-10 people who are willing to actively keep everybody else off their back, including at least a couple of coordinators, then be prepared to stick with it - and it might take some time, months. What do people think? Are there people out there willing to do the research and writing for either of the big two? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What about copting the article to a sandbox in project space, and doing the major surgery there, moving it to mainspace when it is finished. Is that allowed,a nd would it work here? - BilCat (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, it's essentially being bold, although if done you may want an admin to merge page histories so that record of people's contributions is not lost. It has the benefit of being more private: it's unlikely POV pushers and vandals will find it, and you can invite people to edit the sandbox. Nev1 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's important to stress that given the huge number of page views per day and the number of people who have watchlisted the articles (1965 for World War I and 2261 for World War II) changes need to be as transparent as possible for them to be defensible. I like the idea of forming a work group and editing the text on either the article's main talk page or a subpage of it, with notices placed in appropriate places. I think that the World War I article is in most need of work, though it could be possible to bring the World War II article to GA or even A class in a relatively short period of time. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of years ago, during one of many rewrites of World War II, the work was done on the article talk page (you can see some of the work done here). It seemed to be a quite workable way to overhaul the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an error to start this new concept with anything as difficult as a worldwar, because if you try something new you will encounter a lot of problems until you have optimized the technique. If you start with the biggest possible heap of problems you are very unlikely to achieve success. Having an unorganized team doesn't seem to be any asset because none knows what needs to be done while others do the same things twice. Coordinators aren't supermen that help solve issues, they're just editors doing administration, however, like you suggest to not organize the team there's no need for administration. Naturally, you're free to try anything, but I argue to start small with something our readers like (and not have a discussion about what we consider important). Wandalstouring (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My thought was precisely to focus on what our readers find most important: seemingly, World War II, though, given the centenary, maybe World War I is a better target. I had no thought at all of coordinators doing anything else than their role plus a bit of surveillance - that's why I suggested a watching team of 8-10. The critical issue is raising the quality of the 2-3 most read articles. When an approach is decided upon and carried through - this or any other - I will be ready to spend hours as part of the effort to improve them. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you fixed on this large number of participants (8-10)? And why are you fixed on two of our popular articles? Wandalstouring (talk)

And why fixed on only 20th. century? This technique could be used on topics nominated by individual task forces - it would spread the load better (not everyone being an expert on WWI or WWII)Monstrelet (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As two of the most popular articles within the scope of this project (they're #1 and #3 according to this list they'd make great showcases for Wikipedia if they could be brought to a high standard. Moreover, Buckshot was merely making a suggestion so there's no need for the hostility; what would you suggest be an appropriate focus? Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A popular article about a topic where we don't stumble across lots of POV pushers. I don't think we can avoid tons of literature. Auschwitz concentration camp is a start article unlike WWI and WWII who are both reasonable B-class and would be a good limited topic to start. I wouldn't try Vietnam war with a new collaboration technique for a start, but settle with the biographies of Henry VIII of England, John F. Kennedy and George Washington who are all top viewed articles rated start. For these personalities there are a few good biographies, so we can have some people reading this or that biography. And yes, I would participate, although I'm more into classical times. These questions weren't hostile, but I wanted to clarify why my fellow editor has these opinions. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto on the no hostility. Trying to widen the option set and the potential participants. WWI & WWII are popular but, to rephrase a sentiment already expressed, you don't start your climbing career with Everest. At least try a less tough one to shake the team down before going for the biggee - some good suggestions from Wandalstouring above. I could offer some help on Henry VIII, though I couldn't take a lead. On the other subjects, I'd try for Roman Army because a) it is a commonly understood topic, even it doesn't get the hits some others do b) it fits the overall aim, as Roman warfare is one of the historical foundations of modern Western military theory and c) there are some editors over on the Classical Warfare Task Force who are interested in improving it. Again, all suggestions made in support of the idea and without hostility. Monstrelet (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I can join Roman army, but I think, we should start with Henry VIII first, because its popular. I don't want to get bogged down by discussions about what we consider important. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Do we have a consensus for action or do we need more discussion? If/when we have consensus, what is our plan of action? Monstrelet (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have received material for the Roman army. We could start that in a few months and I can try to recruit some more editors. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Recommend talking to EraNavigator (talk), who is the main editor on site at present and is keen to improve things Monstrelet (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I know him. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for German Type UB I submarine now open

The peer review for German Type UB I submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming Help

I plan on creating a new article on alert pads, since a good article can be made on them. I was wondering if it should be named "Alert Pad" or "Alert Facility". I'm leaning towards pad, but there isn't a ton of Google hits, so I'm unsure of what to do here. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Armoured target

The article Armoured target has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reference found support for a dictionary phrase, but did not find sufficient content to justify a full wikipeida article. Fails WP:V, WP:NOTDICT & WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quebec in 1759: how to structure

There is a discussion at Talk:Battle of the Plains of Abraham about how to structure an expansion of content, principally the campaign and siege activities that preceded the battle. Interested parties are welcome to contribute. Magic♪piano 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Henry George Chauvel now open

The A-Class review for Henry George Chauvel is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Identifying a World War I Era Tank

I was looking into restoring this image. However, for it to be nominated for featured picture it needs to be definitively ID'd. The original caption on Library of Congress is "Tank ploughing its way through a trench and starting toward the German line, during World War I, near Saint Michel, France. However on commons the caption is "A French World War I Renault FT-17 tank, ditching." Does anyone have any materials that could fairly definitively ID this tank? Thanks NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the gun barrel design I suspect it may be a Renault FT-17, but that would need to be confirmed. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Tom, it is a FT-17. And the symbols painted on the turret might be able to identify a unit or at least a nationality. But you'd have to ask at the specialized AFV boards to find somebody who might know, I expect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely an FT-17. Question is - is it French or American? Given the Library of Congress having the image, it may have an American connection. That said, identifying tanks in a squadron with playing card motifs was common on French tanks in WWII, so may have a WWI origin. Agree you need an AFV specialist.Monstrelet (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The US did seem to use playing card motifs; see, eg, here. The FT-17 was used by both French and American forces in the Battle of Saint-Mihiel, mid-September 1918. Shimgray | talk | 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured List candidacy for List of battlecruisers of Germany now open

The FLC for List of battlecruisers of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Battle of Smolensk (1943) 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 (bananabucket) 03:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Naval battles

A dispute has arisen over how to name naval battles which do not have a well-established name, see talk for Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, also the naval campaign template for the War of 1812. I suggest that, while "Action of date X" should be the default option if nothing better can be found, "Ship A v. Ship B" is usually the best way of describing single-ship actions, and "Sinking of Ship C" is a perfectly legitimate way of describing some actions if this really was the dominant feature. PatGallacher (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pat, just to clarify; is there a centralised discussion of this dispute anywhere, or is this it? Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

@Pat: Having written a large number of these articles, and having considered this problem long and hard on several occassions, I'm afraid that I disagree with your assessment. There are several problems with either of the non-date options you suggest: the first option, "Ship A v. Ship B" has three immediate issues, the first being that I have never seen a serious naval history adopt such a "sports match" title, and therefore (as far as I am aware) we would be creating our own orthodoxy (if I'm wrong, please show me who has used it), the second is that such actions were not always or even often evenly matched between just two ships - outside the War of 1812 these engagements were usually between squadrons or portions of squadrons, which would lead to impossibly complicated titles, and the third is that there would be endless arguments over which ship should come first (I can't help but notice that in the War of 1812 actions the US Navy ship always comes first, regardless of alphabetic order or who actually won the engagement). The problem with the second suggested title is that there were frequently either multiple or no ships sunk or captured, and sometimes ships lost from from both sides, making it only applicable in a few cases. There is also the problem that only one ship is named in the title, which doesn't seem very equitable or descriptive. I agree that the date option is not entirely satisfactory, but until a better option is discovered it is probably the best way to deal with those actions that do not have accepted historic names.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the centralised discussion, although it was already discussed at length at Sydney v. Kormoran. I am not disuputing that "action of X date" is the best title where e.g. more than 2 ships were involved or sunk, this is for cases only involving 2 ships, or where the capture or sinking of one ship really was the dominant event. How do serious naval histories of the War of 1812 refer to these actions? The date option can also have its problems e.g. if one navy was using the Gregorian calendar and the other was using the Julian, this does apply to a number of wars. PatGallacher (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several questions and points there: 1) It seems counter-productive to have a different convention for articles on engagements where only two ships was engaged from articles involving multiple ships - if we are going to establish a convention, then it should be for all such articles, except of course where there is a historical name for the battle, or it took place within a harbour, in which case (e.g. Raid on Dunkirk (1800)), the convention used in land battles should be followed of using the place name. I think there should be just the one rule for consistency and ease of understanding. 2) This is just the problem - serious naval histories don't in general give convenient titles to these more minor naval engagements, and they were not usually given a name at the time either. As a result, we at Wikipedia have to come up with a convenient compromise for the title of our articles. 3) The calendar issue with the date option is a potential problem, but in that instance we should use the date as given in reliable sources and put a note in the lead explaining the discrepancy. I'm not totally satisified with it either, but using the date really is the most neutral and convenient option.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This one’s been puzzling me, also. The “Action of …” format seems to crop up a lot, here, but the format I’m used to seeing in books does use the ships names, as much as anything (The Swiftsure and the Foudroyant”, “The capture of the Guillaume Tell” “Java and Constitution” (the British one first, in that case; and not the winner either) “Shannon and Chesapeake” “The sinking of the Leopard” (which is articled here as Action of 16 March 1917); wouldn’t this be covered by WP Common name? If a descriptive name like that is used in a reliable source, why not use it? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Principally because those names are not consistently used in a majority of sources, and all fall foul of the problems I have highlighted above. These are in no way "official" or even "conventional" names (and many of them are decidedly non-descriptive as well - outside its context what on earth does “Shannon and Chesapeake” mean), and their use in source material is inconsistent and open to debate, argument and disagreement.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"outside its context what on earth does “Shannon and Chesapeake” mean?" Answer: about as much as Romeo and Juliet once context is removed from that...something involving something called Romeo and something called Juliet. You are rarely (if ever) going to get all of the context necessary context into an article title... thats what lead sections and hatnotes to other possible targets are. -- saberwyn 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is true of course, but the problem still exists that there is no uniformity in the way these names are presented in the sources. Also, a quick survey of the roughly sixty articles on naval battles I have written so far shows that of these only three would qualify as "single ship" actions under this proposed guideline. This seems to me to be an unnecessary distinction in terms of article title that will actually make the situation more confusing not less.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Naval Review tends to call battles using action of insert date. So there are references that use the format. It didnt just pop up out of the blue. Many battles are unnamed, so in essence by calling the battle by anything else but the date we would be making up a name out of the blue.XavierGreen (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But if no sources (or at least, none of the sources checked) use the date to "name" the battle, wouldn't we still be making a name up out of the blue? -- saberwyn 10:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it even be possible to pick the day of a battle out of the blue? The name of the battle is essentially the day it occured.XavierGreen (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Battle of Tali-Ihantala 1944

