Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 112

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115

POV articles

Hi! I'm listing here a couple of problematic articles that seem to have have been used as POV platforms for promoting pederasty.

  • Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece: as far as I know, there is not enough scholarly literature to support this article. Contributors have been relying on personal interpretation of ancient sources. I don't think it even warrants merging with another article but should be deleted.
  • Sacred Band of Thebes: this was in absurd shape until I edited it lately but I still don't think there is enough scholarly literature to support it. It was almost entirely personal interpretation of ancient sources. It should be merged with something that is under the care of responsible editors.

As you know, links can create great cobwebs of POV and these two articles look to me to have been part of such a network. They came to my attention while I was editing Greek love and Pederasty in ancient Greece. Thanks for your attention. McOoee (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your changes to the Sacred Band of Thebes article look good to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
One suggestion: your addition of "pederastic/homosexual" is an example of why WP:SLASH says to avoid slashes; they're often vague to the point of inducing POV all by themselves. In general, avoid labels except as a way of telling us what labels the sources used. Thanks for your work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Huh, I learned something today. I had only been aware of the Carthaginian Sacred Band before. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks for all that. Re the slash: pederasty is where homosexuality blurs into pedophilia and I could have yoked those oxen together instead! But I didn't, 'cause I don't want to upset folks. It looks as though those two articles might be in good hands here. Cheers. McOoee (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Wikimedia Foundation job ad

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently advertising a position located in Boston to serve as a liaison "between the Wikimedia community and Belfer Center experts". It appears that this will relate to liason with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs's experts on international security and public policy issues, and candidates need to have "Substantial experience editing the English Wikipedia", "good standing within the Wikimedia community" and "Prior experience with or a willingness to learn about international security and public policy". I can think of several Military History editors who'd be very well placed for this job... The ad is available via the Foundation's recruitment page here. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The absence of benefits, combined with the dodgy visa status, a requirement to work in a police state, the high cost of living in the required job location, and the unique skill set requirements should encourage applicants to appropriately price their labour, reflecting on their multiple above cost of living in their current region, and the required USD salary to account for the loss of employment and civil rights in relocation to the United States. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
? Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
They don't indicate a labour price for something varying between a minimal degree, zero years experience; and, the kind of professional job that people with professional post-graduates would do, in a city 150% of the US national cost-of-living, in a one year contract without standard employment benefits. Wikimedia's methods of advertising for labour are fairly shonky. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
No one is drafting you to apply, are they? Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Save the soapboxing bigotry, please.Boneyard90 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind acknowledging that the US trails many Western democracies in several important areas; we lock up more of our citizens, and our health care system sucks. Hopefully, the things we're behind in will get better over time. Don't believe all the hot air that emerges from Washington; it's not a police state over here, and we're not all crazy. It's true that many urban areas have a high cost of living. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If any Milhisters want to apply for that job, let us know so that we can talk up your accomplishments. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to go for this. Would be my second thinktank tour in the U.S. Please, indeed, talk up my accomplishments!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

USAF equipment

The lists in Equipment of the United States Air Force seem to be lacking info. The Current Equipment of the USAF template shows the list is missing many things, such as bombs and small arms. Both lists are even missing things like UAV weapons. Someone needs to accurately fill in boxes. (America789 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

If you're interested, why don't you take the lead? You will probably get much more help if you do a little yourself. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Zhu Hongzhang, Taiping rebellion

Any adventurous editors feel like taking on re-write of the Zhu Hongzhang article? I came by it from a requested copyedit, but it has so many problems (the english is extremely difficult to derive any meaning from in some parts) that I cannot do any kind of meaningful copyedit at this time (I have no specific knowledge of subject of this article). The good news is, the article is very short. If someone would like to do that, and then possibly either re-add the copyedit request banner at the top of the article, or leave me a note on my talk page, I (or someone else) will try again to do that copyedit. Thanks. For now, I am removing the copyedit banner with an explanation on the talk page, but the article really is in rough shape, and it seemed to me that here would be the best place to find someone who could help it. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 23:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You might want to ask WT:CHINA as well. 65.92.180.19 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

ACW battles categories

There have been multiple proposals about renaming and deleting dozens of categories at these pages:

Since might result in a significant shake up for the categorization of ACW articles, feedback from WPMILHIST participants might help with this process. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous user does seem to be going a bit overboard proposing various campaign categories for deletion. I've argued for keeping these categories; any further thoughts on this would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the debate is revolving around the definition of "campaign". Any comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 3#Category:Battles of SMALLCAT in the American Civil War would help. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The anonymous user is now using personal attacks to support his position on the Battles of smallcat page. Not sure where this should be reported to. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New article: 12th New Jersey Volunteer Infantry

I've just moved 12th New Jersey Volunteer Infantry, an article I've been working on on and off for some time in my userspace, to the main space. Any input from editors more experienced with this sort of topic than I would be greatly appreciated.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was as it appears a three-year regiment, do you want to make that clear? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It might be worth expanding some of the non-Gettysburg content as well. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Good work so far, Fyre2387. My suggestion is that the lead probably should be expanded also, as currently it is only one sentence and if a few paper-based sources could be added, it might expand its reference base. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance

This subject was recently discussed at the Fringe Theories noticeboard[1]. It appears to refer to an form of anti-chemical/biological countermeasure used by Soviet armed-forces since the 2nd World War, however we were unable to evaluate the quality of the sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there's an AFD out for this article. Persons with interest in this aspect of military history are encouraged to participate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Deploying 'Start date' template in infoboxes

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Bot requests#RFC: Deploying 'Start date' template in infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

57th Fighter Group (Air Defense)

There is a separate article for the 57th Fighter Group (Air Defense) of the USAF. This is merely one designation held by the unit also designated the 57th Pursuit Group, 57th Fighter Group (Single Engine), 57th Fighter-Interceptor Group, 57th Fighter Weapons Group, and 57th Operations Group. I believe this article should be merged with the 57th Operations Group article, which covers previous designagnations and be made a redirect to that page. The red links should also be created and made into redirects to the 57th Ops Group page. I will do so, based on any comments here or the article's talk page.Lineagegeek (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What you suggest sounds highly sensible. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this makes sense. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Mtotin

They've created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trauma Plate, and the submission has been rejected by two users. They're claiming that this page is different than ceramic plate, that ceramic plate can be a type of trauma plate. I was hoping users could help me provide some solutions for Mtotin. The AfC page has also be slated for a third review. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My two cents, trauma plate is the more intuitive & inclusive term. If anything, ceramic plate should be merged to his proposed page & made a redirect. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Ceramic plate is an amibuous term - with the thing you have your dinner off
the ceramic plate article is more of less identical to the personal armour section of ceramic armor. The fine detail of the plates in use by the US military seems to be adequately covered at Small Arms Protective Insert
I suggest making ceramic plate a disambig page and having a link from there to the ceramic armour section.
Alternatively "ceramic plate" should referred to as "ceramic plate armor/armour". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Addendum - I can find links to steel and titanium "trauma plates" - which made me look at Plate_armour#20th_century_and_modern_body_armour as needing work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox military person "Commands held" section

For some reason my attention has lately been drawn towards the "Commands held" section. It seems to me that more often than not, what appears in that section is the name of the commander's position, not the name of the command. What have others observed? Does it matter? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess that in many instances, the position held is more recognisable than the name of the command? I'm not sure that it's too big a problem, but could you supply a few examples so I know I'm thinking along the same lines as you. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I've noticed -- and been "guilty" of -- something of the same as Pdf is describing for a long time, namely re. senior RAAF and RAN commanders. That is, in every case bar a couple I use the command or unit name, e.g. No. 77 Squadron, HMAS Swan, Air Command, HM Australian Fleet, Technical Directorate, etc. The exceptions are for chiefs of service (e.g. Chief of the Air Staff) and (sort of) chiefs of the armed forces (e.g. Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee). That's always been accepted at GA/A/FA review level. Now I don't actually have a problem in theory with changing the first exception I mentioned to "Royal Australian Air Force" to make it more consistent, but in practice that's a bit simplistic. Legally, the Chief of the Air Staff didn't command the RAAF, he only chaired the Air Board that actually commanded the RAAF. The Chairman COSC had still less command influence over the Australian military, which wasn't even seen as one entity (i.e. the Australian Defence Force) until quite late in the game. Only since the advent of the Chief of Air Force and Chief of Defence Force positions have those office holders legally commanded the associated force(s). So my preference is to always use the unit or command name and not the position name, except where there's a good reason to use position instead (yes, in other words, to keep doing it the way I've always done it, but for idealistic as well as pragmatic reasons). Whew, I hope that answer has cured anyone's insomnia... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Lol! Thanks.
So, I summarise your reply as you saying: in the majority of cases you have observed, it is the command, (not the commander's position), that is appearing. And that except for the exceptions you've mentioned, it should be the command, (not the commander's position), that should be appearing. Did I understand you correctly? If so, good. (And it's also convenient that it's consistent with your ideal!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I've yet to actually change any of them AFAIR, but I'd take the "command position" to be "unit commanded", too: "1st Div", rather than "General Officer in Charge, 1st Div", or whatever. (Not least, it's simpler. ;p ) Except for obvious exceptions like staff positions. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New section at "newsroom" talk page

I've started a new section here, which may be of interest to some contributors or project members. It's basically about including some writings about pertinent or prominent fiction containing military/historic elements in the Bugle. dci | TALK 22:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Quisling regime

This article uses "Infobox former country", which also automatically placed it into categories "Former countries in Europe", "States and territories established in 1942", and "States and territories disestablished in 1945" and by my understanding this is wrong because Quisling regime was not a "country", but regime/government that governed a country (Norway). Is there some better infobox that can be used here? PANONIAN 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN (talk · contribs) has just been topic-banned from Serbia-related articles [2] for disruption in a dispute on (among other things) the usage of the {{Infobox former country}} template in the article on the Serbian equivalent of the Quisling regime. This looks like an attempt to indirectly influence an article he's been banned from via a more general proposal. -- Director (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Hold fire, DIRECTOR. Again, AGF ! I have been repeatedly concerned at the practice of infoboxes when added automatically adding categories. That's the problem here, a technical link which is not always appropriate (my problem was with U.S. Air Force articles). Can our technical people please explain whether it's possible to stop infoboxes automatically adding articles to categories? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
"Hold fire"? Buckshot, one can assume too much good faith you know. I know PANONIAN and I know what to assume, I think we're well past our first encounter him and I. Its part of his behavioral pattern to attempt to change all other articles of a type to push a POV on a Serbian history article. And he was just sanctioned. With all due respect to yourself and Wikipedia policy, this still looks like topic ban evasion to me, whether his objection regarding the category is justified or not. I shall bring this thread to the attention of TBNL, and withdraw.
To be clear: PANONIAN was arguing against the usage of the {{Infobox former country}} template on the Government of National Salvation article. Now, a couple hours after his topic ban, he's contesting the usage of that template at WT:MILHIST in all articles of that type (there are basically just three: Quisling regime, Hellenic State (1941-1944), and the Serbian Government of National Salvation). I'm sorry, but to me it does look like an attempt to indirectly continue the same dispute, but on an even larger scale. -- Director (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm the admin who imposed the sanction. I'm not going to block over this, but I'd suggest that this is pushing the limits, and PANONIAN would be advised that's not really a good idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
It's with some reluctance I post here (and note that I am in no way endorsing the recent behaviour of PANONIAN) but regardless of PANONIANs motives as Buckshot06 points out a reasonable point may of been raised, in this case the Quisling regime is not a former country but at best a former government (and one questionable legitimacy to boot) so having it placed in a "Former countries" category seems (at least to me) wrong (as far as I'm aware Norway is still an independent nation). So perhaps we need a new Infobox template or perhaps we need better options with the current Infoboxes to help guide the categories they deposit an article into, I don't know what the solution is but I do think Wikipedia would probably be better if a sensible rational discussion can be had about this. --Thefrood (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban aside, I also agree with PANONIAN's objections. The "Former countries in Europe" category is I think obviously unsuitable for the three articles in question. -- Director (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be something approaching a consensus that there is an issue with categorisation so I'm thinking the question now must be what is the best way of resolving the issue? --Thefrood (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be a bit late on this subject, but I wanted to speak with a friend of mine who works in the Norwegian Foreign Service in Australia. The Quisling Regime is not considered to be a legitimate government of Norway, as Quisling seized power in a coups d'e tat at the time of the Nazi invasion. The legitimate government was the one which escaped to England and returned to Norway after the German Capitulation in May 1945. The Quisling Regime has no lineage to the history of Norway and and is not considered to be a predecessor of the Norwegian Government after May 1945 or a successor to the government which existed in May 1940 in any way, shape or form. She also stated that it is incorrect for Wikipedia to categorize the Quisling Regime as a "nation" in any way, shape or form as well. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a possible solution might be a new Infobox template for "Axis puppet states"? --Thefrood (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this is causing inappropriate categorisation. All three are really puppet regimes or puppet governments, rather than puppet states. Despite the name of the 'Hellenic State', it is clear from the article that it was a puppet government rather than a 'State'. I would support a new infobox template for "Axis puppet governments" to be used on these three articles. It's a side issue, but I also believe a new infobox template for "Axis occupied territories" would be very useful also. It could be used on all the Reichkommissiarat (civil administration) articles as well as the three occupation territory (military administration) articles. It could categorise to "States and territories established in 194X", and "States and territories disestablished in 194X", but shouldn't categorise to "former countries in Europe". I really don't know what can be done in terms of these categorisations, but that is my view on what infoboxes we need to get these things right. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Other issues aside, infoboxes should not be applying categories in this manner. A new infobox would be overkill. If the current infobox is still not suitable once the category has been removed, consider using {{Infobox settlement}}. Ping me if you need help doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with the infobox I can think of was the cat. Hopefully that issue will now finally be laid to rest. -- Director (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
While there may be additional reasons for looking at a separate Infobox for "Axis puppet governments/Axis occupied territories" I do concur that the immediate problem relating to the Quisling article does seem to be solved. --Thefrood (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Milhist A-class reviews needing attention

G'day all, we have a bit of a backlog at the project's A-class review at the moment. If anyone is free/keen, the following articles need more attention:

User 188.134.32.73

This character has been changing info in infoboxes on several Eastern Front articles. His changes have by and large remained for quite a while, even though they are unreferenced. Not good. Here is an example and here is the IP's edit history. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is not good. What upsets me more is that the sources are being inappropriately cited for information - and this is true of the edit both before and after he/she made changes.
For example http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html is cited as the source for German casualties:
Before Total casualties: 775,000, 250,000 killed. 500,000 wounded. 25,000 missing
After German: 790,000 (including Air forces and fleet), 200,000 killed and missing... goes on to give uncited information on German allies.
The cited source gives the following:
  • German KIA, Eastern Front 1941 - 11.30.44: 1,419,728
  • German MIA, Eastern Front 1941 - 11.30.44: 997.056
  • German WIA, Eastern Front 1941 - 11.30.44: 3,498,060
The cited source also gives Wehrmacht (i.e. all service) monthly totals of killed and missing for the period from September 1939 to November 1944 - but these data appear refer to the whole war and include the navy in the Atlantic, the air force over England, the army in Africa as well as the Great Patriotic War. If the footnote did some mathematics and made some trivial assumptions it might provide suitable numbers - but the footnote does not do this. It merely quotes a source.
On balance the IP editor seems to have made the article less bad with the edit you referred to. So maybe we should ask him/her to do a more thorough job of doing what he/she is doing, and give him/her a barstar if he/she does?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that he/she is doing it down to the last man instead of rounding it so as to get a more accurte number.Nhog (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Could someone possibly examine the complaints of the IP editor raised on the talk page (at the bottom). The point's a little hard to understand, I'm rather busy at the moment and rather too involved to easily look at the situation objectively. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he is complaining that the article doesn't include the opinions of a particular source he is quite familiar with and that means the article fails 3a. He also states that the cultural impact of the Spanish Civil War is also significantly missing with respect I think to music and art which would also have it failing 3a.
After examining both the Spanish Civil War article and comparing it other GAs, World War II and Platine War I would conclude his argument invalid as it deviates into a more opinion based section of history and would then violate 3b in the Good Article criteria.--MOLEY (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong Whitworth F.K.3 - possible Bulgarian use?

An IP editor added a claim to the Armstrong Whitworth F.K.3 article that one FK3 was captured by the Bulgarians and operated by them against the British. I removed the claim because it was unsourced, and after discussion on the talk page the IP came up with three web pages which seem to indicate that an FK3 may have been captured by the Bulgarians, and at least painted in Bulgarian markings. While the story is credible, (the RFC/RAC did operate FK3s on the Salonika front), could people pop by to Talk:Armstrong Whitworth F.K.3 to help evaluate whether the sources provided meet WP:RS and are sufficient to back up the story?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

CAR-15

In the List of individual weapons of the U.S. armed forces carbines section, it says the Colt Model 723 M16A2 carbine is used by the navy. In the CAR-15 page, the section on the model 723 says the carbine is essentially an early designation type of M4 carbine. Is there a real difference or should I just take the model 723 off the list? (America789 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

I'd say leave it, since the list also contains the USAF designation for the M4 and XM-177.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Promotions to higher ranks vs Manual of Style

How should promotions to higher ranks be presented? It would in my view be appropriate to present this, perhaps correlated with commands, in a more structured manner than simply integrating it in the prose narrative. Is there a separate MoS for military personnel? __meco (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Promotions are not necessarily linked to commands and well written prose supported by appropriate references should do the job perfectly well. I'm struggling to see what the benefits or needs are of doing it any other way? NtheP (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree that prose is the way to go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Pile on with a concur about prose. Any other way would get too convoluted, IMO. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, new commanders and promotions are an integral part of articles about battles, people, and units. We're aiming for FA-standard text- let's stick to prose, unless you want to rewrite the FA rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
As per Nthep, Graeme et al above. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Meco - in answer to you other question MILHIST does have its own MOS - WP:MILMOS, although I'm not sure what is says about the presentation of ranks specifically. Anotherclown (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I've only found one article on a military officer that you've editted (my lack of knowledge/perseverance to blame for that) but it didn't have an 'Offices held' table, so I'm wondering whether they're all like that in the area you're working in. These generally show the officer's appointments at 1-star rank and above, and are created using the Military offices and Succession boxes templates. Here's an example of one I made for the current UK Chief of the Air Staff which uses all the most common elements. Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs. Antrim Kate (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

First Battle of Swat

This article needs attention, having recently been the subject of changes to figures and the addition of apparently unsourced material. I draw this to the attention of this project as I feel that my knowledge of the subject is not good enough to allow me to do a good job here. Britmax (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Kernel Saunters (talk · contribs) has reverted this vandalism Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

B-class re-reviews needed

Based on my recent experiences with submitting articles for B-class, one of the required criteria is to have no unreferenced paragraphs (or sentences at the end of). At the same time, I've been reviewing Polish taskforce B-class articles, and I am finding many which are not up to that standard. This suggests to me that many of our other B-class articles are not up to modern standards, and we should probably have a review and confirm/delist drive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you as reviewing the current backlog drive there isn't a consistent B-Class Checklist being used and editors who seem more inclined to do assessing quickly than accurately have promoted articles when they fail simple instructions clearly phrased in the B-Class Criteria.--MOLEY (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

List of chronometers on HMS Beagle has been nominated as a Featured List candidate. Please give your view on this nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of chronometers on HMS Beagle/archive1. SpinningSpark 08:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The forgotten Sucre

Hey guys, I just came across the article Antonio José de Sucre and was stunned to find so little there. It's a shame not to have a proper article on the Gran Mariscal for English-speaking readers. I know very little Spanish myself, but the Spanish Wikipedia article appears to be fairly good. It would be nice if a bilingual editor could do justice to Sucre and expand his English article with that material, translated. Just sayin'. Textorus (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Shangani Patrol featured article candidacy could do with more reviewers

The FAC for the Shangani Patrol is getting close to running out of time, and could do with comments from other editors. It's located at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shangani Patrol/archive1. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What do people think of turning this article into a Featured Article next year, for its 100th anniversary? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Great idea: I can't think of a better article for the main page on that day. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, who should be notified of this? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
It would be best to approach editors who specialise in the Civil War and/or the aftermath of war to see if they're interested in working on the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A splendid idea, Nick-D. So what about a more general suggestion: we're coming up to the 100th anniversary of WW1, one of the most important wars in history. Should we all make an effort to improve and polish as many WW1 articles as we can, sweeping a year ahead, such that they are more 'ready' when users search them more intensively on the 100th anniversaries? --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. It's been proposed several times though the various projects haven't made a great deal of progress (AFAIK). Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested article: 58th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

Would anybody like to create this article? I usually specialize in Polish military history, so this is a bit outside my scope (a US civil war regiment of Polish volunteers). I'd be happy to co-edit this into a DYK nomination if somebody else more familiar with this era is willing to work on it, too. (Please consider copying any replies here to my talk page for a speedy response). PS. Regiment was created by Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski, and there may be some useful refs in that B-class bio. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect inaction is the order of the day. I'd advise creating a stub, and seeing what response you get. In my experience preople are far more likely to react to something that has been started by someone else than to get off their backsides and initiate action themselves (S.L.A. Marshall and all that). On a similar topic, are you aware of Paul Latawski, who's an academic at RMA Sandhurst in the UK, with a specific interest in 1 (Polish) Armd Div in WW2? Might be worth making contact. --Wally Tharg (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested Moved Discussion needing Expert input

This requested move: History of the Luftwaffe needs expert input. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A call to arms

Since the coord's talk page doubles as our "strategy" page, please see WT:MHC#A call to arms about the pending Pending Changes decision. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Blitzrieg

Hello all. There is a discussion at Talk:Blitzkrieg#Blitzkrig IRT the inclusion of material about the Battle of Megiddo that could use the opinion of uninvolved editors. Pls have a look if you are interested. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Carrier_Strike_Group_One.2C_Carrier_Strike_Group_Seven

There's a dispute resolution noticeboard case unfolding re the U.S. Navy that needs more uninvolved editor input - above. Would people please give their thoughts at the above link? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Have left a comment on the dispute page, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment criteria for lists - examples

Would it be possible to give examples that are lists and not articles? --Thefrood (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

List class assessment is still a work–in–progress. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Separate article/list assessment scales for more info. I've posed your question there. Mojoworker (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Escort destroyer /Destroyer escort (disambiguation)

I'm hoping somebody can give the following disambiguation pages a quick once over as I'm getting a little out of my area of expertise with some of the entries:

Additionally, does anybody have good sources to create and reference two pages defining Destroyer escort and Escort destroyer as terms? (as far as I can tell Escort destroyers date from at least WWI and are cut down destroyers whereas Destroyer escorts date from WWII and seem to be frigates with extra shiny bits). --Thefrood (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that, at least for the USN, DDE evolved from the original WW 2 DE designation. As ships evolved, you started seeing DDs, DDGs (indicating that the ship carried at least some missiles - guided missiles), and possibly DDE which would be used for older DEs that remained in service. There's some talk of that here. Both the destroyer escort and escort destroyer articles talk a bit about this, and the escort destroyer stub in particular has a nice link to a good discussion of USN ship designations. This is for the USN use of the terms, anyhow.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The pages on USN designation are partially the problem, in that pages from the ships of other navies that have nothing to do with the USN designs used for these USN designations link to these USN pages, hence my creation of the disambiguation pages but the disambiguation pages can't explain what the wider meaning of these terms thus my additional request for someone with good sources to create and reference a page or two defining the terms in a more global manner. --Thefrood (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe just state that those terms are somewhat unique to the USN, then. You may not be able to define it in a global manner using USN terms. Frigate seems to be a more common global term for escort ships, with destroyer taking on a different role. Escort destroyer in particular seems to be an awkward and rather unique construction. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just had a stab at making it clearer with the explanations against the "Hunt"s and the V & W classes in Escort destroyer (disambiguation) to show that they were intended to give protection to convoys of merchant ships rather than give protection to the battle fleet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 FAC

The Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 article is undergoing its 2nd FA candidacy. Any interested user is invited to state his/her opinion and offer criticism! Constantine ✍ 12:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Locations of battles, and the problem of spurious accuracy

Many entries for battles show their location in lat-long, either in decimals of degrees, or in DMS. This should of course be standard for all battle entries. Over the past few years though I've become increasingly irritated by contributors imposing spurious accuracy to these measurements. Since this applies to all battles, I'm taking the liberty of having a short rant on this page.

One degree subtends 111km (69 miles) at the Equator, and less towards the poles, but it still subtends 70km (45 miles) in Northern Europe and the centre of North America, which is where many of the recorded battles have taken place. Thus 1/100 degree, or just over half a minute, is the sort of range that a rifle can reach. A large battle (by pre-1900 standards) such as Waterloo ranged over about a tenth of a degree. So why quote any locations of battles to four decimal places? A cowboy could spit as far as that! And as for cases where people have taken it to six, have they stopped to think? My keyboard is wider than 0.000001 degrees. I don't want to be too flippant, but the problem is that this spurious accuracy is just clutter, and detracts from the important figures at the front.

Relatively few battles have taken place over less than square kilometre, so that would suggest a maximum level of precision of 0.01 degrees, or about half minute; I'd be happier with a whole minute though. A few cases could be made for greater accuracy where the battle involved a small fort or similar location (Camerone is one of the few that springs to mind) or where the writer wishes to direct attention to a prominent memorial on a larger battlefield (e.g. at Thiepval on the Somme).

I propose that as a 'rule of thumb', the locations of battles prior to 1900 be expressed to 0.01 degrees or one minute accuracy, unless there are good reasons for finer accuracy, and that after 1900 we limit our lust for empty detail to 0.1 degrees, or the nearest 10 minutes. If this is universally accepted, then perhaps we need a bot to cut out some of the ridiculous detail that some users have unthinkingly copied from their GPS sets. --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Bit late, but completely agree, Wally Tharg. Please do not hesitate to approach me if you have any pushback or unreasonable attempts to retain ridiculous levels of over-accuracy. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

List of people associated with the American Civil War

What is supposed to be the purpose and scope of this article? 76.7.237.55 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the article myself. Currently, it looks like it overlaps other ACW lists, especially the lists of ACW generals. Should the generals sections be deleted and replaced by links to the seperate articles on ACW generals? Wild Wolf (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have an answer to this? 76.7.224.171 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone? 76.7.224.171 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
If any section can be replaced with a link to another list, I would do it. Perhaps the list is to ill-defined and should be deleted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The word "associated" seems ambiguous and vague. The articles probably should be deleted. 76.7.237.55 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say the list should go. Far too vague. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it takes more than 5 lists to cover the 1500+ ACW Medal of Honor recipients, more for several hundred Generals and there are several more potentials on top of that. I think the scope is just too big to be an all inclusive list. Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I nominated the page for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people associated with the American Civil War. Any comments would be welcome. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

For the attention of World War II task force members

The flag/flagicon/flagcounty template for Nazi Germany has been updated.

By default the template shows the flag for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi party) with a central disk, this was one of two flags used to represent Germany between 1933-1935. From 1935 onwards a flag with an off-centre disc was used to represent Germany this flag can now be shown with the flag template by using "|1935" option.

See Template:Country data Nazi Germany and Flag of Nazi Germany for more information

Could World War II task force members please try to make sure WWII articles are using the correct flag. --Thefrood (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: The flag with the off-centred disk is now the default, if you need the flag with the centred disk use the option "|1933n", the flag Germany template has also been updated to show the off-centred disk when used with the "|nazi" option. --Thefrood (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This might not be related, but I notice that the German flags in the commanders section of the infobox now have a black edge to them - unlike the light grey of the other flags. This is only evident in the commanders field and not the belligerents (and I've only checked a half dozen articles to confimr this, but it is always the case so far). Ranger Steve Talk 08:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Civil War Union admirals

I have some information that I can add to the biographies of several Union admirals--Goldsborough, Dahlgren, and Lee in particular. I believe I can add some to Dahlgren's biography pre-flag rank as well. Not so much personal information as it is information regarding their Civil War service. The reference I have is "Lincoln and his Admirals" by Craig Symonds. I'm fairly new here, and don't want to step on anybody's toes by just strolling in and adding stuff, so I thought I'd throw it out here. Spastic Legend (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Go for it! (and please see WP:BOLD for why you should just jump in). Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Assistance requested for an upcoming TFA

I've been informed that the Timor Leste Defence Force article will appear as the "Today's featured article" on 29 May. I've updated this article fairly recently, so it should be in OK shape, but I'd appreciate it if other editors could read through it and either fix grammatical problems or identify any other issues. Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Luftwaffe

Discussions requiring input at:

  1. Luftwaffe
  2. History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

please also note the proposals at the end of the ongoing discussions. noclador (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Gaps" in the nations' task forces

I was looking over the list of task forces for the various nations/regions and noticed that the following countries/regions seem to have no place in the current structure scheme of things:

  1. Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Leichenstein, and Switzerland
  2. Portugal and Andorra
  3. Belgium and Luxembourg

The first set could be combined into a "Central Europe Task Force" or something similar. Portugal and Andorra could be combined with Spain to form an "Iberian Peninsula Task Force". 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Belgium and Luxembourg could possibly be combined with Netherlands to form a Benelux task force, subject to consensus of course. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Andorra would be a hard one to place sense it is ruled partially by the French President and defense is equally the responsibility of the French and Spanish.--MOLEY (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Andorra could be included in both the Spanish and French task forces. If so, Portugal could get its own task force. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Andorra should probably go with a Spanish or Iberian Peninsula task force, but the suggestion made by the IP directly above me makes sense, too; a separate Portuguese task force sounds okay. dci | TALK 12:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of an Iberian task force to include the Military Histories of Portugal, Spain, and Andorra. It wouldn't be too far-fetched as the Russian task force now includes CIS countries and would more accurately cover the odd intertwined relationship Spain and Portugal have had throughout history.--MOLEY (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So how do we get these task forces orgainized? 76.7.224.171 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all. It is clear from a review of articles needing TF coverage that we need taskforces for Iberian, Benelux and Central European. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of Nazi German flags in infoboxes for German occupied territories

I would like to get some wider views on the use of Nazi German flags in the infoboxes for German occupied territories. There has been some recent discussion here and here. In rough summary, there were two types of German occupied territories. The first had civil administrations such as Reichskommissariat Ostland and the second had military administrations such as Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia.

The arguments currently being advanced in respect of the flag to be used in these articles are as follows:

  • That this is an issue of WP infobox practice, not WP:RS, and we rely upon what has been done on similar articles. ie When a territory/area/region/province controlled by a country has no specific flag of its own, it is customary to use the flag of the country in the infobox - rather than leaving the parameters empty for no good reason. If this argument was accepted, there are a few options for what flag might be appropriate, the Nazi civil flag (or Hakenkreuzfahne, also known as the swastika flag) or the 1938-45 war flag Reichskriegsflagge. Another option, specifically advanced for the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article, is the Militarbefehlshaber (Military Commander) flag shown [[3]].
  • That WP:MOSFLAG, specifically this bit states that 'If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen', and therefore no flag should be used in any infobox of such articles where the usage is controversial.

I'd appreciate the views of uninvolved editors on this one (as well as those that have a view which I may or may not have clearly summarised above). Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Imo this is turning into a far bigger deal than it should. The territory in question (Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia) was a German occupation zone, under direct control from Berlin.

"The economic and police chiefs of the occupation regime, though theoretically subordinate to the military commander, reported on their specific functions directly to their higher authorities in Berlin, so that in fact the military commander had jurisdiction over little more than disciplinary matters." (Tomasevich II, p.74)

Hence, instead of leaving the field empty for no reason, it seems logical to use a German flag for a German occupation zone. This makes the infobox neither "unclear", nor "ambiguous", nor somehow "controversial", and WP:MOSFLAG imo obviously does not apply by a long shot. In support of said reasoning I submit that practically every single similar article has been using the German flag for years [4][5][6][7][8][9] [10]. And like I said several times: nobody likes the Nazi flag, but sacrificing content and accuracy for personal sentiment is the wrong way to go. -- Director (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
imo, taking an issue such as this to this forum for discussion is not making this into a bigger deal than it should, it is getting some wider attention to the issue and the benefit of some other editors views. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not referring to you posting this thread, I'm talking about the fact that this minor infobox issue has been discussed ad nauseam for weeks now. -- Director (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest the problem here (as with the Quisling regime conversation above) may be the unsuitability of the current Infobox templates. Perhaps we should pop over to WP:INFOBOX and start a debate about either the creation of an Infobox template suitable for Axis puppet governments/Axis occupied territories or the modification of existing template to make them more suitable, in my opinion such a template should clearly state the occupying power and any local regime, have options for both local flags and the flag of the occupying power, it should also show both the preceding and successor regime and any concurrent regime (e.g. a government in exile). --Thefrood (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the flag of a Militärbefehlshaber (Military Commander) as the Reichskommissariate had their own Military Commanders. For Ostland, as a example, it was Lieutenant General (later General of the Cavalry) Walter Braemer. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

@Bomzibar. I don't think it makes sense to use personal standards as representative of territories. In addition, as the sources indicate, apart from the rather "personal" name of the territory, the military commanders exercised very little actual power in the territory they administered. Its nothing more than a name, it shouldn't lead us - or the reader(!) - to the wrong conclusion. These territories were administered directly by the government of Nazi Germany in Berlin (at least this one was for certain).
Sorry, I meant wouldn't not would, my mistake! --Bomzibar (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
@Thefrood. I agree, the occupying power should be clear in the infobox, that's my whole point. And the puppet government has been listed in the infobox. A special template isn't a bad idea, but I don't think it should depart very far in conception from the {{Infobox former country}} template. Also, I don't think these territories had local flags. Three of them had puppet governments that had flags of their own, but not the territories themselves. -- Director (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The {{Infobox former country}} template would be fine (IMHO) with two additions, first an option to clearly indicate occupying power and secondly an option that would clearly indicate any other regime that claimed power over the same area (e.g. a government in exile). But I'm guessing we are now getting to point where the template part of this conversation should perhaps move to the template talk page? --Thefrood (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:MOSFLAG is not a particularly reliable guideline as it is quite contentious. The anti-flag view appears to have got into the guideline first and because there is strong support both for and against, it is nigh impossible to change it or tone it down! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Those posting in this thread may be interested in this thread over at WP:WPFT. --Thefrood (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
If a non-project member may interject here: as a general reader, I depend on infoboxes to give me a quick summary of essential facts at a glance. If I want more info, I will read the article. To me, the little flags serve to quickly tell me country or nationality; if I were you guys, I would go with what most general readers, non-specialists in the field, recognize. The Union Jack I know, the Tricolour I know, ditto Old Glory and the Stars and Bars, and of course the Lone Star Flag. Each one of those might have relatively obscure military or naval variants, but such don't belong in a quick-look infobox. The Nazi flag, I and 100 million other general readers recognize instantly; this Reichskriegflagge I've never heard of or seen until stumbling upon it here. So do you want to be excruciatingly correct, or genuinely helpful to most readers, would seem to be the controlling question for this discussion. Okay, there's my 2c, leaving quietly now. Textorus (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to return whenever – non-Milhist opinions are always welcome. Sometimes we don't remember that general readers don't always know what we know. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to all. Especially Textorus for an outsiders view. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

How many ensigns in a warship infobox?