Recently I've posted several new references and a quote on Tali-Ihantala article (both Finnish sources and a quotations from Vasilevsky's memoirs), which prove that Russians planned to stop their offensive on the Karelian Isthmus already on June 17 (Vasilevsky's and Antonov's meeting with Stalin), and also that it was Stalin's order to Govorov in July that stopped the Russian advance at Ihantala. The troops (5 divisions and tanks) were transferred to the Baltics for the operations in Estonia. This, IMHO, proves beyond all doubts that Russians didn't plan to "occupy Finland" as many modern Finnish historians now claim. Also, the Finns claim that the Soviets sent an "unconditional surrender demand" to the Finns on June 23, but that isn't true either. The word "unconditional" wasn't present in Russians' note. They wanted to see a written declaration signed by the Finnish primeminister or minister of external affairs that "Finland capitulates and asks Soviet Union for peace" - in that case "the Soviets were ready to receive a delegation from the Finnish governement in Moscow". On July 2, an article in Pravda fought back Finnish accusations of "unconditional surrender". It stated that all Finnish talks about "unconditional surrender" are groundless. This article was quoted in several Swedish newspapers the next day with the titles like "No capitulation without conditions" (Svenska Dagbladet, July 3, 1944). Besides all that the faith of Finland was already decided in Teheran in December 1943, where Stalin said he would let Finland remain independent and would only take Vyborg, Karelian Isthmus, and Hangö with the Hangö district. He also said he could also change Hangö for Petsamo. Roosevelt replied: "This is a fair change". Everyone can read about it in Churchill's memoirs "Second World War" (chapter about Teheran).

With all the above said, the picture is clear, there where no plans for occupying Finland, Soviets planned to stop at the Finnish border (that decision was taken prior to their capturing of Vyborg), switch over to defence on the Karelian Isthmus and transer troops to the Baltics, no unconditional surrender was issued, Pravda denied Finnish lies in that aspect, the Russian troops stopped at Ihantala (July 11) when they received Stavkas order about transferring troops to the Baltics. Simply speaking, there was no "Decisive Finnish victory" - it's a modern-day Finnish political propaganda revisionist terminology, that has been spread around since 1994 (when Finns celebrated 50 years since battles on the Isthmus). Koskenkorva (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Other editors are warmly welcome to editing the article and participating to the discussion. ;-) --Whiskey (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You already know my opinion as one of the editors of that article (and editor of varios different war articles during last 3 years). Sources and texts of Koskenkorva haven't been thus far anything but his/her very own opinions mixed to Soviet WW2 - Cold war era texts. His/her only goals this far in wikipedia have been to change outcome of Battle of Tali-Ihantala from "Decisive finnish victory" to "Stalemate" (or soviet victory as he/she have said/suggested in discussion page) and Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offense from "Stalemate" to "Soviet victory". Koskenkorva have this far managed to get one warning and one temporary block in wikipedia because of his/her edits. In my eyes his/her doings look pretty much like nationalist warpropaganda, nothing more. Its funny to see pro-soviet propagandists trying to explain (now 65 years after) in every stage that Soviet Union had no plans during the WW2 to occupy any country in any circumstances, when pure fact is that every single land area which Red Army managed to occupy during the war, were attached to Soviet Union or to Soviet Unions sphere of influence (by setting new communist/pro-Soviet governments). Some time ago one editor tryed desperately turn Winter War article to look like there never was plans about occupation of Finland in Soviet Union, because (as explanation of editor went) "there is no evidence about it, no Soviet leader ever said USSR was trying to occupy Finland". I think in this case its pretty much about same thing. Soviet Union did not wanted "unconditional surrender" from Finland, they just wanted "surrender". Whats the big differense between these two?? Battle of Tali-Ihantala was just one battle linked to larger Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive. Koskenkorva sees no differense between these two. Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offense was Soviet semi-succesful operation on summer 1944, while Tali-Ihantala was just one battle in it. In Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation Red Army managed to recapture Karelian Isthmus, but failed to beat Finnish army and invade Finnish mainlain. According Koskenkorva this still results clear Soviet victory. Tali-Ihantala battle was largest single battle during the operation. Soviet troops suffered many times more men casualties than Finland and lost over 300 tanks and 120-280 airplanes. Soviet forces were unable to carry on advance any further to Finland. Major battling in Tali-Ihantala ended on 3th July, and on 12th July and after remaining Soviet tanks and airplanes (not troops, just tanks and airplanes) which had participated to battle were transferred to Baltics. According Koskenkorva this is the reason why result of battle should be stalemate, not Finnish victory. Seems pretty odd to me...62.216.127.93 (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

There is currently a rather large backlog associated with this project that could use some help:

Category:Unassessed military history articles — 180+ articles

Any help from project members to assess these articles would be appreciated. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've done the one in my sphere of expertise. Most seem to be about planes, novels and films. BTW, has anyone visited the Middle Ages task force article list recently? Over 5,000 unassessed articles.Monstrelet (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Winterthur (1799) now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Winterthur (1799) 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry now open

The peer review for 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New category: Category:Battle cries

I was looking at Awake iron! and realised there was no category joining together various war/battle cries, despite it being a relatively easily-identifiable cross-cultural custom. Accordingly, I created Category:Battle cries and managed to populate it with around a dozen article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Nguyen Van Nhung now open

The A-Class review for Nguyen Van Nhung is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for No. 1 Wing RAAF now open

The A-Class review for No. 1 Wing RAAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Joachim Helbig now open

The A-Class review for Joachim Helbig is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Liberation of Arnhem now open

The peer review for Liberation of Arnhem is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Taejon now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Taejon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Calliope (1884) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Calliope (1884) 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 now open

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Immediate Consensus Required on Eastern Front (World War II)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Lead_image

If anybody's interested, this falls under our purview and would benefit from a true consensus. Bullzeye ^contribs 01:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether the image currently used in the lead, File:Reichstag flag original.jpg, is appropriate for that position, as it is non-free. What can't be agreed upon is whether it can be replaced or not; some say it can't, while others believe a map could take its place. Please add to the discussion there if you have time! Thanks, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 13:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for John S. Loisel now open

The A-Class review for John S. Loisel is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Michael J. Daly now open

The A-Class review for Michael J. Daly is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured Articles and the use of Public Domain sources

A discussion is currently taking place on the matter of the reliance of public domain sources in a number of our FA class ship articles; all interested editors are encouraged to participate. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured List Candidacy of List of National Treasures of Japan (castles)

I nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (castles) which is part of the WikiProject Military history at WP:FLC. The criteria for featured lists are found here. Please add comments or questions to the nomination page. bamse (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding DANFS material

Please see this for a discussion regarding the use of DANFS material in ship articles. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Orion (AS-18)

There is an ongoing discussion going on about the relevence of a particular incident involving an individual who served on the Orion for a short time. The article relating to the incident was deleted at AfD, but there remains some resistance to removing the content from this article. As the article comes under the wing of this project, any comments would be welcome. Please see here. _wjemather^bigissue 11:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WWII photos

New WWII photos have been discovered in Germany. They're probably from Charkow in Summer 1942. [[4]]. There's a call for help for proper identification and assessment. The presented collection of the images isn't the complete set that has been discovered. There are also images of Russian POW and of the fighting in Charkow. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured portal candidacy

I have nominated Portal:Biological warfare as a candidate for Featured portal status. Feel free to comment, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Biological warfare. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Medal of Honor related articles

Over the past month or so I have been going through all the Medal of Honor related articles varifying their assessment status, makingn notes and creating a page to track it. This is not a formal project, just smoething that I created to give myself a starting point to start building up the content of the Medal of Honor related articles. I though I would post this out here as well in case others are interested as well. If you look at this page Medal of Honor assessments other than Amerian Civil War (ACW) you will find tables oif all of the Medal of Honor recipients other than those for the ACW with their assessment and some rough notes. This page reflects the same for the ACW Medal of Honor recipients and this page reflects those that still need to be created. The ones who are lined out are already done, although some are still stubs and need work. Just a few notes about the state of the articles in general:

All have infoboxes
Most have persondata
All have references although some need to be cleanup and expanded
Most have a link to at least one applicable portal
Most have a link to at least 1 list
Many still need photos
A little over half the recipients have pages but a lot still do not, most of those that still need articles are in the Indian wars or the American Civil War.
I am currently working on cleaning up the talk pages making sure they all have appropriate project banners (At a minimum they should have biography, MILHIST and United States), task forces and general info tags (needs photo, persondata, infobox, etc.).