I've just asked a question at WT:SHIPS#How many ensigns in a warship infobox? relating to how many and which ensigns ships that served in British Dominion navies (i.e. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Canadian Navy etc) should display in the infobox. Opinions requested. -- saberwyn 01:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

GAN listings

I noticed that article that have already been GAN'd and passed seem to remain on the GAN listing. Pavle Djurisic and Dobroslav Jevdjevic have both been passed yet they are still on the list. Is this a bot thing or are we supposed to take them off the list when they pass? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's done manually, so please make any amendments you think are needed. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Cheers! Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture issue

A discussion has been opened on the talk page of the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) centered on the issue of whether or not to include a mention of battleship's appearance in the music video If I Could Turn Back Time, all interested editors are welcome to participate. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the page. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

World War I Editathon - London, 16th June

Hi all.

This is a reminder about the upcoming World War I editathon at the British Library on Saturday 16th June - there are still spaces open, and if you're interested, please do sign up! (Help with travel expenses may be available for UK editors.)

It's been organised by Wikimedia UK in partnershop with JISC; we'll have a group of experts there to work with editors on improving WWI-related topics. We're hoping to focus in particular on some aspects of the war which aren't well-represented on the Internet, but all contributions are welcome! If you've any questions, please feel free to contact either The Land (talk · contribs) or myself.

Hope to see you there! Andrew Gray (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a fantastic event. Great work organising it. Out of interest, what are the arrangements for virtual participation? Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Good question - I've pinged Chris to check. I will let you know once I've the details... Andrew Gray (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
We're not counting the wiki, I guess ;-) I've had a quick check, and it looks like we'll be using the "traditional" approach of IRC plus an etherpad - this usually gets used by people actually in the room as well, to exchange notes, so it's quite useful. If there's demand for it we may be able to set up Skype or something similar for direct contact; there probably won't be "general" video streaming through the day, though, as a room full of people gathered around tables is a bit dull! It works well for seminars, less so for practical sessions. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
We've recently announced which academics are coming along and I'm really pleased at the quality of academic participation we're getting! So if any UK-based MilHisters are in any doubt, come along, it'll be a really great experience. The Land (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You may want to see if the libray has a series about WW1 called The Military History Of World War 1 by Trevor Nevitt Dupuy, Col.,U.S. Army, Ret., and other co-authers. It Would be a good series to use as a refrence and it just is a really good series. Nhog (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no question, they will have the book. Question is, what articles to write on it, and how to make best use of our academic guests...? The Land (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Rating Criteria

The recent rating of Battle of Antioch on the Meander as "start class" has highlighted an issue that has plagued me for some time. As someone who works largely on Ancient and Medieval topics, often on battles with very little information available describing them, I find it difficult to understand how ratings are applied. In the above case I have trawled the available literature on the subject, and there is almost nothing concerning the details of the battle to be had - in fact the most detailed account I found was in a Byzantine history written in the mid-Victorian period.

As a synthesis the wikipedia article has more detail in it about the battle than can be found in any single modern historical work covering the subject.

How something can be judged to have insufficient coverage when there is almost nothing available makes me spit feathers. How can coverage of battles fought a thousand or more years ago be judged by the same criteria as are applied to WWII or other more recent battles?Urselius (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What you describe does seem to be a bit of a catch-22 situation but perhaps it might help if you properly structured the article, at the moment the lead paragraph contains information that is not in the main body of the article. As I understand it, ideally there should be no references in the lead paragraph as it should be a concise summary of the main body of the article (where the information is properly referenced). --Thefrood (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In addition, you shouldn't get too hung up about the ratings. They are convenient from time to time, but certainly not definitive. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It may well have got a C - depending on whether the last paragraph needs a cite (which I'd guess the original assessor thought it did). But, if I'd been assessing it, I couldn't have gone with a B because I couldn't be sure of whether it met B2, as I don't know the subject. The assessor may well be in the same position and made the same play it safe call, because it looks a bit thin. The problem with less mainstream subjects alas. I think we could only really change this by having a B2 criterion which is less dependent on the assessors knowledge but I'm not sure how we would do that, or even if it's a wise move overall.Monstrelet (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume this question has been raised due to me recently completing the b class checklist for the article in question [11]. Firstly I would like to say it is quite a good little article in my opinion. Secondly I must also point out that it was already listed as a "Start", I just filled out the checklist. The two issues I saw were with coverage and accuracy (i.e. it seemed to be rather limited in detail) and referencing (the last paragraph doesn't have a citation). I am no expert on the topic so I'm more than happy for it to be reassessed if someone with more knowledge believes it adequately covers the topic. That said I really do think the last paragraph requires a reference. If you would like to request a reassessment you can do so here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. I hope this explaination helps. Anotherclown (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I agree with the above. I'd probably have assessed it the same way. There is often only a small difference between the classes, particularly Start, C and B and sometimes they can be somewhat arbitary. If the citation can be added, it could probably be re-assessed as suggested above. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Australian dictionary of biography to be updated

As a note mainly of interest to Australian editors, work to update the Australian Dictionary of Biography to include people who died between 1991 and 1995 is about to begin. The ADB staff have listed their shortlist here and are asking for suggestions for further people to include. It seems that the list has surprisingly few military people... Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, and even then they manage to get something wrong, e.g. "COBBY, Arthur Henry (1894-1995), air force officer" -- see our own fair article for when he actually died... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
They seem to be missing General Sir Arthur Leslie MacDonald (30 January 1919 – 20 January 1995), COMAFV, CGS and CDFS. Seems like an oversight to me so I have emailed them. Cheers Nick. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

History of Wageningen (1939-1945)

I am considering breaking out a separate article, History of Wageningen (1939-1945), to more fully develop material related to the city's experience of World War II. If anyone has comments, ideas, or suggestions, please note them at Talk:Wageningen. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A-class reviews that need attention

The following ACRs have been open longer than a week and have yet to receive a reviewe from at least three editors:

The following ACRs are less than a week old and have yet to receive a review:

If anyone has the time to stop by and review one of these against the A-class criteria, it would be greatly appreciated. New reviewers are certainly most welcome. The A-class criteria can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class. If anyone is new to reviewing at A-class and has some questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page and I will try to help where I can. Please keep in mind, you do not have to review against all the criteria if you are uncomfortable doing so. It is perfectly acceptable to review just one of the five. If doing so, please simply just state that. For example "Support on prose" or "Support on images and licencing"; etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Prussian wars and battles

I have just translated a first draft of wars and battles involving Prussia from German Wikipedia and would welcome reviews from experts in this period of history as well as the usual spelling and grammar checks! Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Globalization proposal

Hi WikiProject Military history members, Several of us are trying to get a WikiProject Globalization up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia on Globalization, global issues and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, please come by and check out our proposal. We'd appreciate feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

FPC needs more feedback

I'd welcome further feedback on the second nomination of a file I've created, File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War.svg (nomination here). Members of this project may have opinions to share. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar

Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Goal: 0 articles
Current: 109 articles
Initial: 24,689 articles
(Refresh)

The "needs grammar help" checks are really helpful, I'm going to see if I can get GOCE help with those. Great work! - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll try and help out with these assessments when I can (not the copy editing though). If we all set ourselves a goal of doing 5 a day we could probably crack it in about a year. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
There are as of May 3rd 242 days left in the year. With a 23,500 backlog, around 97 article per day would need to be finished for the backlog to be completed by the end of the year. Not counting any influx of added articles.--MOLEY (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thats seems like a lot... Mathamatactics never was my strong suit. Anotherclown (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
If we could get at least ten people to edit at least ten articles a day (which should take only ten minutes), then we could probably get this done by the end of the year. 76.7.237.55 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
If people are doing ten articles in 10 mins I would have to conclude their B-Class checklists have a high chance of error.--MOLEY (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Have to say, I'd read that as ten minutes per article. It does depend how extensive an article is, of course. The closer to B class it gets the more you need to be a subject specialist to assess it properly and also the more time it takes to review.Monstrelet (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there an essay or guideline to help assessors make decisions regarding the number and quality of references? I downgraded Talk:Army of Northern Virginia from B to C based on poor cites and other issues. I didn't check whether the poorly referenced passages were added before or after the B rating was assigned (that aspect was irrelevant at the time I changed the rating). Anyhow, my point is that a checklist isn't helpful unless one knows how to use it... – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I've also found at least one GA-Class that had incorrect citations (as in the work cited didn't say what the editor claimed it said when citing it) that existed before it was upgraded to A. Worrying. Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing anonymous editor's B-Class edits I feel less inclined to consider this a successful project as the oversight was quite lacking and people just wanted to see a number disappear without having been familiar with B-Class articles.--MOLEY (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This is only an issue if reviewers are over eager to create B class articles. Most backlog articles will be in the categories Stub and Start. Do we have evidence of this? It's also not a new phenomenon. I learned the ropes by observing the efforts of other editors, checking their work to see how they had interpretted the guidelines, putting things I thought were B class on the assessment list for second opinions (a practice frowned upon these days sadly). But in that process, I found people assessing articles as B that clearly weren't and while I corrected the howlers, there will be a lot of those wrongly assessed articles still out there on the basis of my random sample. My advice to those working the backlog would be, if in doubt, leave that category as y/n and move on to the next one. We rarely run reassessment drives so any mistake you make now will likely sit there for years.Monstrelet (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of MILHIST Ship articles missing the B-class checklist have the equivalent list for SHIPS filled out. As I understand it, the two projects treat the assessment criteria identically (apart from a slight difference of how many B-class criteria equals C class), with a MILHIST class rating almost-automatically accepted by SHIPS and vice versa. What would be the view towards putting a dent in the backlog by organising a bot to look at articles tagged for both projects and copy over the checklist from one to the other? -- saberwyn 06:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. Do you know of a bot that would be able to copy the checklists over from one template to the other? Kirill [talk] 07:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
No idea, sorry. -- saberwyn 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw the BetaCommandBot updating the quality scale across all the three different project templates on a talk page so they all had the same rating but i have no idea what the article was called to show you though. Gavbadger (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Xenobot used to do this (eg [12]). Anyone want to ask him for the code and/or to do it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Walker

I just came across this article but I don't remember coming across mention of this battle in any of the ACW books that I've read. Does anyone else know anything about this? Wild Wolf (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It rings no bells with me, but I'm not a huge ACW expert. Most refs seem to point to a location in South Carolina. Maybe posting on the ACW project page might stir up some comment? Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't find anything beyond the WP article in Google/Books/Scholar, so I've tagged it with {{hoax}}. If it's true, we'd need reliable sources that report it... and the only "battle of Fort Walker" I can find was back at the beginning of the war. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Could it be related to this Union Army report on the capture of "the position in Baylor's field" [13] Fornadan (t) 14:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
No Wilcox lake in List of lakes of the United States or state lists. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I checked Noah Andre Trudeau's The Last Citadel and can't find any reference that USCT troops took part on the assaults of June 15th nor to any Fort Walker. I checked the maps in a couple Blue & Gray issues and found that the Confederates did have a Fort Walker but it was located to the south/southwest of Petersburg, away from the area of the June 15th assaults. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I moved a comment to the talk page of the article that had been inadvertently posted in the article itself and subsequently deleted, where another editor also claims the article to be fictitious. I read the full text of the "I. P. Farmer" letter (the second letter), and it makes no mention of Fort Walker or Battery 35, but merely mentions a rebel fort. So, this reference is insufficient to ascribe it to the subject of this article. That leaves only the "Arter" letter. There could indeed have been some sort of "Fort Pillow Retaliation Massacre", but linking it to Fort Walker seems mighty tenuous. The article should probably be deleted unless more sources can be found. Mojoworker (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a little digging and it looks like the one that Wild Wolf found is indeed Fort Walker and it is on the eastern shore of Wilcox Lake. See http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/13/hh13l.htm and also this reference from the article. I added the coordinates to the article. It also looks like User:Fornadan may be correct, since Baylors Lane runs through Lee Memorial Park, which is the current location of Fort Walker and that report in the OR also refers to Bailey's Creek while the article refers to Bailey's Woods. So, I don't think it's a hoax. But, is it notable and was it actually known as the "Battle of" Fort Walker? It might be notable if it could be firmly established that it was the "Fort Pillow Retaliation Massacre". But since that appears to be based only on the Arter letter, that premise still seems flawed. Mojoworker (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

On the whole I would say it's not notable, but again I'm not an AWC SME. I know we have a few (at least) lurking about. Perhaps they could chime in.
There are pretty blue lines on the Civil-war era letters, just like the ones on paper today... . Did they have those in that time?– Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If this is a hoax, how does this get deleted?
I've commented on the talk page of the article. I believe I have found the identity of the soldiers in the historical records. 'Captain A. R. Arter, 143 Reg. Ohio' tracks back to Captain Albert R. Arter of the 143rd Ohio Volunteer infantry Company C. And I.P Farmer seems to be Isaac P. Farmer of Company K. [14] While it may not seem like much, going on with identities, another key point was Wilson Landing might be Fort Pocahontas according to other records and it puts the company in the area at that time. If these are actual primary documents the article should reflect that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So, is this article a hoax or is it legit? 76.7.238.93 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Something's definitely not ringing true here. According to the record of the 143rd Regiment Infantry (Ohio) in the Compendium of the War of the Rebellion, the unit ... "Moved to White House Landing Jun 8, thence to Bermuda Hundred. Assigned to 1st Brigade, 3rd Division, 10th Army Corps, Army of the James. Duty in the trenches at Bermuda Hundred, City Point and Fort Pocohontas till August 29. Ordered to Camp Chase, Ohio, and mustered out September 13, 1864. Regiment lost during service 22 Enlisted men by disease." No mention of any actions and the casualties are hardly those of a unit that attacked a well-defended position! Bermicourt (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
If it can't be verified in standard sources for this campaign, mark it for deletion IMO. I would think that an event of this nature would be mentioned someplace other than two letters that can't really be authenticated by us. And I agree...the Compendium would list losses to something other than disease if this had occurred as the article states. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, the letter doesn't state which regiment, but all we know is that it is NOT the 143rd, because Arter was the 143rd's Company C captain, also the USCT. So the letters do absolutely nothing to point it out, only Arter mentions Fort Walker by name, but the map shows that it would be unlikely to be taken, and no records for it being taken prior to 1865 show up after Lee's withdrawal. The USCT would have losses upon this for sure, yet these sources do not mention it. I see Battery 8 and Battery 9 here, but no Battery 35 or Fort Walker. [15] Also no mention in this Google Ebook (public domain) [16] According to another book it backs up the earlier conclusion that the USCT were not involved in Fort Walker at all, the Dimmock Line was the only action they saw and the most important aspect is that they skirmished and did not win, so even if we try to infer that some elements somehow got to Battery 35/Fort Walker, they would have been repelled because no one takes out such a section and massacres 200+ troops without a single mention. Further more confederate records would surely record the wiping out of any company (would have to be several here) in the records. I'm on the final stages of unraveling this mystery, and that would be finding confederate records of who was at Battery 35 that night and the status of those troops. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm an idiot sometimes, see the map again. [17] And the text, [18], "The batteries faced south toward a U.S. Army position two miles away, out of effective artillery range. The closest fighting to this part of the Confederate line occurred on June 22 (Battle of Jerusalem Plank Road) and August 19, 1864 (Battle of Weldon Railroad). Both times, Gen. William Mahone’s Confederates slipped out of their lines to attack, concealed by the ravine of Willcox Branch, which ran through the defenses." Basically if Wilcox Lake (made by the dam) was right where Battery 35 is (it is called Fort Walker later on, but a record from a soldier in the battery describes the situation and refers to it as Battery 35, so not sure were Fort Walker came from because during the actual war. Though it appears that it would be a unit from Georgia, but records are sparse, though it doesn't give rise to the number of men being 200-500 being massacred by the colored troops. The more we peek at this, the letter seems to either be a fake or a badly misinformed letter... though I did look to see if the paper used matches historical period and it checks out. Though one instance of the hand writing looks odd, in which the script goes off from the lines, but perhaps the paper was damaged and Arter wrote on the usable section. I cannot disprove the letter itself as real or fake, but it seems to be that all historical records say the events recounted were false. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hoax. Found more records which state the battle never occurred. From Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume IV, 1888. [19] The death count alone would have been 1/10th to 1/4th of the entire losses throughout the first 6 months of the battle. Still no mention of Fort Walker or Battery 35. I think its pretty fair to state the material is wrong and the event did not occur as it is being portrayed if it ever occured at all. Verification is not met so no inclusion. Opting for deletion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
From what I know of the ACW, black soldiers were only recruited in large numbers into separate units known as the US Colored Troops (USCT). So it is highly unlikely IMHO that a standard state unit like the 143rd Ohio would have had black soldiers. And just for the record there was no 143rd Regiment, US Coloured Troops, either, according to the Compendium. The only mystery remaining is whether these letters are genuine and, if so, why such a story was fabricated. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the letter he spoke with troops from the USCT, not that he was in or took part in their battle. From the letter, "I saw and talked with quite a number of blacks that was in that engagement they say when they took the fort the Rebs begged of them to spare their lives but their orders was to remember Fort Pillow. and that was the way they remembered it." So it wasn't the 143rd Ohio or a USCT working with them, but rather a second hand account of an event which the 143rd didn't participate in. Strange I know, but according to sources Fort Poc. was the main place for the USCT and the 143rd were in that area as well. Also additionally, a problem exists with the letter which might mean it to be a fake. Didn't General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia arrive on the 18th? [20] Now according to the marker, the Army of Northern Virginia renamed Battery 15th when they occupied it. [21] At minimum this would be the 18th, however the battle allegedly occurs and 'Fort Walker' is succumbs to the USCT on the 15th. The letter is dated the June 19th. Also it mentions, "this engagement I was in a position that I could see the whole thing. Fort Stephens the inside fort was taking the next evening." Though I do not see any record of 'Fort Stephens except for Battle of Fort Stevens on July 11th and 12th. Either the 'forts' they named were not the forts we are thinking of or the letter is wrong/fake. I'm no civil war expert, but it seems that this letter has impossibilities to the real 'Fort Walker' as we know it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the report from the OR mentioned by Fornadan above may indeed be describing this event. But almost certainly not at the location presented in the article – no telling how Arter came up with the name "Fort Walker". The date of June 15, 1864 matches, so I don't think it's an outright hoax, just wrong. The attack described in the OR reports was made by Hinks's USCT troops of the 3rd Division, 18th Corps which, on June 15, 1864, was part of Butler's Army of the James participating in the initial attack on Petersburg in the vicinity of Batteries 9 and 10 and not battery 35/Fort Walker. As to the tie in with the 143 OVI, the 10th Corps was also part of the Army of the James and also took part in the attacks at Petersburg – perhaps in proximity to the USCT action to observe the action as claimed in the letter. The Farmer letter makes no mention of a specific fort, but the writers of both letters were in the same regiment, so they may be describing the same incident – or maybe not. It appears that the author of the Wikipedia article took the "Fort Walker" name mentioned in the Arter letter and then conflated it with battery 35/Fort Walker 3 miles to the southwest, south of Petersburg. Mojoworker (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I did mention that in the AFD post, however the article as it was created was clearly not neutral and not portraying the events properly. The page was created with this "The battle of Fort Walker, also known as the Fort Pillow Retaliation Massacre, was fought on June 15th, 1864 at Fort Walker, part of the outer fortifications of Petersburg. The battle ended with a massacre of all the surrendered rebel troops by U.S.C.T colored troops who had been stationed at Fort Pocahontas on the James River. The previous slaughter of all black soldiers by rebel troops at the Battle of Fort Pillow had been a rallying cry of the U.S.C.T. troops and at Fort Watkins they killed all the rebels even when they begged for mercy. An interesting fact is that the black troops were commanded to do the slaughter and were then praised for their actions by being allowed to march in honors." No where can I find the 'Fort Pillow Retaliation Massacre' and some of these claims are a bit beyond WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not a bastion for original research, synthesis of materials or creative tweaking of history.
It entered hoax-land when Waum2004 started posting fake book references to the article and I had to go out of my way to verify the contents of the article with no inline citations. Thankfully because the entire depiction was wrong I could axe those fake references out. Anyone who knowingly inserts false material references into an article and uses the external links in such a manner is to deceptively back the material is perpetrating a hoax. Even the external links used backs nothing about Fort Walker/Battery 35. [22] So we have multiple false references portraying an event which did not occur. If the information was portrayed and laid out as in the sources (merely Arter's letter) then perhaps it would be different. Misrepresentation, fake sources and clever interpretation and rewriting as 'Retaliatory massacre' push it to hoax for me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


I have nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Fort Walker‎. Any comments would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

TF coverage

Looking for some guidance on TF coverage. I've been trying to sort some of the articles on the list, but there are quite a few that relate to terminology/slang, decorations and non-tactical concepts. None of the TFs seem to fit. Maybe we should have a taskforce for such things? Or not? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Would any of them perhaps fit under military science and technology? We've traditionally used that task force as a catch-all for a variety of related concepts. Kirill [talk] 07:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill, I' ve already put a few there, and will examine the remaining 190 or so more closely to see if they could fit. I wanted to ask whether this is a glitch or just something I don't yet understand, but this page "Category:Military_history_articles_with_no_associated_task_force" seems to indicate there are none in this cat, but the link on the talkpage takes you to the list I've been working on. Am I just reading this wrong? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Opinion needed re: First Motion Picture Unit

The infobox for the First Motion Picture Unit currently has the unit insignia, Hap Arnold emblem, which is standard practice. However the insignia in this case is not that distinctive. (Period photos show unit members wearing the patch.) OTOH film production company infoboxes use the company logo, or a title screen.


Which do you think is better, Hap Arnold or title screen?– Lionel (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The title screen is more distinctive, in keeping with the unit's mission. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Bink. I think so too. – Lionel (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the "Hap Arnold emblem" is appropriate for the reasons I have given on the article's Talk Page Lineagegeek (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I do like the screenshot better, but IMO the shoulder patch should appear on the page, the same way 1st Armored's would (does...). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
For many USAF unit articles, the unit headquarters or previous headquarters insigne is inserted in the infobox right after the unit name (see 337th Fighter Group). Since the 1st MPU reported directly to Hq AAF, perhaps inserting in that positiion while keeping the screenshot in its present position would permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. I believe the infobox will automatically put this on the same blue background as the unit name.Lineagegeek (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the 337h page, that looks like what I'd prefer, given the choice: all in, but emphasis on the screenshot. Unless I misunderstood your intent? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Right.--Lineagegeek (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In 2009, Ninth Air Force became United States Air Forces Central and a new Ninth Air Force was created. I just corrected a link to the 2009 unit for actions that occurred in 1946-1947. The old link went directly to the new unit page. I am sure there are many other such links created prior to 2009 that now link to the wrong unit, and there does not seem to be a disambiguation page. I'm not sure I know how to create one myself. A similar problem exists for Eighth Air Force, which well down the article for the current unit, in the History section, mentions related history can be found in the United States Air Forces Europe article, and potentially exists for Eleventh Air Force (although I don't think there is an article for the post WW II unit at Olmsted AFB, there may be links for reserve units that were assigned to the 11th back then). Lineagegeek (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually Eighth Air Force (1942-1944) because United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe in Feb 1944; then the current-day USAFE in August 1945. VIII Bomber Command (A component of Eighth Air Force) was re-designated Eighth Air Force in Feb 1944. That is the current AF Strike Command organization Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
If you can find any information on the ADC 11th Air Force at Olmstead, it probably wouldn't be enough to justify a separate article. I suspect it was an administrative unit at HQ ADC. If you find any information I suggest it be incorporated into the Harrisburg ANGB article. There isn't any information on it in the AFHRA Archives, Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
An intermittent discussion has been taking place at Talk:Ninth Air Force on this problem. More opinions are currently needed at Talk:Ninth Air Force#Split and move. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
No direct contradiction would be created by creating a section on Eleventh Air Force 1946-48 in the Eleventh Air Force article; in fact, I'll do that now. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Maurer, Maurer stated in his 1983 document there is NO relationship between the ADC 11th Air Force and the 11th Air Force in Alaska Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
In any case, User:Bwmoll3 in this edit of 21 April 2009 indicated that Eleventh Air Force in Pennsylvania in 1946-48 was not manned or equipped during that period. My guess is, based on SAC units/formations, that the HQ if there was anything was provided by other units on the base. It definitely wasn't very important. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the Talk page for Olmsted AFB Eleventh Air Force was manned and was one of Air Defense Command's regional air forces responsible for reserve operations in its area of responsibility. The statement that it was unmanned does not cite a source for the assertion. Thanks for the pointer to the Ninth AF Talk page. Since this headquarters has no relation to the Eleventh Air Force in the current article, adding its information there would be inappropriate. Lineagegeek (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Why? As I've told numerous people, we are not the U.S. Air Force or the U.S. Army, and do not have to adhere to their lineage conventions. For a 'cold' outsider, the 11AF page is the obvious place for such material, which does not duplicate anything that was in existence at the time. The material I've rearranged was already present on the page. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Secondly, I respect your expertise, but what you wrote on Talk:Harrisburg Air National Guard Base (note for all outsiders: the page to which the Olmsted AFB talk page has been moved) was merely an assertion. Right now, we have Bwmoll3's (unknown) USAF source saying 11AF was not manned or equipped, and no sources to back your assertion. Please, find us another more detailed source, and we can come to a definitive conclusion on this. Before that, we should stick with what Bwmoll3 has written. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Could not find a definite source that the 11th Air Force at Olmstead (1946-1948) was manned or not manned. So I edited that line out from the Olmstead page. The unit at Olmstead, however, has NO relationship to the current or past 11th Air Force in Alaska (Ref: Maurer, Maurer (1983). Air Force Combat Units Of World War II. Maxwell AFB, AL: Office of Air Force History) Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The addition on Eleventh Air Force about the "Eleventh Air Force in Pennsylvania 1946-48" should be somewhere else, either on the Aerospace Defense Command page, as it was an ADC component or on Harrisburg Air National Guard Base, as the unit was assigned there. The only linkage of the unit to Eleventh Air Force" is that it shared a common designation; no history or lineage Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Bwmo113. But to answer Buckshot06, Abstract, History of Eleventh AF, activation-Dec 1946 Indicates not only that the unit was manned, but was commanded by a two star. Probably the same document, but with a different IRIS number is at [23]. I am away from my offline sources for an indefinite period of time, so my only question would be whether the Hq was on base at Olmsted or in rental space in Harrisburg. Fascinating as the discussion of 11 AF has been, I am still more interested in a quick way to correct all the links to 9 AF that were established before 2009. Lineagegeek (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Lineagegeek my addition to the page show the commander was a two-star, from Bwmoll3's file reference he identified.
Unfortunately, unless you want to create two page for the Eleventh Air Force in the USAF, the 11AF is the logical place for mentioning the HQ in Pennsylvania. Again, we are not obligated to respect Air Force lineages in all respects (which, in common with the Army, do ludicrous things sometimes) and it is the logical place for it for the 'cold' outsider. We write for generalists, not specialists, as per the guidelines. I have indicated *twice* in that section that it shares no technical lineage with the 11AF of Alaska fame - is that not enough? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me put it another way, entries on wikipedia are identified by designation; we do not identify by unit/formation history or lineage. Anyone looking for information on that unit will find the section, read my repeated and careful notes about sharing designation but not history or lineage, and go on their way. But that is the logical place for the information - not to mention it there is ridiculous (and there's been a reference there in a slightly less obvious way for years). Buckshot06 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Buckshot, just let me suggest you read carefully, before you decide to lecture with bold print included. I never suggested a separate page for the post-war 11th AF (it would never meet a rational notability standard). In the context of an acknowleged problem with links to 9th AF, I mentioned in passing there might be lesser link problems with other USAF NAFs when the number has been reused. There's apparently no link problem with 11th AF (unlike 9th AF and possibly 8th AF). I didn't make "mere assertions." I provided a reference when asked (which you have credited to someone else). There's no problem with what's been added to the 11th AF page now that I've added a reference. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
My apologies Lineagegeek. The comment above was added in three parts, as thoughts struck me. My header addressing the whole thing to you was actually the last of those three. The second and third sections were actually addressed more to Bwmoll3's '..is that it shared a common designation; no history or lineage'.
In regard to 'mere assertations,' I was referring *only* to your comment above 'As I mentioned in the Talk page for Olmsted AFB Eleventh Air Force was manned and was one of Air Defense Command's regional air forces responsible for reserve operations in its area of responsibility.' When I went to the talk page, hoping, as I know your reputation as a careful and thorough editor on USAF units that must be really hard to track and research, that you would have added some sort of source. All I found was there was that bald statement. That was the only occasion in which I found you making anything that I could call an assertion in this discussion. Because Bwmoll3 said the HQ was not manned, and he also is a senior editor on these matters, and I know he also checks his sources carefully, though he does not always exhaustively footnote them, I made the judgement that he was more likely to be correct. Does that explain my thought process more clearly?
Finally yes I may owe you an apology on the potential for separate pages. The reason I may have over-reacted is that I repeatedly encounter editors working on U.S. military subjects who stick so blindly to the official published cant (whether USAF lineages, Army Lineage and Honours Certificates, or DANFS) that they appear to sometimes forget the purpose of this particular website. We are here to write FA-standard military historical articles, using our best intellectual efforts to write compelling, comprehensive, and hopefully complete accounts of all manner of military subjects. We are not here to stick blindly to U.S. official organisational rules about lineage or presentation in circumstances where they are clearly inappropriate. Now, both you and Bwmoll3 have both demonstrated your flexibility on these matters; so I probably should have not made the point as strongly as I did. However I have found it necessary elsewhere to do so, unfortunately... Buckshot06 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

New assessment classes for lists

As part of our planned rollout of a new assessment scale for lists, we've changed the {{WPMILHIST}} template to generate a set of dedicated list assessment ratings—AL-Class, BL-Class, and CL-Class—in place of the conventional A-Class, B-Class, and C-Class ratings.

At the moment, the ratings at each assessment level are completely interchangeable (B-Class checklists work equivalently for B-Class and BL-Class, and so forth), and the conversion takes place automatically (using the list=yes parameter), so using the new system should not require any work on anyone's part. Having said that, please keep an eye out for any broken assessments and the like over the next few days, as this was a major change to our template, and it's possible that something won't work correctly.

As usual, comments or suggestions regarding the new functionality are very welcome! Kirill [talk] 07:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I take it that people would like to see the new list classes given equivalent points in the monthly article-writing contest? I have no prob with that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that's probably the simplest thing to do in the short term. Once we have full sets of different assessment criteria for articles and lists, we might re-evaluate the scoring, but I think it's too early to make any decisions at this point. Kirill [talk] 23:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the American Civil War task force uses the list assessment but that no articles show up in the Category:List-Class American Civil War articles nor in American Civil War task force assessment statistics table on the task force page. What is going on here? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The new assessment code hasn't been enabled for task forces yet; we wanted to make sure everything worked as expected for the main assessment before creating a few hundred new categories to cover all the task force assessment schemes. Kirill [talk] 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

RAF Tinwald Downs/RAF Dumfries

There is a merge proposal on the RAF Dumfries article to merge the RAF Tinwald Downs article into it and it needs support for this to be done so please can head to the RAF Dumfries article and add your opinion please it will be appreicated.

Thank you

Gavbadger (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Single-item campaignboxes of the American Civil War

Should we retain single-item campaignboxes for campaigns of the American Civil War? By my count, there are 24 such templates, of which 22 link to only one article about a battle or other engagement:

The two exceptions are {{Campaignbox Streight's Raid in Alabama and Georgia}} and {{Campaignbox Tullahoma or Middle Tennessee Campaign}}, which link to two articles: one about a particular engagement and the other about the campaign as a whole.

The above templates, except the two noted, serve no navigational function at this time, and they may or may not in the future (the latter, most likely). The issue here does not appear to be one that can be fixed through editing; rather, it seems to be a result of the fact that these campaigns include only one major engagement (according to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's list). Even in the best-case scenario, we are still left with a campaignbox for only two articles that generally are adequately interlinked even without the campaignbox.

I realize that there is, in theory, potential for expansion. For example, it is possible to write a separate article about each skirmish that took place during Streight's Raid. But is each skirmish notable and, moreover, is this the best way to organize content? Would it not be better to expand the article about the campaign instead of writing a half-dozen or more stubs?

Given the scope of the question, I thought it would be best to inquire here rather than at WP:TFD.