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. --Kumioko (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Maryang San now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Maryang San is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bombardment of Papeete now open

The A-Class review for Bombardment of Papeete is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding news

A major US cultural institution is opening its doors to us. They've offered to supply high resolution image files for restoration upon request. Posting here to solicit suggestions. This is a wonderful opportunity if you're looking for a potential featured picture to complement a featured article drive. The initial request will be five images; if you do restorations yourself we could expand that number. Can't announce the name of the institution onsite yet, so please follow up by email. Cheers! Durova⁴⁰⁸ 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That is wonderful news! Can you disclose any information concerning the nature of the content (ie wars covered, nature of photographs included, things of that nature) so we can get a better idea which of the task force stand to benefit the most? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

...Also, there is one image I would personally like to see added at a higher resolution, if they have it: File:BattleOfShanghaiBaby.gif. I've tried twice to get this to FP status, I know it will be promoted, but the resolution at present is too small and the image could use a little TLC. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have long been wishing for a courtroom photograph of the mass mutiny trial following the Port Chicago disaster. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also like any photographs relating to Medal of Honor recipients or related events.--Kumioko (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the replies. It's an American institution with the expected strengths and weaknesses. Have been running searches on World War I today with good results. Their collection is strong on the Western Front and on US military training camps. Includes a share of aviation and Naval photography. No specific hits on any of your three requests--these things tend to work by serendipity (as in click...click...click..a captured U-Boat!) If any of you would like to browse for yourselves I'd gladly share the URL via email. Just can't name the institution yet onsite until broader agreements are formalized. We're working toward a large scale image donation to Commons for example; there will be an announcement when the time comes. It's very exciting. There's a specific war (not WWI) that I anticipate following up about at a later date. For the present the site is a delightful grab bag. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 02:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please email me the URL. Thanks! :-) Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alt text for military ribbons

I have an issue regarding the use of alt text on military ribbons. I'm not sure if its come up yet but if it hasn't come up, it undoubtedly will so we may as well get to it. There are a lot of ribbon images used on WP articles that are currently lacking alt text or if they have it, it differs from article to article. Most of these images are fairly easy to explain and in my opinion could easily be standardized and done en masse using AWB or a bot. An example of this is the File:Medal of Honor ribbon.svg. This could be explained as "a small blue military style ribbon with five small five pointed stars". Not to say thats the best explaination but I think you see my point. Anyway the whole point to alt text is describing the image for those that can't see it. For ribbons, the challenge comes in explaining it so that it makes sense and using colors to describe it, is of limited value since they may not not what blue looks like. I am looking for some advice or ideas on how to deal with this if any users have ideas please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea to have a standard alt text for each ribbon and medal. We must specify colors, as many of those who cannot see the image are sighted people using handheld internet devices, or are people who were once sighted, or are blind people who understand that colors hold significance. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds reasonable about stating the colors. I was thinking that it might also be useful to add the approved alt text to the image description. That way its in one place for all to see. I will draft up some suggestions for some of the ribbons and post them here and on the orders and decorations and bipography wikiprojects in the next day or so. --Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Yermolayev Yer-2 now open

The A-Class review for Yermolayev Yer-2 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgia during the American Revolution

Georgia during the American Revolution is one of ten articles that the New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import as a pilot project. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,000 well-researched and well-written articles, including a number of military history articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in getting this article up to GA status as quickly as possible. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a central list of these articles? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a list and background on this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#New Georgia Encyclopedia project is underway! Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for 45th Infantry Division (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 45th Infantry Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Resaca now open

The peer review for Battle of Resaca is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Listing all of the unreferenced biographies of living people and Nguyen Thi Binh

Nguyen Thi Binh is an unreferenced Biography of living people, so it will probably be deleted if it is not referenced. I have no interest in the subject of the Vietnam War. Could someone please reference it? Thank you.

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have Cleanup listings, Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.

It is very easy to add to your project: simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions

A list of examples is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okip (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Joachim Helbig needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Joachim Helbig; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Military history/Examples

This page is floating around in article space for some historical reason. Its only significant editor is inactive, so I wonder whether you fellows could find a proper home/use for it or if it ought to be deleted. Mahalo, Skomorokh 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've checked with User:Kirill Lokshin, and he says it's OK to delete it. Unless anyone has any further inputs, I will delete it within the next 36 hours. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Cedric Howell now open

The featured article candidacy for Cedric Howell 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) 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for War in Afghanistan (2001–present) now open

The peer review for War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Yazoo Pass Expedition now open

The peer review for Yazoo Pass Expedition is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Lion (1910) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Lion (1910) 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bäxtiär Qanqayıv

I wondered if anyone here wanted to cast an eye over this article. A Tatar military leader, but beyond that... Itsmejudith (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be a particular issue. Consider the large number of U.S. army colonels we've got articles for. We have to be careful of implicit systematic bias. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Coverage of pre-20hC is pretty thin on the ground on WP FWI've seen. Keep. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941) 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 (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Goeben now open

The A-Class review for SMS Goeben is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi security forces#Requested move

With only three inputs, this proposal is a bit becalmed. Can we please have some more peoples' views? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of new Vinogel?

I'd seen this mentioned in books, and fr.wiki had a stub. Basically it's a gel made of reduced wine which French troops could dump into a canteen and shake up to get wine in a war zone. Apparently actually issued rations. In any case, an interesting aspect of military cuisine, would appreciate any help expanding the stub. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured List candidacy for List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War

I nominated List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War which is part of the WikiProject Military history at WP:FLC. The criteria for featured lists are found here. Please add comments or questions to the nomination page. --Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Siege of Godesberg (1583) now open

The A-Class review for Siege of Godesberg (1583) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry now open

The featured article candidacy for 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A tricky issue about "allegiance"

An issue has come up at Eric Dorman-Smith around his later allegiances. For those who do not know the subject, he was a British general during the Second World War who had a spectacular fall from grace. As a result of his disaffection with the British Army and UK government and his political views, he later assisted the Irish Republican Army (1922–1969) during their Border Campaign. This raises the tricky subject of how to describe his "allegiance" in the infobox. Currently it is listed as United Kingdom and Ireland, a situation I don't think is ideal, for reasons listed on the talk page. Can any editors with experience or insight into this subject please comment at Talk:Eric Dorman-Smith? Leithp 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue makes it clear, along with much infobox warring over casualties, 'outcome' etc, that the infobox arrangement is not ideal for messy real life sometimes. Does anyone have any ideas on how we might do it better? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of things that we Could do but we will never be able to capture 100% of all problems. Here are a couple of possibilities that I can think of off the top of my head to deal with the immediate question, but this same issue could be applied to nearly every other field in the infobox as well...even the name itself.