Thoughts? -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would say we should remove a navigation template that doesn't actually navigate anywhere. But in reality, a Campaignbox is really something more than merely a navigation template. It may be counter-intuitive, but a campaignbox with just one battle in it still imparts value and unfortunately, not every campaign has an article about the campaign. I worked with Kirill Lokshin last year on a proposal for embedding maps in campaignboxes to achieve something like this campaignbox. Based on feedback, the next step would be to have the location of each particular battle highlighted on the map, when time permits... But, having a campaignbox, even one with just one battle, gives a consistent appearance on every battle article. I don't know if that's part of the MILHIST MOS, but it may be. At the least, a single item campaignbox includes, in a consistent manner, the CWSAC campaign name which would otherwise need to be added to the article prose (for example Battle of Old River Lake). Additionally, it gives a starting point for an article on the campaign itself as in Streight's Raid, which is linked from Battle of Day's Gap through the campaignbox. It's also useful as a framework for adding minor battles and skirmishes not rated by the CWSAC such as Template:Campaignbox Mine Run Campaign which was once a single item campaignbox until the minor engagement Battle of Charlestown was added at some point by an editor to join the CWSAC rated Battle of Mine Run. Mojoworker (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. If I understand correctly, you view a campaignbox as being, in essence, a continuation of the infobox, where the infobox provides a summary of information about the battle and the campaignbox provides information about the broader context in which the battle took place. I can see the value in that, especially in cases where additional articles could be created and added; of course, some functions – e.g., mapping the battle's location within the campaign, providing the CWSAC campaign name, and encouraging the creation of an article about the campaign – could be performed even in the absence of a campaignbox by the infobox or lead paragraph.
In the long term, the function of these campaignboxes seems to depend on whether there are additional notable engagements within these campaigns. If there are, then these campaignboxes have many potential uses, including encouraging the creation of new articles about minor, yet notable, engagements that are not rated by CWSAC. If there are not, then it appears to me that the function of these campaignboxes becomes mostly decorative: the 'consistent appearance' that you mentioned. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that's a fair characterization, but my view is in no way definitive – I was not yet active on Wikipedia when these templates (and Template:Campaign) were created and I don't know that my interpretation is consistent with the intent of their authors. Mojoworker (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
That may be, but I can see the (long-term) logic upon which your position rests. Thank you for responding to my comments and addressing my concerns. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Roman Manipular Formation

I have been testing out roman tactics that they used in real life in the rome toal war video game. I have noticed this formation is vulerable to being out flanked when facing the same or supior numbers. I have solved this by bending the flanks and thinning the units on the flanks to extend the line. Is there any sources saying the romans did this. Nhog (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if this is what you man but see Battle of Pharsalus, Caesar thinned his ranks to match the length of Pompeys legions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Carthaginians routed the Romans by overpowering the right flank in the Battle of Cannae, but I don't think they normally bent the flanks – the cavalry was meant to protect against that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I think I read somewere that in one or two battles they did it either because they dident have any or very little cav or the genral relised that roman cav was crap most of the time. Nhog (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean by bending. On the scale you are talking, what you would do to get the effect would be to refuse the two flanks, probably by holding the flank legions back. Ed is right though, the army would normally use its cavalry to cover its flanks. Against a cavalry army like the Parthians, the army could deploy in a hollow square e.g. Battle of Carrhae. It might be worth taking your query to one of the ancient warfare talk groups e.g. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancmed/

Thanks I will do that I will also try to put up a picture of what I'm talking about. Nhog (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I put the picture that I made on my page. The tactic weakens the line slightly but helps prevents from being out flanked. I mainly use it if I have little or no cav. Nhog (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I cant seem to get it on my page can you help. Nhog (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC) My computer wont allow me to do the talk group you reccomended for some reason. Nhog (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Leslie H. Sabo, Jr.

Looking to illustrate the article for recent Medal of Honor recipient Leslie H. Sabo. There are a lot of photos published on the US Army homepage (here and here) but most of them are credited to the late Sabo's family. Some of them (shots of him in Vietnam) must have been taken by fellow soldiers, but it's hard to tell the legal status of using them. They are used on some news sites such as here. —Ed!(talk) 20:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think that the army.mil ones would be fair game simply because of their source. You could always e-mail their contact folks to verify if there were doubts, but it looks like the Army released those for media use as they've shown up on a number of other outlets. See here for their policies. Since the photos aren't specifically copyrighted, I suspect they could be used with proper credit to the Army homepage. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 22:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Robert V. Maraist

Made Brigadier General, last commander of 69th Infantry Division.

Sorry to dump this here, but my computer is now shutting down when I open sites from search lists. Was a colonel of artillery in North Africa Campaign with 1st Armored Division. Files at LSU with mention in www.texasmilitaryforcesmuseum.org/​36division/archives. Dru of Id (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

I just stumbled across Seventh United States Army and United States Army Europe and got a bit confused: should they be merged or are they two separate entities? Turfing it to you guys because the further I looked the more confused I got. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, merge it there. The material was previously there. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I would very much like to write up a separate Seventh United States Army page. The two organizations had very separate histories before they were merged, and both are unquestionably notable, independent of one another. Right now the condition of the former's article is just bad. —Ed!(talk) 13:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
When you're ready, tell me Ed!, I'll help you. Only thing at the back of my mind is choosing the title that matches the other U.S. (field) Army articles - that is, Seventh United States Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

ACW categories up for renaming

BlackFalcon has nominated several ACW categories for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_30#Trans-Mississippi_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War

70.24.251.208 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

6 Engineer Squadron

Saw that this article had a "Lest We Forget" section. Can't tell what the purpose is supposed to be. Should this be deleted? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem necessary to me, but that's a personal opinion. Losses could be worked into the text. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Getting a bit close to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. And it's not clear are those the only casualties the unit has ever suffered? Somehow I doubt it, so why them and no-one else? NtheP (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and chopped the section. It's not really appropriate for articles. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This squadron is a regimental squadron of an engineer regiment, and thus, by our rules, is not notable by itself. Does anyone feel like volunteering to upmerge it with it's parent regiment? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

List Wikiability Clarification

Do lists like List of primary and secondary sources on the Cold War fall within the standard wiki policy for MILHIST or wikipedia in general? --MOLEY (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think that would be covered under the military historiography task force. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Macedonian army"

The usage of the title Macedonian army is under discussion, see Talk:Army of Macedon. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Weekend ACR update

G'day, I would like to draw project members' attention to a few articles that are current at the project's A-class review:

DYK: Manfred von Richthofen (General)

This article has been nominated for DYK: template:did you know nominations/Manfred von Richthofen (General) I would appreciate any input to help improve it. Hamish59 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Examining the article, it appears we are missing a recipricol link from Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen, whom this Manfred adopted, in the intro for his familial lineage. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I am concerned about recent changes by a new editor at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would like some more eyes on the article to see whether primary sources are being used correctly and with proper weight, and that text being deleted is truly unneeded. I started a discussion at the bottom of Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Added some thoughts. He/she has also edited over at the Dresden article with what appears to be the same POV. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

WW1 Edinburgh

Hey guys I cant find the page or in the chat for the WW1 editing/talk thing going on in Edinburgh plese help. Nhog (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

1st Regiment New York Dragoons

I have a few questions about editing the article and sourcing. The whole service history is available[24], copied from "A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion" by Frederick H. Dyer. Is the list of the whole service record too detailed for the article? Is the copy from Dyer's book by this seemingly self published website a WP:RS? Another online source is available[25] 1st Regiment New York Dragoons by Rev. J.R. Bowen (1900), but it is originally self published so is it a WP:RS for the article? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Most early CW regimental histories were self-published in some form or another (or at least what might today be considered self-published). It's hard to avoid. There are other sources out there (Starr's history of the Union cavalry springs to mind), but I can't think of any that focus on the 1st NY in particular. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Civil War GA reassessment

I have nominated American Civil War for a reassessment of its Good Article status due to its extreme length. (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/2) Please comment as this is a community reassessment.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Ayta ash-Shab

There is currently dispute in this article what it should include I would be happy if someone would help us.I have also posted a request on the Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Battle_of_Ayta_ash-Shab that have more details there.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Operation Hardtack (nuclear test) Article

Article: Operation Hardtack (nuclear test).

I came across this article while doing "B class" assessments. Even though it is assessed as "Start", to me it's a "Stub". While the two articles it's referring too are more of a "Start" assessment. Should this article be on wikipedia? Adamdaley (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's more of a disambiguation page to me... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I think there are two ways Operation Hardtack (nuclear test) would be useful on Wikipedia:
  1. In its current (or slightly tweaked) form as a disambiguation page for Operation Hardtack I and Operation Hardtack II
  2. In its completed state it could be an overview of the events leading the US to a rush of 70+ nuke testing during 1958, and how they all came under the same 'code name envelope'. -- saberwyn 06:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It used to be an article and not a disambiguation page, in 2011 , as a disambiguation page, it should be merged/redirected to Operation Hardtack disambiguation page. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Operation Brothers at War

Was just wondering whether it might be a good idea to remove/close this project as the 150th anniversary was last year and their has been no activity on the project since January of this year. Thurgate (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would think that the 150th anniversary would extend until 2015, no? We are, after all, looking at things at an article level; while the anniversary of the start of the war has passed, the anniversaries of engagements that took place later in the war are still coming up.
Having said that, you're right about the level of activity here—indeed, while I think it was a good idea at the time, it doesn't seem that Brothers at War ever really took off in the same way that, say, Majestic Titan did—so I'm not entirely convinced that it makes sense to keep the project open at this stage. Kirill [talk] 21:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
One problem with subsequent operations as opposed to OMT was that OMT's personnel were assembled long before the special project ever officially incorporated. It was for this reason that I knew that OMT would be successful, as in the years leading up to the creation of OMT I has seen the same dedicated group working on battleship articles along side me. This took much of the guess work out of OMT margin of success since I knew that those same editors would welcome the chance to a join a special project that they had already been a part of for the better part of 2-3 years before it was ever officially launched. That has not exactly been the case for the follow up special projects, but then to be fair excitement over something new does where off in time, and editorial decline has been a growing wikipedia-wide problem for some years now. For my money, it may be best to tag the special project as inactive so that the infrastructure remains intact; in this way, in the event that others who may come later express a desire to reactivate the project, it can be done in a timely manner. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds sensible to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

German colonial campaigns

I think that this template is pushing the envelope {{German colonial campaigns}} to put it mildly. There is a difference between a colonial campaign and fighting in a third world country. Stating that the Africa Korps campaign was a colonial campaign is a misuse of the term, unless we are going to list most of the American Pacific War as colonial campaigns. There is also the questions over "Iraq (1941)"(links to Anglo-Iraqi War) and "Syria/Lebanon (1941)" (links to Syria–Lebanon Campaign) which had minimum German involvement.

There is an argument for including some of pre-1919 campaigns as colonial campaigns, but in the Second World War it has real problems as the German invasion of Eastern Europe was in Hitler's view a war to set up colonies in the east, while the campaigns in Africa were nothing but support for his Italian ally.

All in all I think that this template as it stands is an OR nightmare. -- PBS (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite a reach, and going in some cases beyond OR into what could be considered fantasy (IMO, anyhow...especially when looking at the link to North America 1914-1918). Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, I would like to add something. Not only has Joseon created this german colonial template but also {{Portuguese colonial campaigns}} {{German colonial campaigns}} and {{Spanish colonial campaigns}} . I would have no problem with this if it was not for the fact that any skirmish, battle, or fight is considered a colonial campaign by this Joseon. Not only this, but after discovering the creation of these templates, he has also added battles irrelevant to the template, saying that the Battle of Alcácer Quibir was an Italian Colonial Campaign. I know it is policy to assume good faith on part of all editors, but I just find this upsetting, disruptive, and silly. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
What defines "colonial" in these navboxes. Iraq in 1941 is under British influence but not what I would call a colony. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The original author has trimmed them back a bit by the looks of it; I agree with PBS et al above, BTW. In terms of what is "colonial", I think we'd have to reflect the better sources out there (I wouldn't call Iraq in 1941 colonial, but if the better historians in the literature did, I'd follow their lead). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Namibia (1914-15) and Tanzania (1914-18) should be re-named to "German West Africa" and "German East Africa" respectively - as those were the names of the colonial territories at that time. Farawayman (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello all. When I created these templates by attempting to mimic the style of {{French colonial campaigns}}, {{British colonial campaigns}} and {{Dutch colonial campaigns}}. I realise I went overboard on this and have tried to trim back, but I now think they may also need some revision. Joseon Empire (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar

Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Goal: 0 articles
Current: 109 articles
Initial: 24,689 articles
(Refresh)

World War I editing drive

Hi. I saw this on the Village pump and immediately thought of y'all. :) (Note this is not connected to the Wikimedia Foundation, but is chapter based. But I wanted to be sure you knew!) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Travel scholarships for European Wikipedians interested in WWI

Are you an experienced wikipedian from Europe and interested in the World War I? We would love to see you in Leuven, Belgium on the 13-15 of June for a Edit-a-thon organized by Wikimedia Sweden and the Europeana Foundation (www.europeana.eu). To make it possible for you to participate and contribute to English or Dutch Wikipedia articles about WWI we will pay you back for your basic costs for travel back and forth and accommodation in Leuven!

Of course you can also participate in the Edit-a-thon online, without actually being in Leuven, but we strongly encourage you to be there as we will have experts in WWI present during the Edit-a-thon and we have organized interesting side activities such as a guided tour of Leuven's historical WWI sites and you can also attend a couple of dinners - all to give you inspiration for writing excellent articles. In addition, through Europeana's portal we will have access to great digitized material about WWI that we will try to make the best use of. We will also give prizes for the best articles written by the participants in Leuven.

You are of course welcome to join us for only one or two of the days in Leuven if you so prefer. The places are limited so please sign up here as soon as possible! For more information about the event and practical details, please see the project page (a shorter summary is also available in Dutch here) or contact John Andersson on his talk page.

We look forward meeting you there!

John Andersson, a.k.a. John Andersson (WMSE), Lennart Guldbrandsson, a.k.a. Hannibal (WMSE), Anne Marie van Gerwen (Europeana) and Thijs van Exel (Europeana) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the reimbursement I encourage everybody interested to have a look at this page that contain information about how it works and what the rules are. The Europeana Foundation is giving us all in the wikimedia community a pretty generous offer, if I may say so, and I hope that we will be able to make this into a great event! Cheers John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Added to Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. It's a pity we only found out after the Bugle was published. :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for posting it here! I appreciate it very much! John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC) If we have any ideas about future events like this I will be sure to post it both here and in the Bugle as soon as possible! John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This event seems to have been cancelled due to limited participation. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky

hello,

is the article Fyodor Dostoyevsky elligible for this WikiProject? He was briefly a lieutenant draftsman but then resigned his job until he was mock executed and then was forced to accept the military job. He never participated in wars, etc. Regards.--GoPTCN 15:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My first inclination would be to say that Dostoyevsky wouldn't be in scope for us, since his military "service", such as it was, was neither notable in and of itself nor a significant contributing factor to his overall notability. Thoughts? Kirill [talk] 16:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd think probably not either. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I removed the banner.--GoPTCN 16:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar

Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Goal: 0 articles
Current: 109 articles
Initial: 24,689 articles
(Refresh)

First Manassas Campaign battles

Discovered the following battles:

Should these even be articles? They look more like minor firefights than skirmishes. Should they be merged into the Manassas Campaign article? 76.7.235.118 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be ample coverage of them. I'm loathe to recommend deleting something with that many citations, particularly when it looks like they are close to B-class. —Ed!(talk) 12:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
These might have curiosity value as early engagements of the war, but I'm not sure they are worth keeping as seperate articles. They do looke like minor firefights, involving only a few companies on each side, than actual battles. 76.7.238.93 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, early engagements often have a disproportionate amount of coverage in wars, since they often evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the untested militaries on both sides. If nothing else, I'd favor merging them into a bigger article. —Ed!(talk) 21:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment criteria for Start- and List-Class

In the course of our review of the assessment criteria being used for various levels of the assessment scheme (see #Assessment criteria for A/B/C-Class lists above), it's occurred to me that our criteria for Start-Class (and consequently our criteria for List-Class, which are a copy) are quite vague, and don't really reflect how most people use those ratings. For reference, the current criteria are as follows:

The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:

  • A particularly useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article

I think that it may be beneficial to rewrite these in a more straightforward manner, and perhaps to structure them as specific, numbered criteria (akin to what we use for the other assessment classes) rather than in their current example-based form. In my initial attempt, I came up with three criteria that, in my view, distinguish a Start-Class article from a stub:

S1. The article contains a meaningful amount of content, consisting primarily of prose text.
S2. The article makes a reasonable attempt to cover the key elements of its topic.
S3. The article contains some structural and supporting elements, such as section headings, links, images, or templates.