We could leave it alone and accept that we won't capture every contingency of a persons life
We could add a notes/comments option but this would present its own problems
We could make it so that you can have a primary, secondary or even tertiary allegiances. But this can already be done by simply typing it after the allegiance in parens. This could also be confusing when muliple branches of service are used.
We could add something to the infobox documentation explaining how to deal with this type of situation. But this still means that we have to discuss and agree on a solution. --Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In general terms, the infobox is there to quickly summarise key information. If key information can't be simply summarised, the best approach is often not to put it in the infobox; omit it entirely, and deal with it, in sufficient detail and with all appropriate nuance, in the article text. There's no benefit gained by collapsing information down to a simplified version that'll satisfy no-one and is always going to be at least partially wrong... Shimgray | talk | 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In Ethan Allen, I listed all (three) of his allegiances, two of which overlapped, but were worth pointing out. It seems to me that if someone has multiple allegiances over their lifetime (something that some European professional soldiers of the 18th century had, e.g. Frederick Haldimand and Johann Ewald), they could all be listed if they aren't too numerous. Combined with listing dates of service in various organizations, it should be clear what the situation was. Magic♪piano 13:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

With some like Dorman-Smith rather than have a long discussion about what his allegiance became why not just leave it as UK but then inlcude later renounced in the infobox. It highlights that there is something to be discovered later in the article without misleadingly indicating that he remained 'loyal' to the UK throughout. NtheP (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lê Văn Duyệt now open

The A-Class review for Lê Văn Duyệt is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 10:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

I have been working on this article the last couple days trying to clear up some of the many many issues that it has and I need to get a second opinion on a couple things. Normally I would just charge ahead and do it but do to the very high visibility of this article I wanted to pose it here first. First, I do not believe this article, in its current state, is even up to B level. There are POV issues, citationn issues and its generally speaking just a mess. I want to downgrade this and then once I have fixed some of the issues then resubmit it for a B class review by another editor so I can get a fresh set of eyes on it. I am also planning on building on and cleaning up some of the parellel articles at the same time. Second, I want to structure the pages with his awards and honors into lists due to the volume of data (he has over 110 military awards alone) and build them up as lists working into the FLC process, unless someone has a problem with that. I am also planning on doing a peer review after I get it up to B class but if anyone has comments about the article, I would appreciate the insight and suggestions. I am also going to leave this comment on the article talk paheg as well. --Kumioko (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The poor referencing along is grounds to downgrade it to start class. Thanks for taking the time to work on this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Kapyong now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Kapyong is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Admiralty Islands campaign now open

The featured article candidacy for Admiralty Islands campaign 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) 07:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

New article contests that WP:MILHIST has done

RE: Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup#BLP_reference_contest

I am interested in helping start a contest for referencing unreferenced living people (BLPs). Wikicup is an annual contest for editors to expand existing, well established articles. At WikiCup User:Nergaal brought up a good point:

The trickiest part is for the judges to actually count the useful edits. [At wikicup] it is more like "other users agreed it is GA/FA/etc so we give you points". WP:MILHIST has some contests that also involve start=>B articles so in that sense they are more evolved.

What are the links to the new article contest which WP:MILHIST have done before? Thank you so much in advance. Okip (formerly Ikip) 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest is what you are looking for. We currently have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Contest open as well. Is this what you are looking for? Woody (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Which task force

Hi

I cannot find the correct place from all the divisions and task forces for the exact group responsible for the tag for:-

UK-mil-ship-stub

THe problem is to do with its usage on the FSC article - although its a C start class the tag still says stub

I realise it probably is just me not looking in the right place but if someone could direct me there that would be great :¬)

THanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

IF you are talking about the article's assessment its rated as such because we (MILHIST) are one of a very limited number of projects that do not incorporate C-class into the assessment chart; consequently, the MILHIST template will not accept C as a legitimate rating. Therefor, the article needs to be rated either start or B-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No I was talking about the stub rather than the assessment of the article.

There doesn't seem to be a Milhist ship taskforce - if that is true I wondered who would be responsible for the tag itself (and any others that have been placed).

The problem is that the tag does not auto update and so even though the article is no longer a stub, the tag still reads as stub

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That article would come under the scopes of the "United Kingdom military history" or "Maritime warfare" taskforces. In future, if you feel that such a tag is inappropriate, WP:Be bold and remove it...if anyone majorly disagrees, they'll put it back. -- saberwyn 08:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I went back to cahgne it to "start" but the previous editor had deleted it (TomStar)

I would rather leave it up to the task force themselves where possible, I just wondered if it was a group that was no longer around that had done it and that there may be others like it on other articles.

Thanks for the "be bold" though - I know I can be "WikiTimid" sometimes :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Osan now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Osan 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope of project?

Would Fort Defiance (Ohio) fit into the scope of this project? As a non-member, I've always been impressed by how organised this project is, so I suspect there's a better place to have asked, but I don't know where that better place is. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that it should be in the project, in the US and Fortification task forces. – Joe N 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagged accordingly. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

List of British gallantry awards for the War in Afghanistan

Could we have some more eyes on List of British gallantry awards for the War in Afghanistan please? Twice today a new user has added a new name as supposedly having received the Military Cross. I've checked the London Gazette, and there is no record of that name. David Underdown (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of the article but its on my watch list now.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07: 27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of the USS prefix

Another very long conversation regarding the use of the USS prefix in article titles for ships that were never commissioned into US Navy service has arisen once again. After years of this issue being argued, it's high time some resolution was made. I've started a subthread in the hopes of gathering some consensus. Your comments are appreciated and needed. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Oswald Watt now open

The A-Class review for Oswald Watt is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Mary Rose now open

The featured article candidacy for Mary Rose 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WWII "clam bomb"?

Article on Henning von Tresckow (anti-Hitler conspirator) mentions that he attempted to destroy a plane on which Hitler was travelling with a bomb concealed in a liquor bottle, saying:

"It was in fact a British clam bomb disguised as the square-bottled liqueur."

A quick search hasn't turned up any description of "clam bomb". Was this a real device? If so, can someone please create a stub on this or link to appropriate Wikipedia article?
Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Hitler: 1936-45 : Nemesis by Kershaw and War monthly, Issues 71-78. The German opposition to Hitler: the resistance, the underground, and assassination plots, 1938-1945 actually has a short description of the device. Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It struck me, from the description in the latter book, that it's probably a type of limpet mine... and on examination, it does turn out to be mentioned in passing in that article. Shimgray | talk | 17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all. FYI, http://www.securesearchinc.com/products/ita-515.htm mentions a "copy of Soviet clam mine (which is a copy of the British clam Mark III)". I don't know anything about that, either. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Clam Magnetic Mine in List of military equipment of the Canadian Army during the Second World War. Manufacturer/Origins shown as United Kingdom. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Have tweaked Henning von Tresckow per your suggestions. Thanks again. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

comments on a talk page

Please comment on this section. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Draža Mihailović

Hello fellow wikipedians. I´m having some real hard time with an extremely POV editor in this article. He insists in stoping the adding of additional edits, monopolizing completely the article. The historical personality himself is a higly polemical figure, but the obstacles that the editor in question puts are very much against any WP policies. My edits consist simply in adding some missing wiki links (that he also insists in reverting with no aparent reason), some minor information additions (communist, monarchic,...) and some clarifications of some strong accusations that are donne. This edits of mine seems no to go along his intention to put the weight of the interess in some specifically POV oriented views. So he just reverts them. All the differences can be seen [5], and the majority are explained in the edits history, plus, we had a further discussion in the pages talk page. I would be very pleased if someone from the project could intervene, and try to prevent this edit war. Thanking in advance, FkpCascais (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the page again and blocked both editors for 24-hours for open violation of the 3RR over a two day period. I dislike doing that , but perhaps this will help contribute to peace when both of you get back. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That was the best. We both acted wrong but it was hard for me listening to all kind of insults and false accusations directed towards me. I already participated in a great number of talk page debates, and they never had ended in this way. I am not a person that cannot accept defeat, wright the oposite, but I do find that a revert must be followed by at least a logical explanation, that in this case, I wasn´t getting. The main problem here lies in the lead sentence. The other editor changed it in a way that left him simply as being a German collaborator. The problem is that from what we know today, that simply can´t be presented in such a simple way (he is condecorated by U.S. & France for his efforts in fighting the Germans). So, I was just insisting in having both (resistence leader and collaborator) included in the lead, having a perfect notion that leaving a simple collaborator version was not NPOV. Some other edits are minor, and explained in detail by me in the talk page. I am perfectly aware that obviously not all of my edits may be right, but having them all wrong and reverted, without any consensus reached in the talk page is just not normal. After having had all that discussion with the editor (well, it can hardly be called "discussion"), I do suspect what purposes the other editor has, but I am not, obviously, going to talk about them. I really hope that other editors can see that trouout my editing history here, I am trying my best to be allways as neutral as possible. But, it is obviously a hard task to have removed some POV´s when they are defended by "extreme-minded" editors (masked in this cased). I hope more people help in the article. The problem is that many editors that could, just dont want to get envolved so they want be labeled as "Chetniks", or Serbian war people defenders, that as absurd as may sound, is very disencouragind this days after all this recent Balkan Wars. Since I have my mind clear about it (I dont simpatise with any extreme douctrines from wherever they are) I did felt that the article, and the history of the movement in general, was edited in a very one sided perspective. Much effort has been made in editing about their collaboration, while they were also one of the most important resistence movements is South-Eastern Europe. Having played for both teams just isn´t equal to have been only collaborators... Well, I apologise for everyone for my long comment, and I´m really asking to the editors of this project to help, since the person was quite important in the WWII (he was the main rival of Tito, as a commander of the Yugoslav Royal Army). FkpCascais (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Indonesian National Revolution

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Indonesian National Revolution/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for No. 1 Wing RAAF now open

The featured article candidacy for No. 1 Wing RAAF 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) 05:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Kapyong needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Kapyong; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Military Conflict commanders et al

Can some more editors look at the situation on Talk:Battle of Trafalgar#Commanders to resolve a dispute over the use of commanders in the infobox field, and some more eyes on what's happening at Trafalgar order of battle and casualties might also be helpful. Benea (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Both protected for three days to give you a chance to thrash this out between you. I've commented in more detail at Talk:Battle of Trafalgar#Commanders. EyeSerene^talk 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I had no intention of touching either again in order to avoid an edit war, but protection will hopefully allow a clear consensus to emerge before editing resumes. I'd encourage users to add their thoughts to the talk pages so that a firm consensus can be reached either way, and the matter settled. Benea (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you'd left their last reversion alone, so thank you for being the one to de-escalate :) I've left Pietje96 a friendly warning about edit warring and I'll keep the articles watchlisted. If you need further assistance, just shout. EyeSerene^talk 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It would help if some more editors became involved, so far there has been little comment one way or the other. Benea (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mk VIII LCT

Much as I hate to do it, could I ask for some extra eyes at Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank and User talk:Medcroft. As much as I am happy to respect Saberwyn's anaylsis, I'm rather bored of Medcroft's condescending attitude. I'm aware a few editors have had dealings with Medcroft before, but if not, a background of the editors contributions to the article can be seen here. Once again the dispute seems to focus on verifiability. I'm keeping away from it, but am not particularly happy with Medcroft's attitude to myself, or referencing. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I second the need for outside views. I don't know for how much longer I can handle trying to help this user. -- saberwyn 11:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on reverts at File:HMAV Arezzo (L 4128).jpg would also be welcomed. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Babcock now open

The A-Class review for John Babcock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone help?

Bit of a rarity - a request on behalf of a start class article. I've been working with help from one or two others to rework Spear. It's along way from being a class act but we've got a bit of structure and are beginning to rewrite with citations. One of the main weaknesses is IMO that the article is pretty Eurocentric. It really could do with new sections of non-European history, especially on Africa and the Americas. No-one currently involved has the expertise to attempt these. If anyone thinks this is a bit marginal I'd say this is one of humanity's key weapons - probably the one with the longest service life as they are still used in some cultures today. If anyone could help with this article, it would be appreciatedMonstrelet (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New Bounty Offer

A bounty has been placed on the articles Opium Wars, First Opium War, and Second Opium War by Åkebråke (talk · contribs). The Bounty offer expires December 31, 2011. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Some pages in this WikiProject are listed on the bounty board.

A Wikipedian has pledged to make a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation if the Opium Wars, First Opium War or Second Opium War articles are improved to good article status before 31 December 2011.

See this bounty's entry on the bounty board for details.

Bridgeport FAR

I have nominated USS Bridgeport (AD-10) 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. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Forks of the Vietnam War

Have been uploaded by You never learn (talk · contribs) from Citizendium, where the articles on the VN War at least are written more as essays and discussion points. What should be done? Should these be kept in some daughter articles in a restructured format? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles like Joint warfare in South Vietnam 1963–1969 should be redirected back to the main Vietnam War article. While that article needs a lot of work, this isn't the solution (particularly as these forks appear to strengthen our bias towards American perspectives of the war). I'm continuously bemused by Citizendium's standards ending up lower than Wikipedia's! Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To Wikipedia: Proving that open editing is better for article quality than required registration editing.

Hot damn, were better than Citizendum! This calls for a drink :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh :) You can't throw a rock around here without hitting an expert on some facet of something (although it might bounce off a vandal or two on the way!), and because we insist on a range of sources rather than relying on specialist editors we tend to get a much wider cross-section of scholarly opinion rather than someone's pet theory. I've always found our articles (at least the quality-checked ones) to be broader, more balanced, more accurate and more complete than our 'competitors'. EyeSerene^talk 08:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

PS Addressing the original question, I don't believe Citizendium's license is compatible with Wikipedia's, so any articles copied from Citizendium should be removed or drastically rewritten as copyvios. They are free to copy our stuff, but we aren't free to copy theirs. EyeSerene^talk 08:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, our licenses are fully compatible, provided that the attribution requirements are met, in other words, that the article clearly indicates where it came from. I added the required attribution template to that effect. Ideally, when importing, you'll want to have the edit summary link the explicit URL of the source. MLauba (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; I believe that when Citizendium was originally set up the intention was to start by forking Wikipedia articles into it as the copyright licenses were fully compatible. Re Tom; I think that Wikipedia would be much better if editors had to register; I'm currently chasing after and blocking several IP vandals a day. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't argue with that; it would be nice to lockout those pesky vandals, but that also alienates those who could become good upstanding contributors. I was one who came here because ISPs could edit the pages (come to think of it, that was back in the days when IPs could also create pages), and I only registered after gentle encouragement from the community :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction MLauba :) I'm not sure where I got my former opinion from - I think it may have been an ANI thread (teach me not to lurk round the dramah boards!) EyeSerene^talk 10:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Remembered, it wasn't Citizendium the htread was referring to, it was Conservopedia :P EyeSerene^talk 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Eww, Conservapedia. :P I'm still blocked for another four years there. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What doesn't help avoid confusiotn is that until we changed our licensing last year, CC-BY-SA was not compatible with us :) MLauba (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Requiring registration might discourage a few vandals but, sadly, wouldn't fix the problem; there are some loons who register & vandalize anyhow. And, unfortunately, you might chase off well-meaning people. (I'm not sure I'd have stayed, if I'd had to register, first. So many sites make registration & sign-in such a pain...) WP's already got a bad rep with some, & it might only compound the problem. :( :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is too much talk about kitchen utensils; this is the MILHIST project not the social history project damn it!!!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the Citizendium stuff on Vietnamese politics has a lot of errors with undisputed stuff; getting names mixed up and all that YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm! The irony is jummy, one would need a fork now!

GA reassessment of United States Air Force Academy

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project banner is on the article talk page. Unfortunately the poor state of referencing of the article meant that I immediately de-listed it as it fails to meet the GA criteria at present. When these concerns, which you can see at Talk:United States Air Force Academy/GA1, have been addressed you may renominate the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this re-assessemnt please take it ito WP:GAR for community re-assessment. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy of List of battlecruisers of Germany

List of battlecruisers of Germany needs reviewers at its FLC, if anyone has time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Friedrich Geißhardt now open

The peer review for Friedrich Geißhardt is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Triton (SSRN-586) now open

The A-Class review for USS Triton (SSRN-586) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gusar light cavalry afd needs more editors

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gusar light cavalry has twice been relisted for lack of participation in the ongoing afd. If any editors have a moment or two of free time, please consider sounding off on whether to keep or delete the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Daly

The A-class review for Michael Daly is still in need of reviews. It has been open for 17 days with minimal reviews and I would hate for it to be closed due to lack of reviews. Please stop by and take a look if you have the time. --Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This article was promoted. --Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New article Dinassaut (French riverine units in Indochina)

I finally got around to creating Dinassaut, which I've meant to do for over a year. Just a basic stub, a pic of a unit insignia, and a link to the French wiki-page (which has little more). But it's a start. I'm used to finding US military pics of Vietnam, but any suggestions on finding public-domain French pics of these units? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I read this book years ago, but can't remember what pictures it had in it, and what their source was: Koburger, Charles W., Junior (1991). The French Navy in Indochina: Riverine and Coastal Forces, 1945-54. New York: Preager. ISBN 0-275-93833-6. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

King George V Battleship

I need some assistance regarding the KGV class battleships. I am attempting to create a first class article and my edits are well sourced and use multiple reputable sources. I discuss my edits on the talk page and incorporate proposed changes where possible. Unfortunately one editor is attempting to force edits into the article which are redundant and in some case, quite absurd. For example, one source ( garzke and dulin, Allied Battleships, pp. 247)states that "Horizontal protection was equal to that of contemporary battleships built in World War II". This statement is patently absurd as no two battleship classes had equal horizontal protection, and there is abundant source material to verify this, yet this statement is persistently inserted into article. One editor, on the above talk page has commented that Kurfurst is using Garzke & Dulin as though it is the revealed word of Ghod, and he dogmatically tries to force these kind of absurd statements into the article in complete defiance of Wikipedia:NPOV since they place undue weight on a single source. I do not understand why Kurfurst is allowed to get away with this kind of behavior.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I directed Damwiki to this page and notified Kurfurst of this specific discussion. My opinion is that Kurfurst is holding the 1980 words of G&D in Allied Battleships of World War II on too high of a pedestal, but additional eyes are needed. Thanks, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to this Kurfurst has tried to insert this edit: Horizontal protection was equal to that of contemporary battleships built in World War II.(ref name="Garzke and Dullin, 1980. pp. 247"/). G&D on page 247, actually state: "Horizontal protection was equal to that of certain other battleships built in World War II". They do not specify which ones and this statement is of little use in describing these ships, and certainly cannot be construed to equal kurfurst's edit, while even if G&D did state exactly as per Kurfurst's edit it would still be nonsense, as it is demonstrably not true, since it implies that all WW2 battleships had identical horizontal protection. Damwiki1 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to make allegations, but Kurfurst has had issues in ref the Battle of Britain page, too (over GAF losses, IIRC). Could be simply passionate (which I'm guilty of ;p)... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't quite followed this discussion, but it seems there may be a problem here with "equal" as a term. The sentence could potentially mean any of three different things:

equal = identical; equal armour means A and B had exactly equivalent or physically identical armour
equal = comparable; equal armour means A and B had broadly similar levels of protection whilst not being identical
equal = as good as; equal armour means "A was at least as good as B if not better".