A similar version could be used for List-Class:

L1. The article contains a meaningful amount of content, consisting primarily of tables or lists.
L2. The article makes a reasonable attempt to cover the key elements of its topic.
L3. The article contains some structural and supporting elements, such as section headings, links, images, or templates.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether a rewrite of the criteria along these lines would be beneficial, as well as on the specific criteria I've listed above. Kirill [talk] 19:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't this make many articles stay as "stub-class" even if they are very lengthy, just because they don't provide coverage for all the key elements? Isn'st "start-class" for something more than a short stub? And wouldn't C-class be more what you're looking for in your criteria? If you insert Start-class before List-class in the List quality evaluation grades, that would solve List class... (Stub -> Start -> List -> FL) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
If you remove criterion S2, this would remove the objection. S1 says it has to have a "meaningful" amount of content and S3 that it needs structure. Stubs then remain short and unstructured, which intuitively seems right, whereas as starts are the real basic building block of the encyclopedia. The bit I struggle with is references. We can't really put a reference requirement in start, even something like has to have at least one,because some quite extensive articles would end up as stubs. Yet, an unreferenced article could in theory meet C class if it covered the topic well, which is undesireable. Sorry to leave that hanging as a question, but it is one we should give some thought to if looking again at the start criteria.--Monstrelet (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That would still mean that a lengthy article without structural elements (other than paragraphs) would be a stub... Though I think that C-class should add that some references are necessary. Why not just let a "Start-class" article be anything that is no longer a stub, but does not qualify for a higher rating? From how other projects treat start-class, that is what it is. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That just brings us back to the question of how we define "no longer a stub", doesn't it? We could, I suppose, define stubs purely in terms of overall article length—although we'd need a threshold of some sort, and I'm not certain how we might determine a good one—but I'm not entirely sure that it necessarily makes sense to treat a long dump of text (with no section breaks, links, etc.) as anything other than a stub in quality terms.
As a secondary, practical matter: do we actually have a significant number of articles that would be affected by S3? In other words, are there a lot of current Start-Class articles that contain no structural elements whatsoever? I don't think I've seen many—and the ones I have seen have tended to be copyvios—but perhaps others' experience is different in this regard. Kirill [talk] 12:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
For what its worth in this conversation I have thought for some time of creating a class between stub and start to cover some of these types of issues. For example, there are many articles like Henry G. Buhrman, Henry W. Downs and others that IMO are neither stubs nor do they quite meet start class in terms of length. They have decent structure and supporting elements, enough information for the reader to get a basic understanding of the topic, but not enough for a complete understanding. Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the problem is simply with the name stub? The obvious meaning is something short, so we struggle with long stubs. If the term had been pre-start or sub-start, we wouldn't worry about failing to give something without structure a start rating, regardless of length. However, I doubt the encyclopedia will agree to us renaming an entire class. Similarly, I think we would struggle trying to fit a class between start and C.--Monstrelet (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the solution is to define what a stub is, anything that doesn't meet C or above standards, and is more than a stub is a "start-class". 70.24.251.208 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Kumioko, the examples you give should be used to help us define Start and Stub, not used to set up yet another class of article. I think we have more than enough classes already. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It would certainly work and is simple enough for a bot to run through and do all the reassessments, However, with such a simple definition, what is the point of the exercise? In many ways, I prefer Kirill's original idea to positively define a start as an entry standard and things that don't meet it wallow in a sump category (basic, rather than sub?). We could then put a few objective criteria into our start definition, like must have at least one reference, must be more than 1500 characters of content, contains structure.--Monstrelet (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I would recommend excluding Categories, Infoboxes, interwiki tags and portals (Probably most templates in fact) from that count. These can add a lot of length without providing much textual information for the article. Kumioko (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
That goes without saying, but may be right to clarify. There's a tool to check the size of readable prose, we use it all the time at DYK nominations, and the 1500 characters standard is already in use. The prose size can be checked with User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, which adds a "page size" item to the toolbox (you press it and it shows the size of the prose of the article) Cambalachero (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
...and I or anyone can run it to get a list of articles tagged with {{WPMILHIST}} organized by proze size (though creating the list will take a few hours) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Operation King Pin / Operation Ivory Coast

Article: Operation Ivory Coast.

I came across the above article while doing "B class" assessments. It was a redirect from Operation King Pin. Is there a possibility that we could get rid of the "King Pin" redirect and have no redirect? Just leave it at Operation Ivory Coast name with no redirects? Adamdaley (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This article might be at the wrong name - I thought that this operation was commonly known as the Sơn Tây raid? Given that 'Operation Kingpin' appears to have been the code-name for the most important part of the raid, the redirect seems OK to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I suspect you'll find people searching for all three versions, so to me the current title and the redirect are fine. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability of US Armed Forces Military Units

I could write a decent article on the Minnesota National Guard's 125th Field Artillery Unit. Is that an appropriate topic? Where are the notability requirements for these? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say you probably could. There are some pretty small units represented here. Part of it would depend on their service record/background. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:MILMOS#UNITS. In general policies around military units have favored including them as long as you have plenty of independent sources to back up the article. —Ed!(talk) 21:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to start 125th Field Artillery Regiment (United States). The convention we've mostly been working to is to keep 1st Battalion (Bn), 125th FAR, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc Bns in the same article, and if the regiment changed from infantry to cavalry to artillery etc, to keep all the material in the same article. I've worked extensively on U.S. Army regiments - please feel free to ask me for advice/help at any time. Kind regards from Enzed, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, it may be a couple of days before I can start on this. Can someone point me to a good article to base mine off of? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot is in pretty good shape, as is 65th Infantry Regiment (United States). —Ed!(talk) 11:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD notice

Admiralty tug has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

GAs in need of improvement

Several of Polish taskforce GAs are in need of improvement, or they should be delisted otherwise. I have listed the here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

William Mahone

Noticed that the top of the page seemed a bit strange. Should it have this much info as part of the header? 198.252.15.202 (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No. As far as WP:LEAD, the lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs and a pretty cursory summary of the article. Particularly in a piece like this one, where the entire article isn't that long, some trimming may be needed. —Ed!(talk) 19:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:British colonial campaigns Rationale for inclusion

I left this on the Template Talk page but no one has answered. Can someone please explain what the rationale is for including a battle or campaign in this particular template. For example I personally would not consider the Crimean War as a "colonial" war, similarly some of the campaigns in Africa during the First World War would seem to be part of the whole Great War, not a specifically colonial war or campaign. Dabbler (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this

Please take a look at this. Though traditional objections to this type of thing will inevitably arise, this seems to me to be an excellent idea. dci | TALK 03:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This has now been closed with a WP:SNOW No vote. AusTerrapin (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The National Archives - new source of war images

The UK's The National Archive has released 330 and will release thousands of war art images to Wikipedia; they're to be found on the Commons at Category:War art in The National Archives (United Kingdom). More details at Wikipedia:GLAM/TNA#This Means War, a TNA press release and a story in the Grauniad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent. Lots of those images will be really useful. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Good for the National Archive - nice material here. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Weapon system

Have just had in passing reason to look at Weapon system and it is a bit of a mess. It seems to be a fusion of a short attempt to explain the evolution of the term from within the US military and a longer but rather random list of US weapon system design or procurement codes. The terminology and concept of a weapon system is pretty fundamental in modern military thinking, spreading well beyond US programmes and often applied anachronistically in analysing past military technologies. Is anyone able to give us a clearer piece on this important subject? And should the list and general topic be separated?--Monstrelet (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Even worse, it contains a link to the JETDS for the US DOD system of naming aircraft. JETDS is a system for designating electronics systems, not aircraft. A very few electronics systems did receive WS designators, like TRACALS but not many.

Lineagegeek (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've taken a closer look, I would think this page would do best as a list page only. I'd think that the list should exclude contractor designations (like the two North American Aviation designators associated with the XF-107 program). Then the remaining issue would be the scope of the list. Should it include all USAF experimental projects (MX series. for example), If so, should we go back to the old Wright Field P series projects? (a recent list was published in the Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society). My thought would be to limit the page to WS/SS systems to make the size manageable, but that's not a strongly held position. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Australian War Memorial history conference

Mainly for the benefit of Australian editors, the Australian War Memorial is currently advertising its sort-of annual conference, which will be held in early September on the topic of 'Kokoda: beyond the legend'. The program looks really good, and details are available here. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The program looks excellent, and I commend it to military historians. For those interested in a different take, Tom O'Lincoln, author of Australia's Pacific war: challenging a national myth, will be presenting on "Can Kokoda Trump Anzac—and should it?" at the Historical Materialism Australasia conference in late July in Sydney. It looks like a fruitful year for Kokoda studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment criteria for A/B/C-Class lists

As everyone probably already knows, we're currently in the midst of implementing a dual-scale assessment scheme, which will include parallel assessment paths for prose articles and lists. At this point, the majority of the technical changes to the assessment infrastructure has been completed; individual articles can be flagged as lists through the {{WPMILHIST}} template, and a separate set of assessment classes and categories (List, CL, BL, and AL) is generated based on that flagging.

One of the key tasks that still remains to be completed is the development of distinct assessment criteria for lists at the C-, B-, and A-Class level. At the moment, we are continuing to use the criteria developed for prose articles:

A-Class criteria
*A1. The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
  • A2. The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
  • A3. The article/list has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
  • A4. The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
  • A5. The article/list contains appropriately licensed supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where relevant.
See also the A-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.
B-Class / C-Class criteria
*B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
  • B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
  • B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  • B4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
  • B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.

As has been previously pointed out—most recently in the discussions that led to our decision to move to a dual-scale assessment system—these criteria do not lend themselves to assessing lists; many of the criteria require items that are not common (and sometimes not even possible) in list-type articles, while no mention is made of the elements that are required for high-quality lists.

Therefore, I'd like to open up a brainstorming discussion about how we might adapt these criteria for list-specific assessments. My initial inclination would be to create new criteria by combining, in some fashion, our existing A/B/C-Class criteria and the featured list criteria. Having said that, I'm by no means an expert on lists, so input from those editors who work more frequently in that area is essential if we are to develop useful criteria.

Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] 19:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

First, my experience with lists is with unit and station lists of the US Air Force, so my comment is colored by that. For a list, I would think that the B1 requirement for major points to have inline citations is far less important than in an article. Arguably, each entry in a list is a major point, and for long lists, the list of citations could become excrutiatingly long. In contrast, I believe an appropriate reference list is important (and perhaps sufficent for a lst). Also for a list, I think B2 should be divided into separate categories for completeness and accuracy. It seems that including all entries that belong in a list is not the same as whether the entries belong on the list (while these criteria tend to blend in an article). I would then think that 2 out of the 3 B1/B2 criteria should be met to qualify as C Class.
Most lists I am familiar with are in table form. I have a feeling that the design of the table should enter into the criteria to the degree that it includes all important basic information as categories in the table.
Finally, I believe (based on nothing at all, really) that lists are frequently used as portals to the articles on the specific entries on the list. Because I have encountered lists that did not link to entries that either had their own Wiki articles, or that were redirected to other articles that made some mention of the entry, I believe that linking might be a useful category (or perhaps made part of B1)--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
So essentially we'd have something along these lines:
  • B1: The list is suitably referenced, with inline citations included as required.
  • B2: The list is accurate and complete, with defined inclusion criteria and no inappropriate or missing entries.
  • B3: The list has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more tables or free-form lists.
  • B4: Each entry in the list appropriately reflects its topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
  • B5: The list contains appropriate supporting materials, such as images or diagrams.
Is this more or less what you had in mind? Kirill [talk] 15:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe so--Lineagegeek (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Atlas of the World Battle Fronts

This looks like a direct copy of the original text. Should this be moved to WikiSource? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
moved to here Finavon (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Action Stations:Yorkshire

Hello

Does any editor own the following book?

Halpenny, Bruce. Action Stations: Military Airfields of Yorkshire v. 4.Patrick Stephens Ltd 1982. ISBN 978-0850595321.

Gavbadger (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Amazon UK has it for sale: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Action-Stations-Military-Airfields-Yorkshire/dp/0850595320 Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but i just need to double-check a reference for an article i'm working on. Gavbadger (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
If you haven't done so already, it might be worth checking on WorldCat to see if there's a copy in a library near you. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Help from a WWII Royal Navy/US Navy ship expert requested.

There is a peer review of the Captain class frigate article under-way and a couple of questions have come up to which I do not have the answers.

  • Among the referenced Admiralty modifications to the Captain Class is "fighting lights", Does anybody know what these are (and can they provide a reference)?
  • The referenced text describes the position of a gun simply as "B gun", can anyone provide enlightenment on where exactly this would be (again ideally with a reference)?
  • Could someone please comment on the structural advantages/disadvantages of using welds instead of rivets, I can provide references for improved build times and the crews initial scepticism of welded hulls but I have nothing relating to the actual engineering merits of welding vs rivets.

--Thefrood talk 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To have a guess at your second question (without looking at the article because I need to sleep), if its one of the main guns being referred to, "B" is the second mounting from the front. The RN and Commonwealth navies generally identified main gun turrets/mountings with letters: "A, B, ..." for turrets in front of the bridge/superstructure, "P, Q, ..." for those amidships, and "X, Y, ..." for those aft of the superstructure, with the earlier letter always closer to the bow. No idea what "fighting lights" are, sorry. Hope this helps. -- saberwyn 14:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thanks, quick question: would "superfiring position ("B")" and "B gun" be the same thing? --Thefrood talk 14:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily; superfiring position is where one turret is arranged to fire over the top of another. In most cases, the B turret would be higher than the A turret (in a superfiring position) and could fire over it; likewise X turret usually superfired over Y. But there were instances where this wasn’t the arrangement ( and I’m now desperately trying to think of an example!) I hope this helps, Xyl 54 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
PS:Looking at the text, I think it means that when the third gun was added to the design, they chose to have it superfiring and opted for the B position (ie they could have put it at X instead, to super fire over Y, or put it midships at P/Q}: Maybe “a superfiring third gun (at the "B" position, forward)” would be clearer. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thanks --Thefrood talk 16:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
"Close attacks are most probable at night so that the water in the entrance and near it must be illuminated effectively. This is done by powerful electric searchlights which have a range of some 2,000 yards and upwards, varying with the state of the atmosphere. They may be used as observation lights, illuminated area lights or fighting lights. Observation lights have concentrated beams and are placed at the outer edge of the near defences, being gen erally in pairs. For ranges beyond that of the lights the artillery can assist by firing star-shell. Illuminated area lights have dispersed beams and are used to light an area of water. Fighting lights are concentrated beams specifically allotted to serve particular guns or batteries." [26]. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thanks, but I'm not sure how this fits with "four coloured fighting lights which were installed to aid recognition at night" --Thefrood talk 14:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Fighting lights: red, green and white lights on the masts used for identification at night - either in action or when entering harbours with defences or anti-torpedo nets. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed do you have a ref for this so an explanation of the term "fighting lights" can be included in the article? --Thefrood talk 19:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, not really any good ones. You can infer what they are from these books (one being fictional!) [27][28][29][30][31], but I'm not sure these are quite what you need. Page 252 of this last one is at least an attempt to define what they are [32]. Sorry can't help more. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look at those, I did find http://www.admirals.org.uk/records/adm/adm239/adm239-261_SectVIII.php section 442 "RECOGNITION BETWEEN THE BATTLEFLEET AND ITS SCREEN" but I'm pretty sure that it would qualify as a primary source. --Thefrood talk 20:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using a primary source if it is explicit... but that doesn't really help here. Also it's a transcript on a random website and not the National Archives site itself (which doesnt return any relevant hits). Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I've a readers ticket for the National Archives so popping down & checking the original doc would not be an issue if it was an acceptable source --Thefrood talk 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
As noted, nothing wrong with a WP:PRIMARY source for definitions of facts, specifications, and such. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

NB: Are there any references for the gun reply? --Thefrood talk 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Any ed of Jane's should do it, if there's a ship with more than two forward mounts. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
On welding v. rivets, in skyscraper construction, welding can expose flaws in the underlying metal which prove problematic to structural integrity, making rivets preferable for some purposes; don't know if that applies to ships as well! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That fits with images I've seen of battle damaged welded hulls where entire bow/stern sections are missing (with very neat break along what I can only assume is the line of the weld) --Thefrood talk 17:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
On the subject of welded hulls, this photo of a DE (possibly Evarts herself) shows the rippling that the welded hulls exhibited; the resemblance to wet cardboard probably did nothing for crew morale... Xyl 54 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I can see how that would inspire confidence among the crews... --Thefrood talk 18:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe welding saves weight over rivets, so important to the speed of the ship and also useful if you're a designer who is trying to comply with displacement limitations in particular inter-war treaties. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This was a wartime design so I think cost & speed of production were probably the influencing factors --Thefrood talk 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, but speed of ship is always important, especially to smaller vessels like this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Okay sorry see what you mean - read the article so understand the context - yes, obviously it saved costs, but it was a new technique and I don't think they'd perfected it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Welding also saved material, which would be a factor. It's also faster to build, which saves labor cost, & speeds completion. It also seems to resist shock better: rivets will pop & cause leaking (not, perhaps, significant in surface ships). Welding wasn't brand new, but as a technique, it was well enough known; AFAIK, the failures in Liberty ships were a design issue, not due to to construction. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This is much easier to source reliably: [33], and here [34] on page 98-99. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest having a look at "Nelson to Vanguard"; [35] - there is some coverage of welding. The Land (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys, those should keep me busy for a while --Thefrood talk 20:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Coordinator for the US National Archives WikiProject

The US National Archives WikiProject seeks a coordinator to help reboot the project and work on new initiatives! The role is modeled after other Wikiproject coordinators, like the WikiProject Military History coordinators. The coordinator will work with the Wikipedian in Residence to organize and increase participation in the WikiProject, with the goal that the WikiProject is an active space for collaboration maintained by and for the Wikipedia editors, rather than the National Archives.