(The third isn't precisely correct, but it's quite a common usage)

I suspect the source means 2 or 3, rather than 1; would saying something like "armour comparable to..." or "armour on a par with..." be an acceptable compromise for article text? Shimgray | talk | 23:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not just state the horizontal protection and let the reader compare by reading the articles about other battleship classes? Equal = identical, as any math teacher will tell you. It has no other meaning.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I fear the mathematical use of the phrase is not, shall we say, entirely equal to the general English-language use of the phrase, and we're chasing ourselves up a blind alley to think it is.

To state the armour "is absolutely and in all ways the same as (others)" is, as you said originally, patently absurd; it seems reasonable to assume the authors of the original book weren't stupid, and so wouldn't write something patently absurd. So why should we insist on reading their sentence this way, instead of looking for a more plausible interpretation? Shimgray | talk | 23:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why waste time over a statement whose literal interpretation is nonsense, and which is not even supported by the reference? What does it add to the article except to mislead the reader?Damwiki1 (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to insist on only allowing ourselves to use a literal interpretation when we are agreed the literal interpretation couldn't work, and when it seems clear that we can interpret the source in a way that would make some sense. If we're not dismissing the original source entirely, we can presume it has some merit. Given it has some merit, it's safe to assume it doesn't contain nonsense. If it seems to contain obvious and clear nonsense in an ambiguous statement, therefore, we're probably reading that one wrong.

But if you want to fight with shadows over this one, please don't let me stop you. Shimgray | talk | 00:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"I don't see why we need to insist on only allowing ourselves to use a literal interpretation when we are agreed the literal interpretation couldn't work". Why insert that statement at all, if you agree that it cannot be true? What does it add to the article? I want to create a first class article and this kind of nonsensical statement destroys it and anyone reading it will go away laughing at wikipedia's reputation.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(od) What we normally do when sources disagree is dump the lot and let the reader decide. For example, you might write something like Although Garzke and Dullin state that the King George V class battleships had horizontal protection "equal to [...] certain other battleships built in World War II",^{[citation needed]} other sources such as X, Y and Z show that their protection varied widely compared to other classes and even within the class itself.^{[citation needed]} (obviously my phrasing is highly speculative and would depend on what the other sources actually say!) Per WP:V, when reputable sources differ we can't be in the business of deciding what is or isn't the single correct version. The best we can do is present all relevant sources with appropriate weight. EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not object to something like the above being placed in a footnote. However, I see the following passage at Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." The claim that the KGV class horizontal armour was equal to certain other battleships is not supported by the available data, even that provided by G&D in their volumes on battleship design, and so it seems to me to be an exceptional claim. I also note, that such wording is often the cause of disputes, as a glance at the Bismarck class battleship article will reveal, and there does not seem to be universal opinion favouring your suggestion. The other problem is that direct comparisons between battleship classes within one article also appears to be a no-no as you can read on my talk page.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest simply changing "equal to" to "comparable to"? I doubt there's much argument KGVs were that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose, but then "comparable" is not really supported by the reference and we're still left wondering which ships the authours had in mind. Really, isn't it best to just delete such amorphous statements? I think we all recognize that authours make mistakes, and such mistakes are readily apparent when they appear to be exceptional claims. Hypothetically speaking, suppose an authour states: "The Fairy Fulmar was faster than an Me-109f" but then goes on to provide data showing that the Fulmar was 120mph slower than the Me109f. Trying to insert that statement into an article about either aircraft would probably be rejected pretty quickly. The authour probably meant to state that the "The Fairy Fulmar was not faster than an Me-109" but a typo created an exceptional claim. Similarly, G&D make a statement that is not supported by their own data on battleship horizontal protection. We are left to try and figure out what they really meant, or we can simply remove the statement as it amounts to an exceptional claim. Nothing is lost to the article since anyone who cares to can do their own comparisons, since all battleship classes from WW2 have extensive wikipedia articles.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If it was as clear-cut as that, I'd agree with you. Having not actually seen the source, I can't say for sure, but it appears it's not. Even so, using an ambiguous source is never a good idea, IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here again is the exact wording: G&D on page 247: "Horizontal protection was equal to that of certain other battleships built in World War II". I cannot find any references to horizontal protection comparisons that include KGV elsewhere in that volume or the other two. I have all three volumes of their Battleship series, and the KGV class horizontal armour protection is not identical, according to G&D, to any other Battleship built during WW2. Some are probably similar in their effective resistance, but this would require a lot of OR on my part to figure out which ones as G&D do not provide any clues as to the ships they had in mind. Damwiki1 (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that quote's extremely vague. Without them saying which other battleships, I think it would be a mistake to try to hang too much on it. You're also right that you'd need be careful about OR and WP:SYNTH. Perhaps your suggestion of a footnote would be best if it has to go in at all; like other posters, all I'm really seeing in that quote is G&D saying "The KGV class was as well protected as some other battleships". EyeSerene^talk 10:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment tags not changeing on the article

I have started to work more and more with assessments in the last couple weeks and have noticed on several occasions that the article talk page assessment doesn't match the page. I will find an example. Is there a way to fix this? --Kumioko (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What browser do you use? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Refresh the page? In some cases, I've noticed that if the article is rated as a B, but all the template thingies aren't complete, it won't show up as a B, either, in some projects. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I use IE6 or 8 depending on if I am at work or at home. --Kumioko (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I find the same thing you do when using IE, that is the talk page assessment (which is conclusive) says one thing and top of the article page itself says another. However when I use Firefox, they're always in sync. I'm yet to find a cause for this anomaly in IE, what I do find is that often the article page will always be the same as whatever it was the first time I opened it, no matter how much or how often the rating changes on the talk page, and it doesn't matter how often I refresh the article page. Then again, sometimes the article and the talk page magically get in sync after a while - I've given up worrying about it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the cache in your browser. I find that if the pages aren't in sync (I use firefox exclusively), reload fixes all problems. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How exacly do you mean "on the article"? If you're using one of the scripts which recolour the page title - I really recommend them, they're excellent for spotting dodgy ratings when browsing - a purge or force-refresh usually solves the problem after the talkpage has been updated. If it's just the talkpage giving an inaccurate rating, it's probably that the article has improved (or degraded) since being rated, in which case correct away. At a guess, about 20% of our rated articles probably need rerating. Shimgray | talk | 22:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, what I mean is I have encountered some pages where the talk page has a rating. Well say B, but when you look on the article it says something else, like start. --Kumioko (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I finally found an example. I just updated the assessment tag for Mike Farrell from Stub to start (and a bunch of other things) and it doesn't reflect start on the article page. Even after I refresh the browser. Did I do something wrong here? --Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you done a soft-refresh (F5 or the refresh icon), or hard (ctrl+F5 or refresh). The first potentially just reloads the cached version of the page from your PC, the second should force it to reload from Wikipedia. David Underdown (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a cntrl+F5 and it still didn't work. --Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is probably just a bit of lag - I've noticed it before. There's a gadget in preferences which adds a page purge option, which might speed matters up; alternatively just let it be and it'll sync itself after a while. Shimgray | talk | 17:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg now open

The A-Class review for Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Biography portal

I was thinking about adding the biography portal to the Medal of Honor recipients and I wanted to get a second opinion before I add this portal to 1300 articles. Currently very few have this one and I think it would be useful. Any comments on this before I move ahead?--Kumioko (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see a drama with this. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Ill give it a couple more days before I open pandoras box. --Kumioko (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Free Norwegian Forces

Hi all

I have been a little WP:bold lol

I was searching for the "Norwegian Free Forces" and found there was only a redirect to "Norwegian resistance"

I have redone the page Free Norwegian Forces and now it will need some checking and refs and other bits and pieces.

PLease can someone help with the refs !!

I do not know much about Norwegian history and I will need to take many from other articles.

All help appreciated as Its been hard just doing this small amount so far.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't be of much help in finding references. I have a grand total of about seven pages on Norway during WWII, most of them about the disastrous Norwegian campaign in 1940 or Quisling. However, talk to the people here at the Nordic Task Force. They should be able to give you some assistance. Cam ^(Chat) 06:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Try this page and site - very good data. http://home.online.no/~gestrom/history/norartxt.htm Buckshot06 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I had looked at all that info when I was checking the refs from other Wikiarticles as I was making the Free page - problem is it seems that it is someones personal website, it does not cite many refs or sources either and so I think it would not be good enough quality for inclusion in the articles...THe links section is good, but many of them are in Norwegian unfortunately. Also the problem with the Norwegian national archives, it has an english button [6] but then the links search only recovers Norwegian texts [7]. There are some others that would be useful also but with a similar non english problem.

I have put a duplicate of this message on the Nordic task force and still hoping that someone will pick up on it.

Thanks for all your help though :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(ed) When I was writing Operation Doomsday, Google Books showed that there was a fair bit of info about Operation Apostle, the liberation of Norway in May '45. There was also quite a bit about Free Norwegian forces as well, particularly on the Norwegians who trained in Sweden - Doomsday has a bit on the latter if you're interested. Skinny87 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ChaosDruid, I'm not quite sure what you meant about the home.online.no site. There are extensive lists of Norwegian books referenced. Each page has a list of at least 10-15 Norwegian books at the bottom. They've kindly translated it for us. The only thing lacking is extensive footnotes, so I think the data is good. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I follwed a random two or three on each article page and they all seem to point to other websites in Norwegian. Many of them are other personal websites which also quote other refs of which many are norwegian again. In conclusion I was saying that the info on the original site is comprehensive but I am not sure if any of the refs there would meet the necessary secondary or tertiary guidelines on notability and so I do not think the site could be quoted as a reliable source by wiki standards.

I would of course welcome any info on parts of the site that meet the guidelines and could be included

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Manxruler has been doing quite a bit of work on Norwegian resistance people, and I think he's actually Norwegian, so he might be able to help with sources (translating from Norwegian if necessary). Tough checking his page I see he may not be easily contactable for a while. User:Geschichte is propbably another worth trying. David Underdown (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reward Board offer

At Wikipedia:Reward Board there is an open reward offer for Pictures of World War II military equipment, any interested editors are encouraged to check out the offer for further details. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 now open

The A-Class review for Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jungle warfare

This sad little article has been in need of TLC or radical heart surgery. It had been left to languish for a long time. Perhaps someone with an interest and the expertise could have a look at it with a view to improving it. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I've got a book entitled "Jungle warfare" in my collection somewhere; might be worth digging out and seeing what can be done. I suspect a major revamp would be needed though, which I don't really have the time for :( EyeSerene^talk 12:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some Osprey books on this topic which would be useful sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if suggestions like this would make for good project-wide collaborations? I know we decided to do away with our Collaboration of the Fortnight/Month/etc for lack of participation, but it seems to me that choosing meta-subjects such as this, that don't perhaps get the attention that our many specialist editors give to more focused articles, might be a way to improve our top level articles (see also Fences&Windows's thread below). EyeSerene^talk 12:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC on RAF Rudloe Manor

Chaps, and chapesses, There is an ongoing debate at RAF Rudloe Manor about whether certain sources are suitable to support various assertions about truth and UFO hunting. Grateful for a diversity of opinions at Talk:RAF_Rudloe_Manor#Notability_and_suitability_of_sources.

TIA

ALR (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

War

I was surprised to see the article War in such a poor state. I was going to try to rewrite the lead entirely as it is a wordy, jargon-filled mess, but then I realised that the rest of the article isn't much better off. I imagine that MilHist will do a better job of revamping this article than I will, so I thought I'd flag it up. Fences&Windows 11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it is a mess. I've been looking at it for a while, and thought it would be better off as several articles. I think, though, that this isn't the right project, necessarily, based on the demonstrated interests here (focused on aspects of a war, not necessarily on philosophies of war generally). Perhaps WikiProject History would be a better one, or a collaborative effort there, with philosophy, and here. ??? At any rate, go ahead and ramp it up! Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Navy SEAL website

Hey MILHISTers, I've been talking to the Naval Special Warfare Recruiting Directorate today, and it seems like we have a lot of SEAL and SWCC external links that are out of date. In particular, sites like seal.navy.mil and sealchallenge.navy.mil are being replaced with www.sealswcc.com. I was hoping that I might be able to get some eyes on this to look at replacing the outdated links with the new one. Thanks in advance! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists of articles containing the old domains can be found at:

Not too drastic, but the main challenge will probably be finding the specific pages at the new domain. -- saberwyn 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in World War II FAR

I have nominated Puerto Ricans in World War II 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. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Can these two be Merged ?

Apologies for the cryptic title. I am referring to two articles. Luftflotte 1 as well as Luftwaffe North (Ostland) detachment (Luftflotte 1, Baltic Area). Both of these articles are on the same subject of Luftflotte 1. From what I can see, the second one was created perhaps as part of German Air Fleets in World War II ? Its significance is lost on me. Although they both are stubs, I don't know any rationale behind maintaining two articles. I am currently working on Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945). This will eventually reference articles on all the Luftflotte that are there (7 in all) Question is, are these two articles identical enough to initiate request for combining ? Please share your thoughts. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not considering that the one is a subset of the other and lacks much pertinent information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge away, especially as the North article has no references. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're nervous of merging, ask MrBee for help or advice. He's done a lot on the Luftwaffe aces. He might have some insight into why there are two articles. Otherwise, as they say, be bold. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that's the first thing I did. He has given his blessing already. Merge templates placed on both. Discussion Page is here. Appreciate if you folks could post your support there. Thanks for all the support. Perseus71 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defence

I've just started, thanks to Google Translate, on the translation of the important Russian archive article. Anyone who can help, please do so, especially Russian speakers!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of the USS prefix - second notice

Turnout on this issue has been poor. Reposting again.

Another very long conversation regarding the use of the USS prefix in article titles for ships that were never commissioned into US Navy service has arisen once again. After years of this issue being argued, it's high time some resolution was made. I've started a subthread in the hopes of gathering some consensus. Your comments are appreciated and needed. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

495 FA's?

The assesment section of the project says that we have 495 FA's, and Toolserver supports that. What's right, the 429 listed on the main page or the 495 in the assesment section. Buggie111 (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because we do not use FL-class with the assessment categories and the bots and our assessment template. The 429 is correct, and the 495 is the FAs + FLs which is also correct in how we count the FLs and FAs. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections

Nominations for the March–September Coordinator tranche are now open. All interested editors are encouraged to nominate themselves here. The election process will consist of two parts:

Nominations, which will begin at 00:01 UTC on Monday, March 1 and run through 23:59 UTC Monday, March 8;
Elections, which will begin 00:01 UTC Tuesday, March 9 and run through 23:59 UTC Tuesday, March 23.

Each candidate garnering twenty or more endorsements will be appointed, to a maximum of fifteen. If you are interested in running you may wish to consult the academy course on coordinatorship to learn more about the process, and you may also wish to look over the last coordinator election to get a better idea of what to expect. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War

I found this doing routine cleanup. The article is currently a mess which only an expert could decipher, complete with large extracts of ancient Greek, but it looks like there's some real potential here if anybody wants to work on this. Them From Space 05:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's impressive, if very niche and rather dull. Does it stay the right side of original research though? Monstrelet (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the article only cites primary sources is a bit of a worry Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

At a push you could argue that Appian and Cicero are secondary sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look and, even if we allow the idea that Appian and Cicero are secondary sources, there is still no reference to published scholarship. There is a great deal of speculation refered only to ancient sources. I can live with that if the article is well written and informative. But it has no lead paragraph explaining what the First Mithridatic War was, or between. It is also not clear what the controversy is or ultimately what the conclusions are (unless you have some expertise on ranks in the Roman Republic).Monstrelet (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment

Hello all. Can a few editors please look at 3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment? A new user, User:Lt. Hasrin, has repeatedly added information to the article (apparently about himself). IMO this information is non-notable as he was just a Platoon Commander who appears to have done nothing out of the ordinary per WP:NOTABILITY. Likewise it represents a conflict of interest per WP:COI. I have already reverted a few times and will leave a message on the users talk page but I think some other editors need to get involved. Thank you. ChoraPete (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, should not be in the article. I left a message for him, my guess is that its a result of his being new. WP:AGF until we have a reason not to :) TomStar81 (Talk) 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates needing reviewers

There are potential featured lists needing reviewers. Below are the ones that I saw that apply to this project. Please take some time to review these lists.

Two of these lists have been promoted but the two Medal of Honor lists are still in need of reviewers. Please take a moment and give them a review so we can get any problems identified and fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC for Smedley Butler

The featured article candidacy is now open for Smedley Butler. I would like to encourage anyone to stop by and provide comments so any potential problems with this article can be corrected and we can get it promoted. --Kumioko (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Input requested at 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa

There is currently a content dispute involving POW figures on the above article. Any interested editors are welcome to comment at Talk:1961_Indian_Annexation_of_Goa#POW_count. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 18:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Bayern class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Bayern class battleship 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! Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment question

As I've been writing baseball articles, I've noticed a lot of them served in World War II. As such, would all of them be part of the Milhist project, or should I just be tagging those that had fairly memorable war careers (i.e. Lou Brissie or Christy Mathewson)? Or should I be tagging any as such? Don't want to step on a well-run project's toes so I thought I'd ask. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 07:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue. As a practical matter, we only interested in the upper echelon of the military, those with the stars on their soldiers or those who won a big award or a couple of the hard to get awards. On that criteria, most of these guys are unlikely to warrent an article with our projects milhist tag on the talk page. The catch here though is that the biography project has a war/military work group, which if filled out would place them in a task force of ours that we run jointly. By this criteria then if the bio project tags them as being with the military work group's scope then they would come under our purview. In my opinion, they would qualify for our project's full banner if they were awarded a big award or had a high ranking position, otherwise I would leave our tag off. I'd consider asking this at the biography project too, they may have slightly different standards for what get included in the military work group. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that if their military career was particularly significant in and of itself, or if it was the main professional activity of their lives, tag them. If not, don't. Shimgray | talk | 14:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my view is slightly different here (focused on World War I), which is that if there is sufficient reliably sourced material for a paragraph or section on someone's war career, then the article should get the MILHIST tag and workforce tag. This is to ensure that such material is looked at by people who can properly assess military history material (as opposed to, for Wizardman's example, people who assess baseball career material). Thus I would tag more people than just whose military career is the main point of the article, though I agree that if it is a single sentence ("X served with B for Z years") then it is not worth tagging. I did try and start a discussion on this in a few other places, but it seems this is such a big WikiProject, that some discussions get missed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I had been of a mind that if they weren't in some notable for their military career we probably shouldn't tag them, but having come across, in particular, various cricketers recently where the reader was told in great detail what their cricket stats had been before 1914, and what they were from 1919, with no mention of what had happened in the intervening years, or gave their military rank, and postnoms, but the lead started whatsisname was an English cricketer, despite the fact he was an amateur with a handful of first class games, as against an army career of decades, perhaps we do need ot encorage other projects to tag when there is some military aspect to a biographical subject bit they don't have the soruces to expand on that article (see for example, Harold Forster, Coote Hedley, brothers Harry Lee (cricketer) and Jack Lee (cricketer), and one that still needs work on the military aspects, James Cassels (British Army officer) - he was a field marshal and Chief of the General Staff, but the cricket section of his article is as long as that on his military career!) We could also keep an eye for articles such as Cricket in the Great War and List of international rugby union players killed in action during the First World War which highlight people from other fields who could probbably do with their military connections sprucing up.