Please see the full information at Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Coordinator. Feel free to pass this note along to any interested parties. Thanks! Dominic·t 16:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Tanks in the German Army

Found this page through following a link from the A7V article. The writing looked too flowery - eg. "along the sides of the steel beast" - for Wikipedia and on googling that phrase I discovered the source, as per my note on the talk page. The entire article seems to be lifted from elsewheres. Surely there's a bunch of turretheads able to whip it into shape? --Pete (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has the wrong name too as it describes a lot of tanks not still in action. And as it describes tanks of five german armies (Deutsches Heer, Reichswehr, Wehrmacht, Nationale Volksarmee and Bundeswehr) it has correctly to be Tanks operated by German Armies. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of edits needed

I would appreciate input at the Croat–Bosniak War war page. As you can see by my edits here, I expanded the article to include more details, such as the killings at Trusina by Konjic; killings at Kakanj, Travnik and Zenica; and the Grabovica and Uzdol Killings. These edits have been deleted by one user who claims it is "nationalist" and "POV pushing" that is "destroying" the article. Any input at if they are so is greatly appreciated. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

While I was on various news lists at the time, I didn't follow closely enough to offer specific suggestions. Both versions seem a bit choppy time-line wise in places. That said, the calendar references are useful in the section titles. I would suggest one change at a time within each section (of the timeline) and insuring the content integrates to form a cohesive narrative arranged in chronology of specific events for the time period in question. I can't offer you specific suggestions on content at the moment, but this approach will hopefully keep some of the heat out o the system. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

HMS Claes Uggla

Did the Royal Swedish Navy have two ships of this name? The HMS Claes Uggla article states that she sank in 1917. However, The Times of 11 December 1933 has a report of a Klas Uggla(sic) running aground and being refloated a week later. Was this the same ship, or were there two of them? Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

These are two different ships. The 1899 Claes Uggla was a "torpedo cruiser", while the 1931 Klas Uggla (slightly different name but no misspelling) was a destroyer. Manxruler (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone but me consider it a problem that Royal Navy and Royal Swedish Navy ships are indistinguishable if they only have their prefixes - they're both 'HMS'? Should one or the other be changed? What do others think? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that as a problem. I doubt that there were a ship named HMS Foo in both navy's service. Use of the navy template in lists identifies which navy the ship belonged to. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I was wrong on that one. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have mentioned this as an issue years ago, at the Swedish Navy talk page.
The Swedish Armed Forces' website has a dictionary which says: "I internationella sammanhang (på engelska) benämns svenska örlogsfartyg HSwMS, ex HSwMS Spårö. Detta då HMS i dessa sammanhang normalt används för örlogsfartyg ur brittiska flottan." (rough translation: In international contexts (in English) Swedish naval ships are labelled HSwMS, for example HSwMS Spårö. This is because HMS in these contexts are normally used for naval ships of the British fleet.) So, even the Swedish armed forces use HSwMS, in English.
Wiktionary has an article on HSwMS. Doing a quick google also shows that HSwMS is commonly in use (didn't google HMS, because then I would get all the British ships). Manxruler (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
{{HSwMS}} ? Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The {{Ship}} can be used instead of HSwMS. I'd create the template myself but it's beyond me. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that would be the template for that. I suppose that also means that, today, the Swedish Navy doesn't have a template at all? Manxruler (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Right. Unless there are violent objections, I am going to follow Swedish practice and avoid potential confusion by renaming all Swedish Navy ship articles to HSwMS. This will start to occur with 60 hours unless anyone objects. If the Troops of Template Designation can create a Swedish Navy template, that would be good too. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Some past discussion which led to the current consensus - [36]. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I certainly feel, as I have all along, that WP:UE should be central here, and I again point to the fact that the Swedish Armed Forces themselves state that "In international contexts (in English) Swedish naval ships are labelled HSwMS...". This is English-language Wikipedia, not Swedish language (or any other language) Wikipedia. Manxruler (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) I agree with Manxruler. As the Swedish Navy's ships are not well covered on en:wiki as yet, there are not at the moment numerous specific problems. But what navy would one think HMS Orion (A201) belonged to? Orion is venerable and honoured name in the Royal Navy, and about seven ships have carried the name. This particular case will go on to repeat itself. Manxruler, would you mind placing a note at WT:SHIPS so they know this process is under way? Thereafter we will go on to change the ship prefixes. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Orion is a good example of this issue. I'll put up a note over at ships. Manxruler (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the Orion example comes across particularly clearly at HMS Orion, where this HMS Orion is in the See also section. Manxruler (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
In English, the WP:COMMONNAME is HSwMS. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Template: {{HSwMS}}. Copied from another prefix template and tweaked. Should function perfectly, but no guarantees on how well it works. -- saberwyn 14:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. The ships are called HMS Foo, not HMSwS Foo, and that's what Wikipedia should call them. There's no confusion about which navy these ships belong to - that's what DAB pages are for. One line from the Swedish Navy website doesn't constitute a general world policy on names, and it certainly doesn't trump Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), which is the product of years of consensus. The key point for me would be what these ships are actually called - because if Wikipedia starts calling them something else, the rest of the world will follow. There are plenty of good, academic sources in English that use "HMS" for Swedish ships; try [37] and [38] for just two instant ones. 212.139.253.150 (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This is en:wiki, and we use English conventions. HSwMS is the *official* Swedish convention when they're referred to in English. We are not talking about templates - we are talking about page names in articles. The thing that trumps the use of HMS in English is the need to distinguish between Her Majesty's Britannic Navy and His/Her Majesty's Swedish Navy, thus, we have to have a distinguisher, otherwise non-specialists (the audience we're writing for) will get completely confused, as per the Orion example above. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
That's missing the point, isn't it? Where's the evidence that readers are confused? Talk page messages, for example? What 212.139.253.150 brings up is that academic sources widely use "HMS" for Swedish ships. Just because the Swedish Navy uses "HSwMS" doesn't make it official - for example, the US military "officially" capitalises "Soldier" and "Marine" (and just about everything else that doesn't move, it seems), but WP:MILTERMS says Wikipedia does not do that. I can see why navies would want to distinguish between Swedish ships and Brit ships, but I can't see why Wikipedia needs to do so in article names. Show me who's confused by the current useage, and why a large scale change makes it any better. As for WP:COMMONNAME, and acknowledging the shortcomings of Google searches, "HMS Visby" brings up 75,000 results, and "HSwMS Visby" brings up about 6,500 - more than 10 to 1 against. 194.221.74.219 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
As Buckshot pointed out, the Swedish Navy isn't well covered on en:wiki today, so this isn't much of a problem, yet. However, once a few editors begin working on articles on Swedish Navy ships, we'll have more difficulties. Further, I didn't get 212's reference to the naming conventions in this case. With regards to google searches, did you somehow succeed in removing all the non-English hits that search gave you? By the way, Jane's uses HSwMS. Manxruler (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
As the proposal has been up for discussion for a fair amount of time, and met mostly with support, I believe we're ready to start moving articles now, and will begin to do so. Manxruler (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The moving process has shown that, in addition to the already mentioned Orion, ships with the same name in service with Swedish and British navies (and with articles on Wikipedia) are: Saga, Thor and Thule. Manxruler (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War bibliography

This article seems to be overly broad in scope. As the header says, "This is a selected, annotated list of the most useful titles. The emphasis is on recent publications since 2000." How is "most useful titles" defined? The header also says that are over 60,000 volumes on the war, with hundreds additional books each year. Where would we draw the line on which books are included in this list and which aren't? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If the list is too large, it may divided in more detailed lists. Cambalachero (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
But do we really need this article? I thought bibliographies were outside the scope of Wikipedia. Besides the problem of determining which books are "most useful" and which are not. 76.7.238.93 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
There is also the question of the cut-off date of 2000. Does this mean no books before 2000? If not, then how many books published before 2000 are allowed? And why ue the year 2000 in particular and not some other year? 76.7.238.93 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? 76.7.238.93 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyone at all? 76.7.238.93 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider it useful, but someone from CW specifically might disagree. The cut-off date bothers me to a degree, since some campaigns or battles haven't been properly examined after 2000. And again, there's that "useful" word. Who determines that? ACW can be very "niche"-y, and what's useful to a Bull Run specialist might be considered fluff to someone who studies Shiloh. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in the intro, and started adding titles to the list. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Spoils of war

This page merely redirects to Looting and prehaps should. However, military material captured from an enemy is routinely reused, one presumes legitimately. One example is the large amount of aircraft and radar kindly left by Argentina after the Falklands War that was 'reused' by the British Armed Forces. Do we have an article that covers such an eventuality? Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not the best article but have you seen Prize of war MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it should become a disambiguation page? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree a disambig page would be best. —Ed!(talk) 15:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/2

Putting this up here as a reminder, especially to those in the ACW task force. Nothing has been done with this reassessment for a week now. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The luckiest man in Iraq

I created this article recently. It would be nice to RS any further information on it, and possibly a better version of the video. Should we tag the talk page to link to this project?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the least notable bits of cruft I've ever seen on WP.... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not if you had been watching the news in 1991. It is remembered by many even 15-20 years later. Do a google search and you will see hits right up to 2004-2008. I think it was the first time the video from a laser-guided or smart bomb was ever aired to the public. I have emailed the navy to check this. Many may be curious as to more details about it. Most will be in archived print material as the internet wasn't all that big in 1991.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw that clip so many times at so many of Schwartzkopf's news conferences, I'm sick of it. His survival is a trivial, but spectacular, incident of war. It does not rise to the level of notability even remotely. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I would agree, it is a WP:NOTNEWS issue. However, wikinews: will also not take it because it is WIKINEWS:OLDNEWS, and Wikinews doesn't do that. It however seems to be something that should be covered somewhere on WikiMedia projects, so I suggest you start a new project request at meta: for a WikiAlmanac or WikiDigest to cover OLDNEWS. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this is trivia (and I do remember this, and it pops up in books from time to time). It could be a single sentence on an article on a relevant topic, but it doesn't justify a stand alone article in my view. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Gulf War air campaign is probably the best place to merge it - and I agree, I don't know that it warrants its own article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Definitely think it would be better in the air campaign article. Unless the guy was notable for some other reason. —Ed!(talk) 15:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I just thought a standalone may be better because it can fit in a few articles. As well, when someone searches for the title they will get links to the other articles. I seriously doubt we will ever find an RS to who it actually was. I am sure he and the vehicle were fine, as the 2000lb bomb article says the serious damage is only 400yds. I still hope the navy will respond to my emails and provide more detail and possibly a better video. Freedom of information could probably release it, but that costs money.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We can redirect the page to its section in another article fairly easily, that way people get there even without a standalone page. —Ed!(talk) 20:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
If I can't find any more detail, that may have to happen. I will give it a few more days yet. I have sent another email to a televison history museum and I may send a few more yet. Does anyone have Obama's email?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to survive as a stand-alone article, certainly the man (if it was a man) is not notable and the only thing of note is that the video was used to amuse a press conference. A redirect may be possible (does the bridge have an article!) but the title is fairly weak so perhaps time to propose deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Concur with MilbourneOne. This is serious cruft. Would second a deletion nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as a proposed deletion but that has been removed by Canoe1967 who has raised an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The luckiest man in Iraq, first time I have seen an article creator start his own deletion request! MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I saw merge it too. This video clip isn't notable in its own right. Otto Tanaka (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam war sourcing

It must be silly season, because people are inserting text into Vietnam war that is irrelevant to the conflict as a whole, and sourced predominately out of non-scholarly pro-US sources. I would encourage colleagues to keep at eye on Vietnam war with regards to scholarly weight, and in line with appropriate reliable sourcing and WP:HISTRS as well as WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. In particular, we are seeing US pop-culture focused edits being sourced out of newspapers. Of course, I am just as happy to see colleagues find scholarly sources that indicate that these incidents are WEIGHTy in terms of the war as a whole. (But for a long time I've wished we had English/Vietnamese literate editors inserting both RVN and Vietnamese based scholarly material into the article). Fifelfoo (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples? With regard to your comment about Vietnamese based scholarly material, regrettably there is very little to be found as Vietnam persists in pushing the same propaganda that it used throughout the war with references to the "puppet forces" (ARVN), "colonialists" (US and its allies) and ridiculous casualty claims.Mztourist (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The west provides some excellent DRVN/PRG/NFL sourced material in Asian studies journals. The stuff I've read is mainly on the slow construction of the general offensive/general uprising line. There is also some moderately good stuff I've noted on local revolutionary organisations (though being +10 years ago, with publications dates +20 years ago or more...). Apart from that I haven't noticed much. The citations contained within those sources include very little from Vietnam currently. (One editor persists in relying upon Vietnamese sources regarding the unity of the VWP in the DRVN with the actuality of the local PRG; despite the variety of old and new Western sources noting the differentiation of interest between the northern VWP and the southern local village commands). In any case; the core issue is the use of non-scholarly material whose scope is incidental, on a broad topic amply covered by scholarly material (regardless of its scholarly pov). Fifelfoo (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Based on my reading I do not believe that (North) Vietnamese sources are generally able to separate facts from propaganda. I have responded to your specific comments on the Vietnam War talk page. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
As a general comment based on my experience with this article over the years; it may be the most difficult military history article to work on. The Vietnam War is still a raw nerve in many countries, and due to the biases of Wikipedia's largely North American editors, there's a constant trend to weight this article towards the American experience in the war, when it was the North and South Vietnamese who did most of the fighting and for whom the war had the greatest impact. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
And since the North and South did carry much of the fighting, you see a corresponding level of bias in their sources. Mztourist is, I feel, pretty qualified to evaluate the (North) Vietnamese sources and their biases (and as an aside it's worth remembering that many Soviet sources were pretty useless from a non-biased historical sense for MANY years after World War II and we'll most likely see the same situation here), and South Vietnamese stuff is also a mixed bag. I've seen some good stuff and some pretty poor works coming out of the expat community, and honestly you'll never see "official" histories from them. In terms of scholarship, then, it shouldn't surprise people that the American experience gets weighted. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The thing is that many American or "Western" historians are more sensitive to their discipline's demands than they are to American nationalist mythology. Scholarly accounts of the Vietnam War as a whole often deal adequately with the American War to a certain extent, and there are Western scholars whose careers are entirely bound up with adequately accounting for the American War. Unfortunately I've not come across as many willing to bear Vietnamese civilian experience, and the experiences of adherents of the RVN, but I am sure that they too are out there in the Western historical literature. And this is why I keep turning to the issue of scholarly sources: scholars are bound by their discipline to attempt to present the entirety of a subject to the best of their comprehension, or to explain the limitations of their comprehension. Newspapers, nationalist myths, journalist's "non-fiction books", works of history from "stewed" historiographical communities, random websites, and pulp biographies do not have the higher calling to truth that scholars have. They certainly don't have an community of scholars sharpening knives for them if they fail. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't defending the use of newspapers. You'll also notice in the discussion over at the article talk page I pointed the Cronkite reference to one of the standard works on journalism's impact on the interpretation of Tet. There are some limitations with scholarly sources that we need to be aware of as well. Some of them have their own axes to grind when it comes to the war. Assuming that they automatically have a higher calling to truth can get you in trouble sometimes. It is getting somewhat better with distance from the conflict, but it's still out there. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, your pointing towards a standard text was brilliant. I deal a lot with Central and Eastern European issues. One way to check the scholars is to check the reviews of the scholars, and to check the field reviews by scholars. This is where the knives come out for those with weak methodology. To be honest, the standard of sourcing debate amongst Central and Eastern European editors here is like a 3rd year tutorial... they seem to have learnt that the scholarly debate is the central element and provides far better argumentation than personal opinion. It would be quite heartening if they weren't using scholars to proxy for deeply held nationalist / not-anti-soviet opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for much...

I just was asking for an assessment of an existing article that was already rated as a stub and after I made improvements on it including an infobox and additional references and external links the assessment comes back as a stub and the assessor does't even bother to leave word on the assessment request page. It's like I never worked on the article at all. Kind of discouraging...

This Is why this Project has problems...there is the appearance of a group that takes care of themselves when assessing each others articles and getting things done...I'm not saying it actually exists, but to a new editor in this project it could be interpreted that way. If editors, particularly editors that are not Coordinators of the Project, don't receive some help and encouragement then they tend to get discouraged and drop out of the Project.

In all the months that I have worked on articles here, I have not received any help or encouragement from anyone except on one occasion and I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank him for his kind remarks about an article that is still in the works months later. AustralianRupert was kind enough to offer some help and suggestions for improvement on a sandbox article. I wasn't even asking for a formal assessment. Thank you, kind Sir!...your thoughtfulness will not be soon forgotten.

I will take a break and try to get it together once more...I leave with the thought that "will my efforts be missed?" How many more neophyte future editors have been in my situation...and left forever...