However, the issue sometimes extends beyond the actual subject of the article, two examples spring to mind, one was an American cartoonist, whose name currently escapes me. His father was a senior NCO in the Life Guards (British Army) who was commissioned during WWI, the article on his son mentioend quite a lot of detail about the fatehr to expalin his background, but due to the sources used, it was full of obvious misunderstandings (yes the Life Guards were an elite regiment, but not in the same way that the SAS or Green Berets might be described as elite!). Similarly, I was recently alerted by a discussion elsewhere to problems relating to the description of [{Wally Hammond]]'s article here. David Underdown (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Potential Conflict of Interest

I thought that I'd better do this before I start work on Eastbourne Redoubt. I'm currently a volunteer at the Redoubt, and have been for some months, and in my spare time I'm hoping to get the article up to at least GA-standard. I'm not paid, and certainly not being paid to do this editing, but I thought it best to declare a potential WP:COI before starting work on the article. Looking around, I'm unsure where else I could cross-post this. Does anyone have any ideas? Skinny87 (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak for others, but it's no big deal as far as I can see. The fact that you've noted this on the article talk page and are aware of any potential COI will make you doubly careful I'm sure :) The COI guidelines don't prevent editors working in their own turf as long as they can provide a neutral treatment of the subject, and I have no doubts that you can. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The article talk page and the nomination pages of any GA/A/FA nominations should be sufficient - I think that you can be trusted to not POV push on this or any topic ;) It might be worth letting your boss/volunteer coordinator know that you're doing this though (if you haven't already) to avoid any complications. Have you asked if they've got any historic photos/paintings which they're willing to release into the public domain? I've added the article to my watchlist and am looking forward to seeing how it develops. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't really see a conflict of interest Skinny. Essentially you volunteer there and you volunteer here; as long as you work within the rules of each (I'm sure you will!) I can't see any problem. WP:COI says that editing in a field of your expertise isn't necessarily a COI (and I agree, I volunteered at Stonehenge long enough and that was what got me into Wikipedia) and unless you started advertising events listings here (or for that matter making huge advertising banners for Wiki at Eastbourne) I don't see much of an issue. Certainly good to state it on the talk page though. There are lots of editors with far greater potential COI who make it work and I imagine you won't have any trouble. Lemme know if you need a second opinion on any bits if you like. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience volunteers are pretty frank about the institution they're volunteering for - it's not like they're being paid for it! Being paid changes things a lot, and can also lead to complications - I could get into serious professional trouble if I wrote an article about my employer, for example (they're not secret, they just have a comprehensive code of conduct). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree being paid can change things (but doesn't have to), but I'm assuming in this case that Skinny is more interested in the military history of the fort than Eastbourne Borough Council (in the same way I was interested in Stonehenge and not the National Trust)! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMAS Sydney (R17) now open

The A-Class review for HMAS Sydney (R17) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

March is Women's History Month in the United States

I would like to highlight that March is Women's History Month in the United States (and maybe other places, too.) And March 8, is International Women's Day.

National Women's History Project's 2010 Theme is "Writing Women Back into History" and I think that is a good reminder that Wikipedia English has quite a few gaps in our coverage of topics including some gaps in our coverage of women's activity in military history. I encourage all the active members of MilHist to look for one or two biographies about women to create or expand this month.

Women Airforce Service Pilots--A number of these women are notable because of there achievements in the area of aviation and service in WWII. I found a large amount of material quickly available on Ann Baumgartner and Mildred "Micky" Axton, and I suspect there are others WASPs waiting for an article. They all are to receive a Congressional Gold Medal on March 10, 2010.

The Library of Congress Veterans History Project may have some leads, too.

Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps and Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service are other examples, and there are many more.

And there is always the task of getting Florence Nightingale to FA ;-) FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea for a theme for the month - there are a few articles on women in Australian military history I've been intending to create, so I'll get onto them. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably Category:Women in World War II and the other for World War I have articles that need attention, let alone those missing. For those unable to contribute to US articles, there are gaps in other countries coverage eg British Women's Land Army has a redlink for the First World War Women's Timber Corps. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D, excellent idea to write about the women from Australia that played a role in the military history of their country since you have an interest in that countries military history. And there are gaps in coverage in many countries so it would be great if the people most familiar with a particular countries military history focus on women in March. And GraemeLeggett, I think it is true that many of the existing articles in military categories need work. Some of the most famous women with loads of material available to write a nice article are not FA or GA. It would be fantastic if some of the best writers would adopt a few of these and get them to FA. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I will be expanding the article for Mary Walker. She is the only woman to recieve the Medal of Honor. I should be able to get this to GA from a content perspective although it probably won't get promoted until next month. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko, :-) Very good choice. She is a perfect example of an article that can reach GA and FA with time and attention. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, good choice of article (and thanks for raising this, FloNight). I'm happy to offer what assistance I can in copyediting etc. EyeSerene^talk 09:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Dürenstein now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Dürenstein is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Milhist outreach at Wikimania 2010

This year's Wikimania takes place in Gdansk, Poland, over the weekend of 9-11 July (details). Would you be interested in attending and helping prepare a Milhist presentation, explaining how our project works for the benefit of other editors from other wikis? It is also a great opportunity to meet up with other Wikipedians and Milhisters, and explore the city itself a little. This will be of particular interest to Milhist members living within easy travelling distance of Poland, though it is bound to attract interest from others living further away. This only at early discussion stages at the moment but we only need five or six people to make it happen! Roger Davies ^talk 09:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested

If you might be able to help, or attend, please sign up here. Thank!

A-Class review for Horses in World War I now open

The A-Class review for Horses in World War I is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WWI photos free to good homes

The National Library of NZ has posted 26 photos from Gallipoli on their Commons at Flickr site. These include destroyers, landings, trenches, weapons, dugouts, supplies, troop ships etc, suitable for many WWI topics. They have no copyright restrictions, and can easily be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using the Flickr upload bot, and tagged {{PD-NZ}}. As well as any appropriate WWI cats, they should also be added to Cat:Files from Nat Lib of NZ. Also available are 29 photos of the WWI Victory Parades in London. Gwinva (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Roderic Dallas now open

The A-Class review for Roderic Dallas is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Royal Regiment of Artillery

I've just performed a move of the Royal Engineers to the Corps of Royal Engineers, that being the unit's proper title as well as (if I recall correctly) an important brag amongst Royal Engineers (that being that each engineer is royal, rather than just part of a royal corps)! Anyway, I was about to do the same at Royal Artillery when I noticed that it had once been the Royal Regiment of Artillery, but was moved for reasons I don't fully get. The article was split into Royal Artillery and Royal Regiment of Artillery, but then that article was deleted and made into a redirect back to Royal Artillery. Looking around I notice the corps is given its correct name on most associated pages about the structure of the British Army (such as Structure of the British Army) and I personally think it should be at that page. Looking at the other Corps of the British Army they seem to stick with their correct title, and whilst I understand the need to use common titles in articles, I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing when the rest are correct. Any thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to keep RA and RE at the simpler titles - they do have fuller names, but the shorter ones are - in my reading, anyhow - overwhelmingly more common even in a military context. (The other two which usually go by a slightly abbreviated name are the Royal Signals and the REME, both omitting a "Corps of"; everything else seems to use the full name.) Shimgray | talk | 22:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Shimgray on this. Keep them at the simple article name (which is per the general naming convention of articles). The full title can be spelt out in the lede - as is the case for the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - another reason for the RE though was to distinguish between the Corps (the subject of the article) and an individual (a Royal Engineer). But anyway, does anyone think there should at least be a standardisation for the various corps of one army? Ranger Steve (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no distinction between a Royal Marine and the Royal Marines, why invent one for Royal Engineer? The "trade" is covered by combat engineer and sapper. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't trying to create a distinction, just clarify an article name. Was just a minor point. My main concern is with standardising names - some of the British Army ones use the full title, some don't, regardless of common names. It seems a bit inconsistent to me. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in that case, we ought to standardise on the (albeit inconsistent) common names. ;-) Shimgray | talk | 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)