I will be back, after licking my wounded feelings; perhaps a bit more jaded, and with certainly a thicker skin...I guess that is what is required...Cuprum17 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have asked the editor in question on his or her talk page to explain the reasoning. He or she may not have assessed the article because of your request but rather because it was on a list of unassessed articles. It would be at this stage, if I could not solicit a meaningful reply, that I would personally feel I'd been hard done by, but not before. You haven't really given the editor in question a chance to help. If I may say, the article is in my opinion on the border of stub/start, because of its length. I would say in general that you shouldn't measure success in terms of assessment grades. You're better off in the knowledge that you've improved the article - which you have - regardless of whether this is reflected in the assessment grade. You can always solicit help on a particular article on this page, or ask specific editors (particularly those who have worked on the relevant types of articles). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I have great respect for editors who process great quantities of assessments and spend so much time on what I consider to be rather dull tasks. I prefer writing and reading articles to assessing them, so the people who spend time categorizing, scoring and assessing them, along with all those other administrative headaches, get my thanks. I don't think the editor who assessed your article meant any ill will, but he's probably just assessed 100 other articles that day as part of another drive. It does look to still be a stub class article I'm afraid to say.
Try not to be too disheartened - Wikipedia can be a fairly faceless and abrupt place at times, but it isn't all like that. You have the opportunity to learn a great deal of history and skills along the way too.
All that said, you do raise a valid point about how editors can feel left out leave. This is probably a point that needs further discussion (and has been a lot before I recall). Ranger Steve Talk 16:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree, but I would say that is a start under our current assessment rules, albeit it a pretty basic one. I've certainly seen worse. I think what has happened is that we have parroted the assessment of other project - probably Ships, as it is about a ship and they are pretty sound at assessing - without spotting the improvement since the original assessment. I've left detailed feedback on the talk page as requested by the original editor.--Monstrelet (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I stopped editing two years ago for exactly these reasons. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies Monstrelet, you're quite right. Ranger Steve Talk 19:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
No probs, RS. On the general point, I think there is are a number of points
  • The assessments page often looks like there is a little cabal assessing each others stuff but that is because relatively few people are assessing at B class.
  • We struggle to stay on top of our assessment load of new articles so people often hurry by without leaving feedback - I certainly don't most of the time and the problem is worse for the prolific assessors.
  • Our lower end assessment criteria are pretty subjective
  • If we have a backlog blitz, assessors tend to be assessing in unfamiliar areas and make mistakes
  • We have a volunteer workforce. We can't make anyone do assessments. Many of us prefer to use our wiki time on article creation or editing. It is very sad that there isn't enough feedback for new editors but it is understandable.

We might wish to give some time to how we encourage mentoring and support - we have a competition for Military Historians, maybe one for mentors, where editors can nominate people who have helped them out?--Monstrelet (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a little confused on the complaint of the individual here but I do believe it involves my assessing of the article in question. Personally I disagree with the current assessment especially it passing B3 because the introduction is thoroughly insufficient as it is one line. Assessing is a subjective thing and disagreements will occur. I rated it a stub because
  • It had the stub tag at the bottom
  • It had 176ish words of actual information
Leaving feedback for every article assessed slows the assessment process and if feedback is requested I suggest doing what other editors do and ask for help from the original assessor. That being said, I find this instant discouragement unsettling and think this is a WP:DIVA. Automatically going to the project page to complain and use terms as "lick their wounds" and "jaded" is offensive to the editor when he didn't have a chance to explain himself. --MOLEY (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is involved here. Many reviewers do leave feedback for the requestor on the assessment request page; enough that I believed that was what was expected. If it isn't part of the normal process then perhaps a notice should be part of the text on the request page to contact the reviewer if you need further guidance. This comment is not meant as a criticism of any reviewer, but as perhaps a way to help the new uneducated MILHIST editor get familiar with the process. It might involve some hand-holding at first, but could pay dividends in retention of MILHIST editors. As for the WP:DIVA assessment of this particular situation; I can certainly see some justification for that remark but I don't believe this is a tidy explanation for my actions. I would remind everyone that WP:DIVA is an essay and as such, not a part of Wikipedia policy. I had a Wikipedia Meltdown...I'm sure it's happened to most every editor that has been on Wikipedia for any length of time. This has never happened to me before and it won't happen again. In the future if I get stressed over Wikipedia, I will quietly step back and take a break. I have learned a lesson here. I do want to contribute as best I can with the resources I have available. I am back; I never really left...besides, if you can't talk to your (Wikipedia) friends; who can you talk to? Thanks for understanding and I sincerely appologize if any of you were offended by my immature outburst. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, if you ask reviewers to provide feedback on their assessment of the article they're normally very happy to do so (and often end up editing the article themselves!). The norm is to assess 'as-is' and then rapidly move on to the next article, and this isn't intended as a slight towards anyone. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A-class reviews needing more attention

G'day all, it's the weekend here in Australia, so I usually try to drum up some reviews of the project's A class review at this time. Here is a list of some of the ones that seem in the most need of extra eyes:

---did a review and liked what I saw, Mate...left Support on assessent page Cuprum17 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There are also a number of recently added reviews that haven't yet received their first review yet. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons foulup

The file at right is misnamed.

is actually a Delhi class frigate. I can't move it; can anyone help? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Tag it for a rename on commons with commons:Template:Rename. (Hohum @) 02:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we have to slavishly follow guidelines like they were absolute rules to be obeyed?

In the article on the Capture of Port Egmont, one editor seems insistent on this edit [39] as, he claims, it conforms to the "guidelines" from Template:Infobox military conflict. The guidelines state:


The stated source for this is [40], which if I get the link right takes you to the correct page. I note however that the source stated does not in fact support the claim made. I suggested that the previous consensus which stated Beginning of the Falklands Crisis. was a better fit since A) there wasn't a battle (a token exchange of shots), B) they weren't at war and C) the result was settled diplomatically without conflict and the event was the catalyst for the Falklands Crisis (1770). He has indicated he disagrees but does not substantiate what the issue is.

As I see it, after looking into this in more detail, the source does not support the claim and effectively he is extrapolating the capitulation of the garrison into a "Spanish victory". Hence, if anything the paramter should be omitted but I feel it would be better as it was previously. Bringing it here for a third opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If that was neither a battle nor a war, then why use the "infobox military conflict" at all? That infobox is for military conflicts, not for mere international disputes. {{Infobox historical event}} may be a better option Cambalachero (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
While I wouldn't want to downplay such a tremendous Spanish victory, I agree that this is the wrong infobox, but if you do continue to use it then link to the aftermath (as you have done) or to an article on a treaty. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I should point that the change of infobox would not solve this conflict, as it also has a "result" field and the thing would be the same with either one as to what to fill in it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
There appear to be arguments both for and against using the military conflict infobox for this article. In some ways its use appears justified, in others it might be considered too specific. Additionally the article is clearly in a bit of a state, as most of the ‘Spanish capture’ section belongs in the ‘aftermath’ section (some of it appears duplicated). Time spent improving the article might throw light on clearer sources.
However, your argument is that there was no battle and no war. This is essentially an argument against the infobox itself; by your own reasoning the whole infobox should be replaced or removed.
Alternatively, if this event is viewed as a successful Spanish military occupation of a settlement, then “Spanish Victory” appears justified. I would probably make it still clearer by rephrasing it as “Successful Spanish Occupation” or something like that though. Although not one of the terms listed in the infobox page, there are dozens of different entries in this parameter in all manner of articles, and the fact that the Spanish successfully occupied the settlement seems incontrovertible. I would then add “Beginning of the Falklands Crisis” as a secondary result under a new bullet point (however, I don’t think that result should be used in isolation). Personally I don’t see the need to link to the aftermath section. This result seems pretty clear cut.
Either way, the use of the Military infobox in the Falklands Crisis 1770 article is definitely wrong, as there was no conflict at all. It should be removed. Ranger Steve Talk 15:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure it was a successful occupation because they were forced out 6 months later; in fact not too dissimilar to another episode in the region some 200 years later. Given that this invasion fits into the context of a larger series of events it might be appropriate to copy the way Wikipedia approaches the capture of Port Stanley in 1982. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
That's true, but this article (and the 'success') is concerned with the events of June 10th. If we were to account for later events in the result field, Germany would not be the victors of the Battle of France! I agree though that the later war is a reasonable model, but to be honest, it isn't that different from my own suggestion. Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
See the points made by the original poster: there was no battle or military violence and no shot was made, there was no actual war, and everything was settled diplomatically. That's very far from the events of 1982, so it's pointless to compare. Cambalachero (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Cambalachero, but if you notice above, I no more advocate using the military conflict infobox than I advocate removing it. However, I don't believe it to be totally pointless to compare; this was a successful military operation to seize a settlement. The garrison surrendered and was taken prisoner. The lack of an actual war isn't really relevant, and some shots were fired (admittedly not with much effect). Regards Ranger Steve Talk 18:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For info, I've changed the infobox following the suggestions here. Thank you all for your input. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input and specially for ignoring WCM's misrepresentations against me. However I need to note that "Garrison surrendered, detained 20 days and released"[41] did not came out of this discussion. If you could add some more input regarding this it would prevent a possible edit war over it... as it is my understanding that the suggestion of MILHIST was for ("Spanish victory" OR "Spain seizes control of the islands" OR "Successful Spanish Occupation") with or without "Beginning of the Falklands Crisis".
Thank you again. --Langus (t) 00:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The result tab doesn't say that, it mentions the begining of the Falklands Crisis (1770) exactly as suggested above. I can't believe you're now threatening to edit war to demand "Spanish victory" again after getting the third opinion you demanded. Have you even read the discussion above? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
[42] Correction, I moved a comment from casualties into the results field, and added the result suggested here. Sorry, I naively thought that would have been uncontroversial, I have no intention of robbing Spain of the glory of this outstanding "Decisive Spanish victory", please WT:MILHIST could you comment whilst I go away and flagellate myself for my presumptions. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

On balance, I'd probably use the conflict infobox myself. At the end of the day, this was a military operation that led to an engagement between two military units. Although there was no pitched battle, there was certainly a confrontation that relied on military force. At its conclusion, one side surrendered and the other achieved its objectives. I'm sure the conflict infobox is in use for far lesser engagements (the Cod Wars for instance). Spanish Victory is too broad a result though - I'd go for something more specific to the actual result (such as Successful occupation or Spanish take control of island or something like that). Ranger Steve Talk 10:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Manfred von Richthofen (General)

Manfred von Richthofen (General) was translated from the German WP and nominated for DYK. After both author and nominator gave up during the review process, I tried to rescue the nomination. As usual for German articles, sourcing is vague. There are books mentioned, but no details given. I have no access to the books. Please compare the version with an online summary of his life given as a source, which is not acceptable, to know where sourcing is missing now. Any help is welcome, best in the article and/or in the nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks to Yngvadottir! please note, that the article was also moved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A suggested initiative

Hi all,

  • Further up the page there's a long thread about false data in various articles on the militaries of developing countries. The articles have been spoiled by previous editors who upgraded lists of equipment, added an extra zero to the army's headcount, and so on. Now, it doesn't take an elite subject-matter expert to fix this - most of all, you have to be a competent editor who respects sources, and we have some good sources available to us - and there's a lot of work to be done which could be broken down into bite-size pieces.
  • So, how about an organised initiative, with barnstars, a bit like one of the GOCE drives but on a more modest scale? I propose that if any other editor cleans and sources X articles - and provides Y diffs showing that they removed false stuff which had been inserted before now - they get a shiny barnstar (and a warm fuzzy feeling inside) for having helped to solve one of the ugliest problems among military articles. It would probably be worth setting up a separate page to keep track of progress.

Does that sound like a good idea? All comments/criticism welcome... bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea, and count me in. I've got access to various sources which should be of use (including the most recent edition of The Military Balance). Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Any reliable online sources? In particular, if you give me downloadable things like excel spreadsheets, word docs etc., I can manipulate the data... – Ling.Nut (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've mostly been using SIPRI trade registers. These record arms deals between countries extremely well, the downsides being that they don't really capture domestic production or small arms. The Military Balance is great, too. There's also Janes, DID &c as backup. The CIA World Factbook has a few details (military spending as a % of GDP, number of citizens capable of carrying a rifle &c) - it seems to have influenced the development of {{Infobox national military}}. bobrayner (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
On a related point, many sources will describe what equipment an armed force bought, rather than what is actually usable. Purchases are easy to quantify but it's very hard to be sure of the latter number in developing countries, especially for big things which need lots of ongoing skilled support, such as aircraft. The tables with a "number in service" column should probably be tweaked accordingly so that we're only giving numbers we can be confident in. bobrayner (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXV, June 2012


Your military history newsletter – Issue 222, October 2024

• Published by the Military history WikiProject •
• About the project • Newsroom • Subscribe • Archives •

Boshin War...

Anyone fancy lending a hand with the 19th century Japanese Boshin War? Although it is a Featured Article, it is now looking a bit poorly, with the referencing in bad shape in places and a rather excessive number of images. It could do with some TLC from someone who knows about the period... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar

Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Goal: 0 articles
Current: 109 articles
Initial: 24,689 articles
(Refresh)

If all of the 1,207 participants would edit just 19 articles each, we could clear out this category in a week or two. 76.7.238.93 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm re-raising my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 112#Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists, and have placed an inquiry into the feasibility of such at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 48#Copying B-class checklists from one project template to another. -- saberwyn 02:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps some ticks could be filled by a bot under certain circumstances. If the article has {{Unreferenced}}, {{cn}} or similar templates, criterion B1 is not met. If it has {{POV}}, criterion B2 is not met. If there are no sections, criterion B3 is not met (and probably it's still a stub or start). If it has {{Copy edit}}, then criterion 4 is not met.
Of course, it would be unadvisable to approve articles to B using bots; it should always be a human editor the one to check if a criterion is actually met. An article may have problems that may not be automatically identified by a bot (someone well informed of a topic may point some information missing in an article that a random user may had not noticed). Other things require the reviewer to decide something, such as if a given statement requires a specific reference or the one for the whole paragraph is enough, or if a certain source is reliable or not. In fact, none of B5 items are mandatory, an article may lack infobox, images and diagrams and still be acceptable if there was no specific infobox for the topic, no free images available and nothing to explain in a diagram; but someone should consider each case.
In short, full bot reviews would be a bad idea, but partial bot reviews to clean up the most obvious stuff may help to reduce the backlog. Cambalachero (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This would certainly speed things up a bit. The bots should also be checking for redirects. I've found several cases where a talk page had a WPMILHIST template on it but the "main article" was actually a redirect. 76.7.238.93 (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Whoa whoa, slow down. I am not proposing bot-automation of the assessment process. What I have proposed is that if-and-only-if a B-class checklist has been filled out for another project with the same assessment criteria/standards as MILHIST (which SHIPS has), but not for MILHIST, is that we accept that assessment, and have the SHIPS checklist copied over to MILHIST, like this one I prepared earlier. -- saberwyn 01:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Another idea: is it possible to identify the unreviewed articles by task force? People can review more easily when they have at least a basic idea of the topic of an article. Perhaps the category should remain a single global one, and we could have subpages updated by bots for each task force, detailing the articles to review Cambalachero (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Could we modify an existing bot to do this kind of work? Or do we need to create a new bot? 76.7.238.93 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Given the added delays and complexity involved with using a separate bot, I think it would actually be easier to just automatically generate the categories for each task force. Is there a problem with this approach that I haven't thought of? Kirill [talk] 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
There's the Cat Scan tool, but it does not work for this. It does not show any results, perhaps because it searches for articles and the categories we would intersect (the one in the title and "task force X articles") have talk pages. Perhaps it is something else, or perhaps it can be configured to search for non-article pages, or perhaps it works for someone else and not for me for some weird technical reason (it wouldn't be the first time)Cambalachero (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
My apologies; it seems I was unclear. When I talk about generating categories, I'm referring to modifying {{WPMILHIST}} to automatically populate new per-task-force versions of the "missing checklist" category, not to using an external tool to create a list of articles based on the existing category output. Kirill [talk] 02:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that may be a better idea. Those technical discussions are a bit beyond me. Still, I guess that a main category of all articles with incomplete checklists may still be useful for something, perhaps we should keep it and make redundant categorization (both the main one and for the specific task force), at least until we are sure we don't need the main one. For instance, what about the articles that have not been appointed to any task force and just got the basic MILHIST template? Yes, there are policies against redundant categorization, but I think they are meant for content categories, not for project categories as those ones Cambalachero (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I like Kirill's idea as well. I feel more comfortable assessing certain categories than others and I would think other pedians will as well--MOLEY (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed layout change to List of South African military chiefs

Hi all. I am proposing a change to the layout of this page - currently it has a 2 column newspaper style with the columns split because of the change from SANDF to SADF.

I propose to change it to a single column, with all the Army commanders grouped together, Air Force commanders grouped together etc I also propose adding tables so full dates can be used. I have started work on this in my sandbox - anyone interested can have a look. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Your draft (User:Gbawden/sandbox for the convenience of other editors) looks pretty good to me, and is a clear improvement on the wall-of-text that's there now. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_112&oldid=1232550945"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy